Gang Stalking vs Occupational Health and Safety

Regarding occupational health and privacy. A great Q & A

http://www.osach.ca/products/teleconf/violprev.pdf

Question: Hi, my name is Peter Williams. I'm with the Workplace Consulting Services with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and I just have a question for Mr. Roher regarding a couple of things. One, the sharing of information between organizations, you mentioned about the example of the student that had sexually assaulted someone and then went to another school and there wasn't sharing and I'm just wondering in terms of the whole privacy act, how that - how much one employer can share that with another and also in terms of police checks, whether an employer has the right to mandate a police check to prevent possible violence?

Eric Roher: Excellent questions. Let me address the first question - ......

The sharing of information of course is a very complex and sensitive issue. Let me break it down into two aspects. First confidential documents or records and clearly documents are protected and in the province of Ontario, if you are working for a government agency or a government department, the Freedom of Information Act, the Freedom HCHSA Teleconference: How to Develop and Implement a Workplace Violence Prevention Program of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will have an impact or if you are working in a school board or power commission in a municipal, the municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will have an impact and that is of course that you cannot disclose personal information that is recorded information without the consent of that individual.

You have to be very very careful about any kind of recorded information. You won't be able to disclose it or produce it. However that being said, if someone calls you, if someone - if someone calls you about the status of a particular employee and you know that there are violent tendencies, I mean you cannot - I encourage you to be frank, I encourage you to tell the truth. At the very least, what you can say is "the employee started on X date, these were his duties and responsibilities. He departed the workplace on Y date" but if the employer asks you, "Well, did the employee perform well?" you have to be honest and - or you don't answer the question and then what we call an adverse inference is drawn.

With respect to the organization itself where you are supplying let's say information within the organization, my view is that you supply the information on a need-to-know basis. So where a student is transferring from one school to another and the school has - the student you know has violent tendencies, the school - the student has been suspended two or three times for pulling out a knife or a weapon, what you would do in my view is you could inform the receiving principal of that student, of that student's problems or history and that principal will be forewarned and will be able to inform staff on a need-to-know basis, but you would do it with a great deal of sensitivity and recognizing that, you know, the student has a right to confidentiality.

Sorry, about that long answer.

This was an excellent answer and really gave some insight into what the individual is required to do, once their is a warning of any kind on a persons file. Most targets do not have anything such as violent incidents such as the above, but most are treated in similar fashion. Most don't think that they have any kind of a marker. Eg. I had lead what I thought was a squeaky clean life. I could think of nothing anyone could use against me, but for fun I did look into my own records that I could easily access, you have my postings about that adventure, and that's it. It never occurred to me, that an employer could have the capacity to inflict harm on someone for trying to defend themselves, but it happens all the time, in mobbing, bullying, cases, where they do exactly just these types of retributions.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Lenore Ison of St. Christopher House. Please go ahead.

Question: Thanks. I wanted to come back to the issue of sharing confidential information in regard to somebody who has a history of violence. It is not that unusual for us to be working with folks who have that in their history. I'm talking about clients right now and we have internal policies about how we deal with confidential information and when I think about the idea of somehow sharing information with everybody in the building about somebody who has the potential for violence, it seems unmanageable and so I'm just wondering about some suggestions for how to manage that issue?

Eric Roher: Well, what we do, what I recommend is if you have a patient of client with certain violent tendencies or a violent history, what we recommend is informing people on a sensitive - on a confidential need-to-know basis, so for example you wouldn't have to inform everyone in the building but if the person sees a certain counselor, that counselor should have a picture of that individual's history. The court said very clearly that there is a duty to warn, a duty to inform and that counselor should be monitoring that person's conduct.

Question: Okay.

Eric Roher: And it is the same situation in a school context, a context - we don't necessarily say that it is a student with the violent history, you put the student's picture up in the staff room and say, you know, this person is dangerous, but you inform that person, a home room teacher and perhaps other relevant - one or two relevant teachers about that student's history and you perhaps share the history with them so they are aware of the background and you try as best you can to monitor them and that may include having them meet with a guidance counselor or social worker on a regular basis or even a vice-principal who is in charge of discipline, so you are on top of their situation and you are monitoring.
The courts want to show that you have taken due diligence, that you have taken reasonable care to protect the safety of your workplace. So you have to be proactive. You just can't let a dangerous person sort of wander around and not do anything. You have got to be seen to at least taking some preventive steps and providing basic information to the people that need to know.

Again sharing information with those that have a right to know, but in cases such as Gang Stalking, information is shared with everyone the target comes in contact with, poisoning any association. The guidelines are not being followed. Now again laws differ from country to country. I am pretty familiar with the U.K. laws, but I am now researching some of the Canadian, and then hopefully American laws on this issue.

Question: So none of you are suggesting that this sort of information become public information, that it is shared among staff, especially the staff that are working with the individual?

Eric Roher: Each case is going to be different and there may be some cases in which you may, in a very sensitive way, may be want to inform staff and it is - I'm taking a school context where you have ...

Question: It is a community, a community-based agency.

Eric Roher: But in other cases where perhaps an isolated incident, if it happened once, you have a concern about an incident, you may just want to speak to the individual's counselor or the individual's social worker, the person who has the most closest contact. Every case is going to be different. What we can do here is simply set out a framework for you, the rules or things that you have to take reasonable care and show due diligence in ensuring that people have a reasonable amount of information. Do you remember, there is one case that comes to mind. It is not directly on point but the legal principle applies, it is that Jane Doe case that the police were involved in a number of years ago and we were actually acting for the police in that case and of course the word had gotten out that women were being sexually assaulted in a certain Toronto community and the police were not telling anyone and in fact allowing this fellow to wander around on people's balcony and they were waiting until an incident took
place and a woman named Jane Doe came forward and sued the police and in her decision, Madam Justice McFarlane said, "No, you have got a duty to warn, you have the duty to inform people and let them know about the dangers of someone so preventive steps can be taken."

Question: Right.

Eric Roher: So I mean, like you have got to do in a sensitive way and you can't create hysteria in the workplace, you can't create a mob mentality where people say, "Well, let's go and beat that person up because they beat us up". The other thing to be concerned about is a possible action in defamation and you are probably concerned about anything that will tarnish a person's reputation. You can indicate things that are truthful, so if a person has been charged with an assault, you can say that, the person has been found guilty, you know, of assault or of criminal harassment. You can say things that are factual but I would, you know, avoid rumor, innuendo, mind reading because that can be dangerous. You don't want to be in a situation where you are spreading rumors that are unfounded about this individual in the community.

Question: Thank you very much.

Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Mary Lake of Fairmount Homes. Please go ahead.

Question: It is okay, my question was about the confidentiality issue as well. So I think we discussed that pretty good. Thank you.

The pdf interview is from about 10 years ago, and I had to dig to find this little gem, but it really is very good. Explained like this, the other side of the debate becomes much more clear. I thought Mr. Roher gave some excellent answers regarding the privacy issues.

If these guidelines were used, most targets would not be online. Most targets would not even know that they were targeted, but things clearly are not this cut and dry.

First the definition of harassment is so broad, and it's become even more expansive. Looks, jokes, verbal threats, non verbal threats, pushing, bumping, etc. The problem is with zero tolerance programs, you get zero tolerance results, such as the Australian gentleman who killed himself, after someone over heard a joke, reported it, and he faced not only a disciplinary hearing, but being fired, for telling a joke to a friend of his.

Now if I had ever done anything extremely overt such as violent assaults then I could understand some of these listings and listing you as having a history, but that is not the case. People are ending up on these lists for a lot less than what Jane Clift wrote in her letter, that got her listed.

We live in a world of namby pamby cry babies that like to dish it out, but do not like the repercussions of their actions, such as bullies who mob others. The problem with the mobbing or group think mentality is that it make is easy for a group or mob to gang up on one person, then paint that person as the problem when they complain. It's unfair, but it's also a good way of getting listed. The same with blowing the whistle, because that makes employers concerned, and that seems to be another way people are ending up getting listed.

If the privacy guidelines were being followed and not abused, then most of these problems would not be happening, but laws are being broken, communities are going frantic in fear of their lives and those listed. It's not clear what their understanding is of these listings, it's also not clear what other individuals are on such lists. Remember in the U.K. Jane Clift for writing a letter telling that was deemed threatening ended up on a list with extremely violent criminals. She was listed as medium risk, which is pretty high, only to be seen in pairs. Under such circumstances when a community does become fearful it's hard to blame them. Most probably think that intelligent individuals are putting people on these lists and that people would not be listed unless they had done something extremely wrong. Most will never grasp that these listings are being perverted and used in the most improper ways possible.

For the community listings there seem to be a variety of people on the lists, that is in part why people get so frantic, you can't blame them, because that it what has been instilled in them, and no amount of logic, reason, debate is likely to change this. What has to happen then is that individuals should have the right to be notified if they are listed, and that way at least they know why, and understand the boundaries of what is being done to them. Without it they are open to exploitation by the system, which is corrupt and using this to go after innocent individuals.

The privacy laws which are also suppose to help in preventing abuses are also being perverted. If the guidelines of the privacy laws were being followed, individual personal information should not be getting distributed to such a wide range of individuals, but a lot of this seems to be getting placed at the discretion of other individuals and most would rather give up information, personal information that they should not, rather than face a lawsuit saying they did not do everything in their power. For the system to balance, there are going to have to be some lawsuits like Jane Clift's that shows that too much leeway was taken, and not enough discretion was shown in protecting the individuals privacy. It's a balance. You do need to help protect society to a degree, but the individual still has rights.

In future hard stares, cold looks, could get you on these listings, and you would not even be aware of it. Not happy with something unethical in the company like Russ Tice, make a complaint and then be forced to get a mental health check. Again get listed for having a mental health issue for no good reason, other than you were going to blow the whistle on some bad things happening within the company.

It's a slippery slope, but the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and only legal action, is likely to bring it back to the center. Individuals are so willing to give up their own freedoms, for the false sense of security the system gives them, they would hardly hesitate giving up the freedom of others, for even less.

Quote:

Eric Roher: So I mean, like you have got to do in a sensitive way and you can't create hysteria in the workplace, you can't create a mob mentality where people say, "Well, let's go and beat that person up because they beat us up". The other thing to be concerned about is a possible action in defamation and you are probably concerned about anything that will tarnish a person's reputation. You can indicate things that are truthful, so if a person has been charged with an assault, you can say that, the person has been found guilty, you know, of assault or of criminal harassment. You can say things that are factual but I would, you know, avoid rumor, innuendo, mind reading because that can be dangerous. You don't want to be in a situation where you are spreading rumors that are unfounded about this individual in the community.

To often not only are false rumours being spread, but additional false reports filed, it's a catch 22 that destroys the targets life, and sends them into a perpetual cycle of abuse within the communities where they reside. In addition to this, let's not forget that most targets are being set up, made to look mentally ill when they complain about the systemic abuse that the community put's into play because of these listings.