"I now realise the catastrophic consequences of my actions- legislation delayed, tempers flared, and the tragic bruising of egos so large they require their own postcodes. For this disruption to the natural order of "quid pro quo", I bow my head in fictional shame. Please find it in your magnanimous heart-somewhere buried deep beneath layers of entitlement to forgive this stubborn woman who mistakenly believed that her seat in the Senate was earned through elections, not erections"- Senator Natasha Akpoti.
Harassment is a big mess for everyone. Investigations of sexual harassment goes beyond conventional rhetoric and gossipy social media craziness. No one is flawless. Sexual harassment claims don't exist in theory, but facts. Change behaviour remains the only solution. Sexual harassment claims often have this quality-people feeling angry and wronged, and they think they have the rights that they simply don't have. In the absence of witnesses or corroborating evidence, that isn't going to be an easy story to sell to a jury. According to Michael Crichton; "Even in the most clear-cut situations-the most extreme and outrageous situations-sexual harassment is notoriously difficult to prove. Most cases occur behind closed doors, with no witnesses. It's one person's word against another's. In that circumstance, where there is no clear-cut corroborating evidence, there is often a prejudice against the man" .
Whether people believe Senator Natsha Akpoti-Uduaghan or not is not at issue. What's at issue is whether she realistically have a case, and therefore what she should do in her circumstances. Many harassment complaints are made without the requisite elements and many findings of harassment are made without understanding the core principles. The fact that a co-worker takes offence does not mean harassment has occurred. Conflict and accusations do not equate to harassment. Sadly, harassment allegations are increasingly serving as a weapon of office politics, so the improper weaponisation of harassment is as much the fault. "The improper weaponisation of harassment is as much the fault of employers who misunderstand it as of those employees who deliberately and in bad faith invoke it"-Howard Levitt. Her accusation makes no sense if she's unable to prove it, unless she is using it as a convenient way to destroy the Senate President as he claimed , having denied the allegations.
Ofcourse, this will be irresponsible and ruthlessness. I think the important thing is to get this resolved quietly. Everybody is already clear on what's going to happen. Mediation is invariably to the benefit of all the parties. That will be best for everyone. Everyone has been distracted by this scandal, it should not be allowed to continue. There is no reason to assume he's wrong and she's right. In the words of Michael Crichton, "It's not clear what happened. It's not clear who did what to whom. So far, society's tend to focus on the problems of the victim, not the problems of the accused. But the accused has problems, too. A harassment claim is a weapon, and there are no good defences against it. Anybody can use the weapon-and lots of people have. It's going to continue for a while" . If I were the female Senator, I would ignore profiteers, seek mediation and get back to work rather than seeking to attack the power structure to make a name for herself. The problem is always power. They say, ' fear nutures the power structure', so one wonders why choosing such a potentially dangerous route, unless she's up-to something which we are yet to find out. We all have to wait and see. If it backfires, she has nobody to blame but herself.
Uche Okeke lives in London
No comments:
Post a Comment