Two places in particular that have intrigued me where the case decision appeared were on government websites. That's right - government websites!
Why are stories about a case that is closed to the public appearing on government websites? Even more intriguing is the story that appeared on the government-funded Broadcasting Corporation of China website on April 28 was mysteriously gone on April 29 when I checked the link again. Why its hasty disappearance?!
Another government website the story appears on is the Council of Taiwanese Chambers of Commerce in Vietnam. Now...why on earth would the CTCVN want or need to run a story about alleged sexual harassment at a university in Taiwan - a case not even open to the public? Both stories even have the audacity to publish my Chinese name - another blatant violation of Taiwan's confidentiality laws that are supposed to prohibit the revealing of either party's name in sexual harassment or sexual assault cases.
Here's a cached copy of the story that disappeared from the BCC website (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MaRpXOwo29sJ:www.bcc.com.tw/news/newsview.asp%3Fcde%3D1469759+%E6%9F%AF%E8%B5%A4%E5%AD%90&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com):台北護理學院先前傳出外籍老師對女學生性騷擾案，而這名美籍老師最後遭到學校解聘。但老師卻認為，被害女學生捏造事實，害他失去工作，因此提出求償。 法院傳喚當時在場的其他學生作證後，認定老師性騷擾女學生的可能性很高，學校解聘合理，因此駁回老師的訴訟。全案可再上訴。
(潘千詩報導)
判決書指出，美籍英文老師「柯赤子」， 原本在台北護理學院任教。3年多前，他被一名女學生指控，說他疑似在學校舉辦的博覽會上，摟住女學生的腰，並在女學生耳邊說悄悄話，涉及性騷擾。事情爆發 後，校方評估這名美籍教師不適任，因此不再續聘將他解雇。但老師卻認為，女學生當時沒有喊叫、也沒有報警，根本就是捏造事實。而校方還揭露案情，造成他名 譽損失，因此，他向女學生、校長、學校連帶求償1年薪資，還有10萬元的精神撫慰金，除此之外還要求登報道歉。
法院審理時，多名學生都表示，當時 確實看到老師的異常行為，法官因此採信證人說法，認為老師很可能有性騷擾女學生。至於在揭露案情的部分，法官指出，基於維護學生與校園的安全，校長在教師 評議委員會上揭露案情，本來就沒有違法，而校方做出解聘的決定，並沒有不合理。因此，法官最後駁回美籍教師的訴訟.
Here's the link to the story on the CTCVN website: http://www.ctcvn.org/show.aspx?&newsid=5094326&option=society
No comments:
Post a Comment