Saturday, May 21

Justice confirms the sanction of a civil guard for harassing a colleague with calls of a “sexual nature”

The military justice confirms the suspension of five months of employment to a civil guard who was reprimanded as the author of a very serious offense for harassing a colleague. The Central Military Court considers it proven that the appellant called a colleague who was on duty at dawn to sing “a copla of rude content” before two other agents, with the hands-free activated. They addressed her as “the very slutty”, “they asked her if she ‘liked the skewer more from the front or the back” and “repeatedly pronounced the term’ bukkake”, as recorded in the sentence issued on April 27, on the that there is recourse.

The Justice annuls the sanction to a civil guard: it considers “illegal” to use the airport cameras for disciplinary causes

Know more

The events occurred on October 30, 2016, while the sanctioned was off duty. According to the members of the court, these calls caused the agent “a deep indignation and an intense feeling of disgust, affliction, humiliation and denigration, for which she immediately interrupted them.”

When the chain of command learned of this action, the appellant “sent thirty-six messages” to the victim over almost two hours. In them, she denied “having uttered any insulting expression”, assured “that it was a joke” and tried to “pressure her”, suggesting that she “avoid problems”. “I say it for my colleagues who have children and I do not think it will come in handy”, is one of the messages that is transcribed in the ruling. The sanction was ratified by the Director General of the Civil Guard and the Minister of Defense in 2019. The military court has not upheld the appeal presented by the agent and confirms the five-month suspension.

The judgment considers that “the facts declared proven fit without difficulty” into “harassment on grounds of sex” – they clarify that “not sexual harassment” – since this conduct is defined in the equality law as “any behavior carried out based on of a person’s sex, with the purpose or effect of undermining their dignity and creating an intimidating, degrading or offensive environment “.

For the members of the robed court, in this case “a woman, for the mere fact of being one”, has been subjected to “three consecutive calls of an explicit sexual nature and of high denigrating and offensive content”, “with the effect of provoking in her a deep indignation and an intense feeling of disgust, affliction, humiliation and denigration “. And they continue: “Not happy with that, the plaintiff subjected the recipient of the calls to a real unwanted bombardment of calls and WhatsApp messages for almost two hours, in a number of thirty-six. We are, therefore, faced with an insistent behavior, repeated and motivated exclusively by the sex of the victim “.

Likewise, the sentence defends that the authors of the allusions to “the sexual practice called ‘bukkake’, characterized by the presence in it of several men and a single woman who has to ingest the product of the ejaculations of the former” contributes to ” make clear their superiority and dominance as men over the female victim “.

The defense of the sanctioned requested the nullity of the file alleging “the absence of use of recording instruments of the witness statements and the lack of application, prior to the order to initiate the sanctioning procedure, of the protocol against labor and sexual harassment in the Guard Civil and the instruction of a reserved information “. Regarding the first consideration, the court clarifies that the investigator of the file alerted in each “one of the various statements” that it was not “allowed to make any type of recording.

To try to dismantle the “conviction” of the proven facts, the plaintiff tried to “justify his conduct” by assuring that the calls were made to share with the agent “hymn songs from certain football teams.” This is a “simply unusual” argument, state the members of the court, who have not upheld the allegations presented by the agent’s defense.

Faced with the appellant’s request that the victim’s statement not be “valued as prosecution evidence,” the court defends that this testimony “is consistent in itself and does not contain unusual or extravagant aspects or elements, nor is it objectively implausible due to its own content, since the way in which the events it describes occur is not contrary to logic “. In addition, they add that the statement “is surrounded by peripheral corroborations of an objective nature.”