Commonwealth Forums

First Reading Edit List

Edit: Changed "petition the King" to "seek legal redress" in Section B clause 2
Edit: "Clause A" in Section B changed to "Section A, Clause 1"
edit: inserted phrase "and serves no legitimate purpose in Section A, 1.
Edit: definition of judistriction in section B.) part two clarifyed.

Is it me, or does the definition seem a bit too broad? I think some of the arguments between, for example, Gresham and his various foes might be considered - on one or both sides - "a course of vexatious comment or conduct". Yet, none of us thought about prosecuting him then. Is there any way we can tighten up the definition a bit, so as to avoid the possibility of litigation mania, a la the USA?

The definition is very tight in my opinion, it is not

The definition is:

Note the criteria,

-It has to be a course of vexatious comment or conduct
-It has to be a course that is known, or ought reasonably be known to be unwelcome (eg. person makes it abundently clear they want the person to desist through posts on a thread in question, this covers the person claiming they didn't see them as it is reasonable they read other posts in a thread where they are harassing someone)
-It has to cause substantial emotional distress in an individual (on this we have to take the said individuals word, this could be backed up with an explanation of why the said conduct was substantially distressful and the effect it had on their life/involvement in Hanover)

It's pretty impossible to prove, or quantify, "substantial emotional distress", especially in the electronic format. Is it possible to include some kind of guidelines regarding what kind of messages might reasonably cause such distress? For example, repeated swearing, threats, etc.?

The problem with that is the range of things a person harassing someone could use is somewhat large, if we attempt to define things, when new instances emerge we may be left in the position of catchup legislation, like we are now. I am inclined to trust the ability of our legal system to decide whether an instance "ought reasonably be known to be unwelcome".

I decided upon this definition when drafting this law after consulting a variety of sources,

Canadian human rights legislation defines Harassment as
"a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome."

I thought this one from Murdoch University in Western Australia was perhap too vauge
"Unwelcome or offensive behaviour by one person to another."

This is a common legal definition (courtesy of Blacks Law Dictionary)
"Unsolicited words or conduct which tend to annoy, alarm or abuse another person."
In my opinion the phrase "tend to" is unsatisfactory in a legal definition of harassment.

In compiling the definition in this act I also incorperated criteria of this rather good definition
"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose"
The extra "serves no legitimate purpose" was dropped because this criteria is already covered by the word "vexatious".

I personally think the definition in this act is apropriate, covers acts of harassment in all their forms, and allows distinguishment between harassment and legitimate criticism of ideas. By defining it as a course of action we prevent every minor spat being dragged in the courts.

In my opinion the definition in this act is better than the definitions utilized in many macronation's laws.

Actually, I think my minor quibble with this would be solved if you keep the "and serves no legitimate purpose" part. We have to avoid prosecuting people simply for arguing. You might be arguing in a way that causes emotional distress to a person, which is unwelcome by the plaintiff (but not necessarily by the public at large) - but which serves a legitimate purpose like engaging in a specific public debate.

For example, perhaps an atheist is arguing that God is not real. For some Christians, that course of commen would probably be unwelcome, and might well cause considerable emotional distress. Yet, should it be criminal? If the so-called harrasent is part of a genuine argument or debate (i.e. if it serves a legitimate purpose), it shouldn't be illegal.

Perhaps the real question is over the definition of "unwelcome". Are we talking about conduct that is unwelcomed by the directly recipient person (i.e. the plaintiff) or by the general public, or by some other body? I would assume from the original draft that we mean the former - is that the best definition for our purposes, when some people are very sensitive, especially on certain issues?

phrase "and serves no legitimate purpose" inserted.

I am happy with the Bill as it now stands.

The House will now divide on the question of whether this Bill should progress to a Second Reading. Members may vote to:

APPROVE the Bill, in which case it will progress to a Second Reading;
DECLINE the Bill, in which case it will not become law; or
DEFER the matter for one week for further debate.

APPROVE