Mobbing and workplace victimisation

Gail Wykes: Breaking contracts, social and employment: a warning for potential teachers: Do not believe anything the N.S.W Department of Education say; and a reminder to my victimisers

In my experience the N.S.W Department of Education lie about everything, to everyone. See the following blogg entry ´My attempt to gain natural justice´ for a brief overview, and my book  An Education in Victimisation f0r the complete story.

They lie to teachers that they will lose their ´priority date´,  their position on teacher-placement waiting lists,  if they do not take any offer made to them. This is a lie. They do this to trick teachers into working in schools no-one would otherwise work in, such as  Bidwill High. I found documents with the details of at least 19 teachers who had refused the same job I was offered at that school, and who, after refusing these offers, had immediately recieved much better offers. The names and schools were clearly documented. I photocopied these and many other documents.  I came across these documents, which I have kept but not published, due to considerations of privacy for those teachers, at the Mount Druitt District Office.  In other words the ´priority date´is bullshit. So refuse offers you don´t want.  Don´t let them trick you. I took a job 19 others had refused. Ask yourself why that School can continue to state that there were no ´problems´at their school, that I was the problem, when 19 others before me had been prepared to go to the end of the waiting list for any job at all in N.S.W, rather than teach at Bidwill H.S. Of course they never were placed at the end of the list. Only naive people like me believed the lies about such a waiting list, and policy. But more to the point, only teachers like me were willing to give the youth of Mount Druitt a chance at a quality education. I could have worked at private schools, but it is against my principles.

The Education minister himself also considers it O.K for a school to contractually offer you one job, in writing, and then to simply force you do a completely different job. I have this in writing, from the Minister himself. It is official. Clearly the department never act in good faith, and do not consider it a breach of ethics to break any contract they enter into. The contract, for such people, is simply a means to an ends. It has no other value. It is just a trick, a ploy, a  a tool to deceive their contractual partners, the new teachers.

So do not trust any contract you have with the N.S.W Dept. of Education. And as the IRC implicitly support the complete disregard for employment contracts, grievance procedures, or natural justice, I can only assume that you cannot trust any contract with any government employer in N.S.W. Any contract, in my experience around the world, is only meaningful for those in power, or with the resources to hire good lawyers. The government treat a contract as something they will insist on enforcing when it is in their favour, and completely ignore as soon as it becomes inconvenient to themselves, or their mates. Thus the contract becomes an instrument of violence employed by the powerful against the weak, the mob against the individual.

Do not believe anything you read or hear about any supposed grievance handling procedures. The government will never investigate any greivances you lodge.  They will simply vicitimise you until you  withdraw your complaints.  If you do not they will have you defined as unfit for service, fire you, and blacklist you, preventing you from working in any State or Nation for any government school ever again. They have done this to many teachers. Independent reports stated this clearly. Read them for yourself. Google ´Healthquesting´and read the official, independant reports. Independant investigators found and documented detailed, explicit, incontrovertible evidence that individuals were brutally victimised by Healthquest hired guns on behalf of the government. Just like in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, if you speak up against the government, they will crush you. They will ruin your life. Of course if you have dependents, then their lives will be ruined as well. There are no Gulags in Australia, but the consequences and intentions of the State´s actions are effectively the same as those of the Checka or SS.

None of the victims of Healthquesting were ever compensated. The government implicitly admitted it  had victimised many people when it disbanded Healthquest. But it never took any steps to compensate any of the victims. Those individuals who stood up to the government ended up facing drawn out legal procedings. Poor individuals representing themselves had to fight against the most highly paid Queens council lawyers the Government could hire. These QCś spoke as slowly as possible, seeking to draw out the proceedings as long as possible, hoping the innocent victims of the state would simply give up all hope.  How does such cynical behavior on the part of the State encourage its citizens to behave ethically? The government was happy to pay a cynical lawyer thousands of dollars per hour, over several years, then to admit it had made a mistake, and to simply do the right thing by the victim of their mistakes.

If the State itself has no qualms about denying the violence it perpetrates, then what possible qualms could any of its citizens feel about acting according to their own convenience and satisfaction, and then simply denying it, or justifying it?

So Gail Wykes be warned. Until you have ensured that my grievances are actually investigated, and I am compensated, I have every natural right to make you pay for the violence you inflicted upon me, and continue to inflict upon me.  Do the right thing. The same goes for everyone else involved. I am still suffering. Violence if violence. It takes many forms. Violence breeds violence. Do not complain when you become the victim of your own acts of violence.

 The state has a valid  monopoloy on violence only so long as  it keeps its end of the ´social contract´.  I am now once more offering it the chance to make good on its obligations.  Otherwise Lex Talionis reigns, and ´society´breaks down into anarchy. I have every natural right to pursue justice by any means available, given that the State refuses to act in good faith on its end of the social contract. This is what produces terrorism. And these terrorists are often awarded noble peace prizes years later.

For the full story of my experiences at various schools in N.S.W,  and my  international research into workplace bullying, mobbing, and victimisation, see my unibook ´An Education in Victimisation`, or email me for a pdf download. All the supporting documents and my IRC submission are on this webpage. They are also on many others, in case the N.S.W Department of Education manage to have all my files deleted, as I suspect they did a few years ago with my Australian yahoo accounts. As a result I lost many years of work. Another act of violence.

Until I have been given natural justice I will continue to suffer, and I will have a burning need for revenge. The State cannot prevent me gaining revenge except by investigating my grievances and compensating me appropriately. It might ´punish´me for any actions I took,  after the even, but that would  not produce any positive impact, apart from perhaps drawing public attention to the need to define workplace victimisation as a form of violence, and to validate and compensate its victims.

My case is clear. It has never been investigated. If I did respond with violence, those on the receiving end would not be ´innocent´.  I am the ongoing victim here. If they suffer for their own vilolence, then they will simply be experiencing the consequences of their own violence. They will be responsible for the violence they suffered, as it would be merely a product of the violence they inflicted upon me, a violence I experience every day anew. It is not a physical wound that can heal. The healing can only take place after my legitimate grievances have been investigated and addressed.

Imagine you went through what I did, and continue to. What value would your life have for you? What would you possibly have to lose by getting revenge upon those who have actively contributed to your situation? 

And this should give you pause. Imagine how many people there are in the world who enjoy physical violence. They would be quite happy to have some excuse to justify acting out their agressively destructive impulses. Impulses which most of us repress, in return for the benefits of ´society. For a few thousand dollars people kill other people. All they need is some pretense, some slight incentive, and they are happy to murder, to assault, and harm others. They have been marginalised from society and its benefits, and hence they have nothing to lose, no rational reason to repress the more destructive elements of their human nature.

 And these people realise that most assaults, murders, and rapes are never solved. Most perpetrators, like the N.S.W Dept. Of Education, go uninvestigated and unpunished. If the representatives of the state, and hence the state itself, behaves opportunistically, devoid of any commendable ethical principles such as honoring contracts and respecting basic human rights, employing deception and violence as a means to their ends, then why should those marginalised people living on the fringes, with none of the benefits that the representatives of the state enjoy from the social contract and ´society´;  why should they of all people observe this ´social contract´and repress their impulses, thus denying themselves their gratification, and the satisfaction attached to them? 

This will not go away. Even if I do go away, you will never know if I  have not arranged for someone else to gain my revenge.  I am not stupid. Unless I wanted to be caught, to bring media attention to these issues, I would be sure to ensure that nothing could  connect me to the violence that my victimisers suffered.  As far as you know, I may already have exacted  a quid pro quo from some of you. It may be in progress right now. It may come tomorrow. It may come the day after you retire. But until you investigate my greivances transparently, energetically, openly and fairly, and compensate me appropriately, the prospect will be there that you will pay for what you did to me, and what you continue to do to me every day, as long as you fail to address the violence you perpetrated upon me.

So do the right thing. Do it all transparently for the public to consider. If the state does not honour its ´social contract´with me, then why should they beleive that it will honour this social contract with anyone?  Why should the public give up their right to natural justice, and to grant the state a monopoly on violence, if that state does not uphold its end of the ´social contract´?  

The old saying ´A contract is a contract is a contract´must once more become validated, or what basis do we have for ´society´except ´might is right´.  And even the most powerless of individuals can take down the most powerful, as terrorists all around the world have shown. Freudś  ´tyrannical father´learned this lesson. You can act all self-rightous and define yourself as an innocent victim, but that will not change the facts of the situation. Justice is indivisible. See Luke 16:10.

As you do unto others, so shall be done unto you.  We make the world we live in from every action we commit or fail to, in our daily interctions.

What world have your actions contributed towards?  One defined by violence, or one defined by justice, fairness, and good, longer-term ethics?

I would be happy to speak to any media about this issue, and the content of this blogg. I suggest the legal authorities investigate all my claims before worrying about harassing me further. Everything I have stated in my statuatory declaration is the truth. I have all the documents to support all my claims. You have them too, in this webpage.

Stop the passive victimisation you are perpetrating upon me by NOT investigating my claims,  failing to address my valid grievances, and failing to provide appropriate compensation to all the victims of the N.S.W Department of Education and Victimisation. These victims were identified by the ´independant´ report into Healthquest. Its findings were accepted. Thus Healthquest was disbanded. But none of its victims ever got compensation for their victimisation. None of the violence done has been addressed. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For every one clear victim of Healthquest, many others, like me, simply refused to allow Healthquest, at the bequest of employees of the Dept. Of Education, including the then and following ministers for education, including the current one, to victimise them.

I have lived and worked in Russia. I have heard all the stories. And in principle they are no different from mine. The Australian Government behaves no better, in principle, than the Soviet Terror Regime did. Fact.

I suffer almost constant migraines, cluster headaches, tension headaches, and nausea, as a result of the violence inflicted upon me by Gail Wykes and the rest of the N.S.W Dept. Of Education, and facilitated by the I.R.C. I suffer finanical poverty as a result of their actions. Everyone  in the Department, the IRC, and the media who failed to investigate my documented grievances are  responsible for allowing people like Gail Wykes to violently victimise people like me.

‘Some of you have a ´moral´ responsibility. All of you have a  positive response-ability. So respond positively, as you should have in the first instance. Let us all learn and grow from these experiences while we are still capable of responding positively.

History never judges the victims of violence harshly for defending themselves through their own acts of violence. It is accepted that without natural justice, we are not fully human. Denying someone natural justice, or at least a transparent process which seeks natural justice, is denying them their humanity. And I thought we had an international charter on human rights to protect people from such forms of violence?  Perhaps the Australian government  imagines it can ignore such international charters. Well if so, it can hardly complain when it becomes the victim of the violence of a more powerful perpetrator.

And remember that no-one in the media has ever made any fuss over the violence that Australian citizens have suffered at the hands of Healthquest and so on. The general public have never shown any interest or support for these victims. The Australia I believed in as a child appears to have been a fiction of the advertising companies.

I just watched a television documentary about two men falsely accused of murder, and convicted to life in prison and a death sentence resepectively. It was a warning to all of you. Why should you care about mobbing, if you are not a victim of it?  Well, the answer is, you could easily become the next victim. Corrupt police had conspired with corrupt politicians and criminal business-men to frame two men for this business-man´s murder of a newly wed couple. The wife had seen her boss loading guns and bags of money into his car. He had been involved in some criminal activities, and now he risked her talking about what she had seen. So he murdered her. He then paid, through the police, two people to make false reports that they had seen the two men in the house just before the murders. In fact one of them had seen that businessman there. She accepted 2500 dollars from police to falsely testify. The other ´witness´ received 25000 dollars to also give false evidence.

 In court one of the men actually punched the prosecutor. He had every right to be angry. The trial was obviously completely rigged.  The  court had absolutely no intention of serving any sort of justice to these men. The judge refused to allow any of the evidence offered by the defense lawyer, and did everything to support the prosecution. The most damning evidence of corruption was never allowed to be presented to the jury.

Thus the jurors saw two angry men. Of course they were angry. They were the victims, and this court was further victimising them. They were facing the death penalty for murders they had had nothing to do with, and the judge was clearly conspiring with the prosecution against them. But as per human nature,  the jury simply defined their anger as being evidence of angry, agressive, violent natures. I have experienced exactly this sort of unfair and ignorant violence at the hands of the Tasmanian Dept. of Education. See my book An Education in Victimisation for details.

Over the next 17 years every police officer who attempted to investigate this case was victimised and deterred from continuing with their investigations. However one man continued, and found hundreds of glaring cases of inconsistencies and obvious indications of corruption. He too was victimised, but would not desist. He was demoted from Liutenant to the lowest police rank. However he continued. Finally he amassed so much incontrovertible evidence that one of the men was released from prison. He had served 17 years. And still it would take another 4 years before the other man, on death row, would be released. However neither were exonerated. They were never cleared of the charges. They were never declared innocent.

This policeman won 700,000 dollars in damages for the victimisation he suffered as a whistleblower. However the supreme court overruled the award, stating that you could not sue the government for compensation for its clear acts of victimisation. The government has ruled that no-one may challenge its right to victimise any of its employees. The government has made one rule for itself, and another for everyone else.

Of course this completely undermines the notion of ´all men being equal before the law´ on which the tacit ´social contract´which makes peaceable and productive society possible, rests. This is the foundation of society. That all of us are equal before the law.

And those who make the laws simply decide that they will make themselves above the law. Think about this carefully. The people with the most power, and therefore the people who represent the greatest risk of ´moral hazard´, the greatest temptation to abuse power in their own narrow selfish interests, have been allowed to decide that they should be completely invulnerable from the legal justice system. This  is pure Tom Stoppard and Kafka. It is sublime ´theatre of the absurd´.

We allow the people with the greatest motive to abuse power to absolve themselves of legal accountability. Surely if power corrupts, then power that is completely free from accountability is guaranteed to result in criminal acts of violence. Unless we assume that as soon as a person enters some public office, their human nature is suddenly purified of all selfishness, and they become ´noble savages´, we surely cannot accept such an untenable position.

Hamlet cited ´the insolence of office´ as one reason not to be.

Deterrence and accountability are the foundations of society.  Around 40% of male university students who responded to a U.S study stated that they would rape if they were sure of getting away with it. This is just stating the raison de´tre for having a legal justice system in the first place. We grant the state a monopoloy on violence to enforce the social contract, as otherwise few people would respect the rights of others, especially in emotionally charged situations.

This state, then, has a monopoly on violence. We give up our own rights to pursuing natural justice by the use of violence, in exchange for the guarantees that the State will do its best to pursue natural justice on our behalf.

But when this State grants itself immunity from accountability for its own acts of violence, those not committed in the quest for justice, we have to ask ourselves what sort of contract we are implicitly signing up for. The Nazi dictatorship was defined as criminal, as it supposedly did not have the consent of the people. Thus Germans after WWII claimed that they had no social contract with the Nazi regime. The same could be said of the Bolshevik reign of terror. People had no choice. No-one offered them the option. These terror regimes had simply assumed the same rights that the Supreme court in the U.S did when it defined itself as above the law.

You cannot allow lawmakers to be above the law, without expecting that they will, true to human nature, use that power  to protect them and theirs from acccountability. We know that when people are free from any accountability, they tend to express the worst in human nature. It is society that has allowed the best in human nature to propell humanity forwards into higher and more noble realms.

Society requires that the State actively and transparently seeks natural justice. This requires that it hold its own office bearers at least as accountable for their actions as the rest of us. In fact, we should expect them to be held even more accountable. For they are the role models for the rest of us.

It is in this context that I demand, as a citizen, that mobbing and workplace victimisation, and the vicitmisation of whistleblowers, be legally recognised as forms of violence, and defined as criminal acts. I insist that whistleblowers and victims of such mobbing be compensated financially and with official public apologies.

Otherwise the State has shown its complete contempt and disregard for society and the ´social contract´ it is based on.

 The State has, so far, shown its complete contempt for me personally. It has committed acts of brutal violence against me.   It has denied me any form of natural justice. It has failed to investigate my claims. I made them in the form of a Statuatory Declaration. If any of my claims are untrue, then it can sue me. It has not done so as all my claims are true.

The State cannot therefore expect me to grant it a monopoly on violence, when it merely employs that violence against me, and others like me.

You, the public, have a right to know all of this. You have a chance to investigate all my claims. You have a right to have the wrongs of the past corrected. If you fail to do any of this, you would have no moral rights to criticise me for seeking natural justice in the ways that society, and the social contract, were designed to eliminate, by making them redundant.

I write this with the desire to eliminate all forms of violence and injustice. I do this with Luke 16:10 in mind. So far I have been the victim. But everything that goes in, that is impressed upon us,  must come out in some form. So far I have taken the only productive means at my disposal to express this violence.  I have expressed myself verbally and in writing.

This has so far proven completely ineffective at motivating the state into providing me relief from the violence it continues to inflict upon me every moment, often even in my sleep, in my dreams.

I thus ask you, the public, to identify your own common, shared, interests in my case, and all cases of workplace victimisation, mobbing, and the continued ´rape´ of its victims in the law courts, and in the continued failure to investigate and address the victims grievances, let alone prosecute the perpetrators, and provide compensation.

When the perpetrators, the state itself, holds itself above the law, then the time has come for the people to call that state to account. We cannot facilitate the power of a state that does not consider itself accountable for its actions as individuals, and as departments.

The pain is real. The violence is real. The costs are real. Will you only validate them when it is you and yours that feel that pain, and are victims of that violence?  How far do you think we are from a new dictatorship?  If the powers that be consider themselves above the law, then they are already our defacto dictators. They simply have no bothered to proclaim themselves as such.  And remember, the most powerful form of power is that power which is effectively invisible.

Please do the right thing. Or was Freud ultimately right in having little hope for humanity?  Are humans really, at heart, mean and nasty?  Our lack of respect for the rights of animals today, merely respects the lack of respect for slaves, other ethnic groups, other nations, homosexuals, lesbians, atheists, members of other religions, and so on, that we displayed before society had advanced on waves of legal reforms which forced us to respect the rights of those less powerful than ourselves.

Terrorism is merely a response of the less powerful to the more powerful. Terrorism is a product of injustice. How many terrorists have gone on to be awared Nobel peace prizes?  Why?

See my TROONATNOOR books,  my novel, ´The veil of ignorance´,    TROONATNOOR, Convergences, Religion,  An Education in victimisation, Cautionary tales of working and teaching ESL overseas, Sung Seng Nim, My poems and songs, A taste of TROONATNOOR , and Autobiographical The Philosopher Prophet of The Eden Protocols. if you are interested in a fairer, more just, more beautiful world, and lives that are worth living for everyone.