EDITOR,
I would first like to commend the community concern and media coverage which continues to draw attention to the issue of bullying in Squamish schools. We can never expect to improve the situation without rational dialogue, motivated efforts and knowledgeable "expert" opinions on how best to address the issue. I do not profess to be one of these "experts," but today I am writing the editor of The Chief in response to recent coverage by Meagan Robertson ("New year, new bullying policy?" Reporter's Notebook, The Chief, Dec. 31), who comes out in support of a 14-year-old girl who retaliated violently after being bullied.
Apparently, the girl was punched from behind by a boy and so she turned around and punched him back. This same boy later started throwing things at her and so she then "walked over and slapped him," which led to her suspension. Let's be perfectly clear. Both the boy and the girl acted aggressively and are equally guilty of a violent and inappropriate act. Neither of their actions should be defended. Admittedly, the girl was attacked first. And yes, the Charter, self-preservation and common sense does support the right for one to defend themselves. But violent retaliation and self-defence are not the same thing. This girl had the choice to walk away, go straight to the office or RCMP and report the assault. Instead, she chose to retaliate with the same violence which was perpetrated against her. This was not the only option of self-defence for the 14-year-old girl and should be condemned equally, and as vigorously as the boy's first attack.
In the Dec. 31 column, Ms. Robertson states that we need to look at these situations "realistically" and when someone is attacked we should "expect some sort of retaliation." Ms. Robertson fails to recognize the potential damage caused by coming out in support of violent retaliation to bullying. Although she tries to preface her statements with "Not to condone violence as the answer...", Ms Robertson fails to recognize the blatant contradiction in her comments when she then goes on to support violent retaliation as an "expected" and "realistic" response to bullying! These sorts of irresponsible and ill-informed opinions do not serve the community, or the youth trying to grow up in a safe and violence-free school system.
Yes, the impassioned and emotional opinions of outraged parents, the media and the community are useful and serve a purpose. However, these emotional responses should never be used to formulate policies or to support violence as a solution or response to bullying. Also, self-defence does not equate with violent retaliation. To imply this is to come out in support of violence as a solution to some situations and to reinforce the view of many outside of Squamish that we are an uniformed "backwoods" or "redneck" community.
Nobody will ever take us seriously as a community if this is the best we can do. We need to set our sights, and the quality/validity of our information/responses, much higher if we ever hope to realistically address the issue of violence in our schools. We have many knowledgeable and motivated people in our community concerned about the issue of bullying, and with a desire to improve things. This is a great start, so let's try to move forward, rather than backward, starting with a consistent and equal application of policy and equal expectation of non-violent behaviour from all of our students. We also need to propose and develop solutions to violence based on expert/scientific evidence and not emotional responses. The media's role in all of this is to inform the public so maybe The Chief can also begin to provide some helpful suggestions, or better-informed articles, insteaqd of those containing blatant and embarrassing contradictions.Johnny Stork
Squamish
