I just read about the settlement made by the school district with Phoebe Prince’s parents. See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/phoebe-princes-parents-settled-school-district-lawsuit-for-225000/.

$225,000 won’t bring Phoebe back, and it certainly is no compensation for Phoebe’s death.  However, the school board will pay attention to the $225,000.  Hopefully, this will spur them to take positive steps to significantly reduce bullying in their district.

School trustees take note. Bullying is often tortious behaviour (i.e., a non-criminal court can hear the case and award damages to the victim) and can easily and quickly escalate into criminal behaviour.

Car manufacturers didn’t get really serious about vehicle safety until the courts started handing down multi-million-dollar judgments against them.

If schools don’t quickly and effectively start dealing with bullying, students and parents will turn to the courts for remedies including but not limited to monetary damages.

While suing schools is not the best way to tackle bullying, is that the only effective option left to students and parents?

On that first Christmas, the host of angels spoke about peace on earth and good will toward men.  Today, Christmas is more likely to be a time of strife and conflict instead of peace and good will.

Stress has a lot to do with it, both the good stress and the bad stress of the holidays.  Children are literally vibrating with excitement about the holidays and they don’t talk, they squeal.  Excitement is good stress.  You’re probably worried about how you’re going to get everything done before Christmas.  And on Christmas Day, how much time do you spend worrying about whether the turkey will be fully cooked on time.  Worry is bad stress.

When you add the good stress and bad stress from the holidays to the high levels of stress we usually experience these days, that’s a heavy stress load for anyone to carry.  When we’re under stress:

• We focus on what’s stressing us.  When we’re worried, that’s all we think about, and we can miss all the good things going on around us.
• Our language skills deteriorate.  We can easily blurt out the wrong thing, and it’s easy to misunderstand what someone says.
• Our social skills deteriorate.  We don’t get along with others as well as we usually do.

So how do you deal with all this stress?  Stop.  Look.  And listen.

• STOP.  Take a deep breath.  A really deep breath.  That triggers the relaxation response.
• LOOK.  Look at a picture that puts a smile on your face: someone you love or something that reminds you of a happy event.  Put it where you’ll see if often.  Or watch a movie/dvd/tv show that makes you laugh.
• LISTEN.  As you go about your work, put on some music that makes you feel good.  Lighten the load.  Every now and then, sit down and have a cup of tea while you listen to the music.  Even better: sing along with your favourite songs.

Now the good will part.  When you remember that other people are probably just as stressed-out as you are, it’s easier to give them the benefit of the doubt when they blurt something out.  It’s easier to give them a break because you understand their stress.

Be kind.  Give them a compliment (“Well done” or “I like your new hairstyle”).  Say thank you; let them know that you appreciate what they’ve done for you.  Give someone a smile — it will not only give them a lift, they will smile back, and you will get a lift from them.

Practical Peace.  Stop and take a deep breath.  Look at something that makes you smile.  Listen to your favourite music, and sing along if you like.

Good will.  Be kind.  Give a compliment.  Say thank you.  Give someone a smile.  All are free to give.

May you, your friends and family have a Merry Christmas filled with practical peace and good will.

Mention the word “lie” and you’ll soon hear, “Lawyers lie.”

Let me wear my lawyer’s hat for a moment.

If you mean that lawyers lie in court, then those lawyers are in big trouble.  There is a huge rule when you’re in court that overrides everything else.  It is “Thou shalt not mislead the court.”  And there is a related, practical guideline, “Thou shalt not irritate the judge.”  If a lawyer lies to a judge or misleads a judge, I can assure you that the judge will be a lot more than irritated; they will be furious.  And not only that, lying in court or misleading the court is enough to get that lawyer disbarred.

Now let me wear my communicator’s hat.

No-one likes to be lied to.  A lie is a statement that is known to be false.  If I say something that isn’t true but I think that it is true, I  haven’t lied to you.  I have said something that’s false, but I didn’t know it.  And no-one likes to be deceived or misled.

In order to function, we need to know what’s going on.  We need reliable, accurate information, because that’s what we base our plans on.  When we’re given wrong information, it’s frustrating because we have to change what we’re doing.  But when we’ve been given wrong information deliberately  —  when we’re lied to, deceived or misled — not only are we frustrated and have to change things, we also recognize that someone was trying to harm us, or at least cause us problems.  Our reaction is anger as well as frustration.

We have an internal “lie detector” that helps us detect when people are lying to us or when they’re hiding something from us.  This internal lie detector works by catching mismatches, and when it does, we feel a little ping or nudge that says, “Pay attention.  Something’s not right.”  If someone says, “I’m happy,” but their head is drooping and they’re scowling, your internal lie detector catches that mismatch.  When someone is happy, they stand/sit a bit taller, their head is up, and they’re smiling.  That’s how we know someone is happy.  But when someone is slouching, their head is drooping and they’re scowling, we know they’re not happy  —  even if they say they are happy.  There’s a mismatch between their words, their body posture and their facial expression.

If your internal lie detector detects a mismatch, you may think, “They’re lying,” instead of, “I need to check this out further.”

Sometimes you hear a lawyer say something that you know isn’t true.  Since a lot of their information comes from their client, they may not have all the information.  Most likely, the lawyer isn’t knowingly saying something that’s false or hiding information to mislead you,  they’re just telling their client’s side of the story.

It’s easy to assume that what a lawyer says is their own personal opinion or belief.  Most of the time when we’re lawyering, we’re presenting our client’s position and their opinions.  We don’t have to agree with a client in order to represent them.  It’s a lot easier when we do agree, but that’s not always the case.  A lawyer defending a person accused of a crime doesn’t have to believe that the client was right or that the client didn’t do the crime in order to defend the person.  It’s the job — and the duty — of defense counsel to make sure that the trial is fair, that only proper evidence is allowed in, and that witnesses are telling the whole truth.  If the lawyers knows that the accused person did do the crime, the lawyer can’t say that the accused person did not do the crime.  That would be misleading the court, if not lying.  See the overriding rule above.

I’m not saying that lawyers never lie.  What I am saying is that when our internal lie detector tells us about a mismatch, we need to check it out further.  Are they saying something that they know is false?  Are they withholding information?  Are they telling us only part of the story?  Or is something else going on?

It’s time we learned the lessons from school bullying.  Now.  Today, not tomorrow.  No more children and young people should be bullied to death.  No more people should be bullied into suicidal depression.  No one should be bullied.

It’s terrible that Phoebe Prince was bullied to death.  It’s tragic that she wasn’t the first person to suffer that fate.  It’s time that stopped.

The first lesson to be learned is how to recognize bullying.  What is bullying?  And what isn’t bullying?

Bullying is about behaviour, not whose behaviour it is. We don’t need to look for bullies; we need to recognize that what people are doing is bullying.

Bullying is goal-directed, intentionally aggressive behaviour which is either excessive or unnecessary, directed by one person (the bully) towards another person (the target), with one of the goals being to harm the target.

The first thing to notice is that bullying is goal-directed, that is, it’s serving a purpose.  One of the bully’s goals is to harm the target, but that’s not their only goal.  Bullying is used to reinforce the bully’s position as a strong leader or to establish the bully as a strong leader.  In our society, the image of a strong leader carries within it features of verbal and physical aggression.  By verbally attacking their target, the bully shows their ability to be the strong leader and to put the target “in their place.”

Bullying is intentionally aggressive behaviour.  Bullying is not accidental.  The words and actions are deliberately chosen because of the damage they will cause.

What sets bullying apart from other forms of aggression is that it is either excessive or unnecessary.  The verbal abuse isn’t called for.  It’s not necessary.  There is no reason to call the target names, to taunt them or to make cruel jokes about them.

The verbal attacks increase from verbal abuse into verbal violence — gossiping, demonizing, threats to destroy their reputation, threats to physically hurt them.  The verbal attacks become physical attacks — bumping, hitting, and worse.

Why haven’t the schools recognized what was going on?  Because we have some misconceptions, some misleading ideas about bullying.

First, we think of bullying as being done by children in the playground, that bullying is childish.  This hinders our ability to see the dangers in bullying.  ”Oh, it’s just name-calling.  Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  ”It’s just a childish game; it’s not serious.”  It’s not a game, and it is serious.

Next, we don’t think it’s bullying until someone gets hit.  We ignore the devastating and damaging effects that verbal abuse and verbal violence have.

We think of bullies as thugs, big ugly brutes that beat people up.  In an April 4, 2010 online article in USA Today, Rich Hampson writes, “Educational psychologists describe a new kind of bullying.  The perpetrators are attractive, athletic and academically accomplished ….”  In other words, if the bully isn’t ugly, unathletic, getting poor grades and has few friends, what they say and do won’t be recognized as bullying, as excessive or unnecessary intentionally aggressive behaviour.

Bullying is about behaviour, not whose behaviour it is.  We don’t need to look for bullies; we need to recognize that what people are doing is bullying.  Again, my definition:

Bullying is goal-directed, intentionally aggressive behaviour which is either excessive or unnecessary, directed by one person (the bully) towards another person (the target), with one of the goals being to harm the target.

Last night, I was on the Big Dumb Fun Show, www.bigdumbfunshow.com, with Jeff “Venkman” Hirst and Aaron Gnirk.  Venkman immediately engaged me in a conversation about bullying and then focussed in on toxic language.  I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion.

One of the difficulties in dealing with bullying is that while we have a general idea of what bullying is all about, we often don’t recognize that someone’s being bullied until it’s too late.  Many definitions of bullying are circular, that is, they define bullying as aggression.  They’re not the same thing, although they do overlap.

Dr. John W. Renfrew defines aggression as “behaviour that is directed by an organism [i.e., an animal or person] toward a target, resulting in damage.”(1)  I define bullying as intentionally aggressive behaviour that is excessive or unnecessary.(2)  Behaviour, of course, includes language behaviour  —  i.e., what we say and what we write.

It’s not the damage that makes what was said or done bullying, that just makes it aggressive.  What sets bullying apart is that the aggressive behaviour was deliberately done to the person to cause harm and that what was said and/or done was either too much or not needed.

The most common form of bullying is verbal abuse.  I define verbal abuse as intentionally aggressive language that is unfair and excessive.(3)  It can sting (rudeness, negative criticism), insult (insults, name-calling, trash talk), or mistreat (taunting, belittling, cruel jokes).  One of the difficulties faced is that the speaker will say, “I didn’t mean it.”  Or, “I was just joking.”  Or, “You can’t be serious.”  Yes, they did mean it  —  listen to the words they chose and how they delivered those words.  Verbal abuse is just one type of Toxic Language.

Toxic language is language that hurts, that causes damage.  The mildest form is Irritating Talk, that nattering and nagging that is so …… irritating.  The speaker doesn’t mean to irritate you; it’s just that they’re not paying attention.  Next, there are those accidental slips-of-the-lip I call Malpractice of the Mouth.(4)  Next, you have the two types of Verbal Attacks: Verbal Abuse and Verbal Violence.  Verbal Violence is the deliberately calculated use of hostile, aggressive language that poisons (gossip, slander, demonizing) or destroys (threats to physically hurt or kill someone, threats to destroy a person’s reputation, and threats to destroy a person’s job or opportunities for work).

By being able to define and categorize the type of toxic language that you’re dealing with, you can deal with it better.  All forms of toxic language hurt, but not to the same degree and not with the same consequences.  While Irritating Talk irritates, the speaker doesn’t set out deliberately to hurt you.  With Verbal Abuse, that’s exactly what the speaker wants to do and with Verbal Violence, the speaker wants to poison other peoples’ opinion about you or to destroy you.

(1) John W. Renfrew, Ph.D., Aggression and Its Causes: A Biopsychosocial Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977) at p. 6.

(2) For my complete definition of bullying, please see my book FistFree Language™: It Works for Anger, Bullying, and Conflict at p. 129, available at www.FistFree.com.

(3) For my complete definition of verbal abuse, see my book at p. 216.

(4) “Malpractice of the Mouth” is a term that Dr. Suzette Haden Elgin coined to refer to the misuse of language.  Being a lawyer, I define it as the negligent use of language, paralleling the legal concept of negligence with its requirements of A. Duty (here, the obligation to be polite), B. Breach (i.e., impoliteness), and C. Damage (the harm being embarrassment or shame).

When you’re watching an opinion program on TV or listening to talk radio, how do you feel when the speakers talk at the same time?  Or when they interrupt another speaker and start talking themselves?

I get a bit annoyed when this happens because I find it difficult to listen to two people who are talking at the same time  —  even if their voices are loud.  Over the last few weeks when this has happened, I’ve paid attention to my gut feelings and body language.  I get a small “thud” in my stomach, and I scowl.  It’s as if someone has hit me.

Cross-talking  —  interrupting another person and/or speaking while someone else is speaking  —  is rude.  The person cross-talking knows that not allowing the other person to speak is unco-operative and inconsiderate and yet, they cross-talk.  That’s rude.

Cross-talking is not a very effective tactic for convincing anyone that you’re right or have a valid point.  The person you’ve cut off  —  as well as anyone listening — will focus on your rudeness, not what you’re saying.  How can you persuade someone if they’re not listening to you?

I suspect the trap is found in the word “strong”, as in “strong leader” and “strong opinion”.  ”Strong” often includes “aggressive” as part of its meaning.  Could it be that the speakers think they need to be aggressive verbally to demonstrate the strength of their opinions?  While cross-talking does demonstrate that they hold their opinions strongly, it says nothing about the content of their opinions.

Cross-talking gives the original speaker a dilemma: do they just keep speaking louder, or do they stop speaking?

The most effective response I’ve seen is the original speaker who says, “Excuse me.  Would you please let me finish what I was saying?”  This is especially effective when they haven’t interrupted other speakers.

Another effective response on radio or TV comes from the host who manages the time each person speaks.  One example went something like this, “We have two minutes left.  A, please summarize your position in one minute and then B, you can summarize your position in one minute.”

The next time you’re watching TV or listening to the radio, observe your reaction when someone cross-talks.

Where to begin.

After 11 years of developing FistFree Language™, you’d think I’d have some great pearls of wisdom that would instantly change your life.  I don’t.  The pearls of wisdom found in FistFree Language™ are great; they do work; and they will change your life.  They just won’t do it instantly and let’s face it, there are times when we need that instant solution.

The way we “see” things affects what we see, hear and understand and therefore, what we say and do.  The challenge is that not everyone “sees” things the way we do. This can lead to a discussion or a verbal brawl.

We assume that the other people we’re talking with have the same understanding of what’s going on.  We assume they don’t put their own “spin” on what we say.  Nope.  To see this in action, just tune in to any talk show, especially one that is dealing with political issues of the day.

This blog will look at some of those situations where people “see” things differently.