Flaw in Anti-Bullying Law

[Colour Scientist]

Now, I'm going to be the first to admit I'm not entirely up to date on American politics but this seems a little fucked up. A Republican anti-bullying law in Michigan states that bullying is a-okay provided the bully can come up with a 'religious or moral' reason.
As far as loopholes go this seems like a gaping one.

So do you think this is really 'worse than nothing'? Having a fail-safe reason to justify bullying in the eyes of the law.

Here's another link to explain it better than I can: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-senator-bullying-bill_n_1073928.html

 

[the spud]

I don't get it. Who has religious reasons to bully someone? Even if they did, it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of anti-bully laws because kids will be kids, not to mention I believe it encourages punishment over resolution.

However, I am against legislations and whatnot based on religion and morals. Not necessarily because I'm atheist (I believe you can believe whatever the hell you want as long as you keep it to yourself), but because it is just too vague, too subjective, and open to exploitation.

I didn't watch the video though, I don't know dick about U.S. politics. Just thought I'd throw my hat in the ring.

 

[Giftfromme]

The dumbest thing about bullying for me is that you can't hit back. That's the dumbest thing ever. I was told a number of times that the onus is on me not to hit back or anything, to hold my heat-of-the-moment reactions in and not hit back or do something back? If I hit back against the bully, I get into trouble as well. How on earth does that make sense? How does me bottling up my emotions make me better then the bully? If he bully's me Im supposed to turn the other cheek and tell a teacher about it? And then what? Nothing comes of it off course, as it's my word against his. I always found that the dumbest part about bullying while going through primary school/high school.

 

[GoAwayVifs]

...This confuses me on many levels. What exactly IS a "religious or moral" reason? I would have thought the only thing that constitutes was self-defense.

Actually, now I think about it, that could be a good thing. Morally, you can now step in and punch a guy in the face if he's picking on someone else.

Hey, that's great!

Expect punching a guy is battery, not bullying.

 

[GoAwayVifs]

Expect punching a guy is battery, not bullying.

Except most schools count retaliation as an offense, and it all gets lumped in the same basket. This actually gives people a way out of that asinine crap.

ROW ROW FIGHT THA POWAH

I am speaking more from a legal standpoint then school policy. It has been a while since I've been in schools that need to be concerned about bullying rule. Additionally I didn't go to school in the States, so I'm doubly ignorant about current school policies.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

The dumbest thing about bullying for me is that you can't hit back. That's the dumbest thing ever. I was told a number of times that the onus is on me not to hit back or anything, to hold my heat-of-the-moment reactions in and not hit back or do something back? If I hit back against the bully, I get into trouble as well. How on earth does that make sense? How does me bottling up my emotions make me better then the bully? If he bully's me Im supposed to turn the other cheek and tell a teacher about it? And then what? Nothing comes of it off course, as it's my word against his. I always found that the dumbest part about bullying while going through primary school/high school.

It makes sense in terms of the law. If it's only words, it's Unnecessary Escalation. And if they are a threat, you have a "Duty to retreat" if you can. A school can't sanction Lex Talionis, nor can they turn a blind eye to it.

Yeah, it sucks. I agree. But the school can't allow violence like this. Else, they are just waiting to be sued.

OT: Ahhhh yes. This is just silly.

 

[Shycte]

Oh Republicans, you are so silly. So very very silly.

As for bullying in general, it's should be forbidden and punished. If a kid is bullying another and doesn't stop he should have is ass thrown out of that school because as it is today in many places, it is the victim who has to move. Not okay.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

"Provided they can find religious or moral reasons for bullying the individual"?

..What the fuck kind of logic is that?

I swear, after the whole kid shoots gay kid in the middle of class fiasco previously, the Republicans in the U.S. have been determined to excuse bullies and like-minded religious individuals of any legal responsibilities, granted they can find "religious or moral" reasons for shooting gay kids in class, or bullying people in school..

"Personal Responsibility" only applies to economics, it seems.

 

[cdstephens]

So according to this law it's perfectly OK to, I don't know....bully a homosexual kid into suicide if you believe homosexuality is a grievous sin.

.................................................................................

 

[deathninja]

Religious reasons? F*ck.

I was the only white in my Year 7 class. I was kicked/punched, beaten with cricket bats, thrown in front of traffic and knocked unconscious most days, all because my (predominantly Muslim) classmates assumed I was Christian or Jewish.

After about 12 months of spending most of the time waking up after classes in a pool of blood, the police made the LEA transfer me. There were several expulsions, though under the system proposed here, the students would have a carte blanche to beat the sh*t out of me. How the f*ck can that be right?

[I realise that I've had a more atypical experience than most, but this still sends a chill down my spine].

 

[Something Amyss]

What exactly IS a "religious or moral" reason?

Jesus hates you, so I can kick your ass?

I don't know, at a guess, though.

 

[GoAwayVifs]

Oh Republicans, you are so silly. So very very silly.

As for bullying in general, it's should be forbidden and punished. If a kid is bullying another and doesn't stop he should have is ass thrown out of that school because as it is today in many places, it is the victim who has to move. Not okay.

Good plan, we can continuously kick them out of schools until they get no education, end up on the bottom rung of society and ultimately end up a criminal because they're not qualified for anything else.

Mad.

And now that they are a criminal they have clearly forfeit all right to life and deserve to be shot. Or so goes the thought process of a disturbing amount of users here.

To get back to the topic at hand I think the problem with many of these anti-bullying laws is that they are trying legislate basic human decency, which rarely goes well.

 

[Colour Scientist]

So according to this law it's perfectly OK to, I don't know....bully a homosexual kid into suicide if you believe homosexuality is a grievous sin.

.................................................................................

It seems that way. It's an insult to name it after that poor kid.

 

[Shycte]

Oh Republicans, you are so silly. So very very silly.

As for bullying in general, it's should be forbidden and punished. If a kid is bullying another and doesn't stop he should have is ass thrown out of that school because as it is today in many places, it is the victim who has to move. Not okay.

Good plan, we can continuously kick them out of schools until they get no education, end up on the bottom rung of society and ultimately end up a criminal because they're not qualified for anything else.

Mad.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought that I didn't need to say that of course will the bully begin in a new school. I don't know how you do things down under, but in Sweden our municipalities handle the schools so it isn't a real problem to find a new one.

I ain't even mad.