Portal de Murcia
www.portaldemurcia.com
Full press release sent by the CCOO union section of the University of Murcia:
A few weeks ago was released by the Audiencia Provincial de Murcia the exculpatory statement of the professor, then head of department of the University of Murcia, Francisco Alonso, in a prosecution for sexual harassment of a non-tenured professor in his department, which reversed at In turn, a prior conviction impeccable Criminal Court No. 2 of Murcia, issued by the magistrate judge D.
Miguel Riquelme Pasqual.
Workers' Commissions (CCOO), after analyzing the situation, wants to express its full support and solidarity with the harassed teacher, while condemned the harassment case in which are mixed with the purely sexual aspect of work.
We emphasize the courage and fortitude of this teacher after years of harassment, two lawsuits, the last of which developments have taken place the less flashy, starting for the prosecution, the prosecutor, put on the side of the accused.
The Court's ruling is especially serious because, beyond the procedural aspects of the acquittal occurs without denying itself the facts at first instance awarded with sexual harassment, but now only considered "ethically reprehensible behavior, but not reach the degree of impairment of value that the crime requires. "
Room asserts that "in the successive and persistent demands, she merely pretended to refuse sex, but without reproach, without vocal and visible expressions of discomfort."
The sentence recalls other exculpatory cases of rape, as when it was justified if the victim did not provide enough resistance. "
How can you argue that "the individual may verbalize that you want to keep close contact with each other, but that the process be not displeased prior seductive ..."?
Do they refer to people nearby, they (the three male judges) know?
In practice, therefore, the Court itself admits that harassment occurs, although not technically qualify as such reach, forgetting that in these cases what is looming is the tip of the iceberg, and take advantage of the occasion to step cast doubt on the tacit consent of the victim ...
Humiliating for this and sorry to have these judges.
The nature of the employment relationship is very particular university, and dependence on an assistant to his supervisor and "superior" category and hierarchy (department head and professor) is very important in view of its stability and promotion.
We strongly reject the findings of the Board that "by their limited relevance can not be taken into account the indirect or tacit allusions to the harmful effects they have had for her career not to access the sexual favors."
Of course it is relevant, when there are many precedents in this regard and in any case, the perception of the victim is totally defenseless against the harassment, and that sometimes seemingly innocuous events or subtle (eg the appointment of persons will form a commission of appointment, or competition for access) depends on a whole career of many years of work in very precarious conditions.
Equally unjust and humiliating to the victim (remember that there are victims of terrorism beyond) that question the method (recordings made by the person concerned) through which led to some of the evidence presented by the prosecution, saying it was "of an isolated and raised in an environment designed to pre-constituted incriminating evidence "What do you expect, we ask, of a woman being repeatedly harassed by a person of superior status to yours and you can depend on its stability and future promotion work?
Do you expect to request a court order and noticed that the perpetrator "will be recorded" when going to proceed to harassment?
Judges despise the prolonged suffering of this person, supported by the testimony of people around and psychological reports discrediting not really know why.
These judges of the Provincial Court have shown no social sensitivity in issuing this statement that what is, quite simply, to endorse the conduct of harassment.
The potential stalkers can feel safe and protected in their behavior.
And of course, discourage any complaints.
Not only are we concerned about this case but also the rest of fellow potential victims of this despicable situation.
The memory remains in the memory of all those potential victims: the loneliness of the complainant, the ordeal of court-tiring journey, "the attitude of the President, the attitude of the Prosecutor and the conception that the Provincial Court of Murcia has it is harassment or not from a university professor with a partner.
Truly, it is to think about it much, very much, to step up to that picture.
If gender-based violence some years now has had a public and unequivocal rejection from the citizen, has not been the same with sexual harassment, with women's provocative topics, or it does not matter, etc .- and have a long way to go.
Therefore CCOO union section of the University of Murcia wants to express their solidarity, to mitigate, where possible, the pain of this companion and thank the example of dignity and courage that has given us all, tell him that his fight is not been sterile, and, in turn, transmit to the bullies and their apprentices who can not act with impunity, we are not passive in the face of sexual harassment and employment, and we hope that the case is not closed.
Source: CCOO
Privacy policy
- Legal notice
- Cookies