The Washington Times - March 17, 2011, 04:04PM

In the midst of the Obama administration’s move to crack down on school yard bullying, by DOJ prosecutions and local school sensitivity programs, designed to protect only those covered in the 1964 civil rights act and otherwise known as “anti-bullying campaigns,” a web video from Australia showing a bullying victim standing up for himself surfaces.


According to reports, Casey Haynes, a Sidney middle school student, has been a victim of a particular bully for several years. In the video, the bully walks up to Casey and punches him in the face. The bully, Richard Gale, then strikes a couple of more times before Casey blocks a punch and grabs his attacker by the torso and body slams him to the cement.

Richard limps away and appears to have collapsed prior the video’s end. Both students were suspended by the school for fighting. According to Fox News, Richard ended up with a scraped knee.  The video has reportedly been watched four times more than videos of the tragedy in Japan. This is hardly surprising. While many individuals are sympathetic to events happening in Japan, nevertheless, most can truly relate to the trials and tribulations of being subjected to bullying.

Comments about the web video, apparently shot by friends of the bully through a camera phone, on various online news sites range from supporters of Casey’s to those who criticize Casey for “solving his problems through violence.” However, support for Casey is seemingly overwhelming.

As someone who understands first hand that American public schools preach propaganda and practice actions, which only embolden the bully later on, I shudder at the thought of school administrators who believe consequences for a bully should be equal to that of the bullying victim.

Liberal policy wonks and their allies in the federal government who seek to weaken our national security, while appeasing rogue governments who support terrorist organizations are no different than local school board officials who instruct teachers and administrators to tell a bullying victim to “talk to” their harasser or just “walk away” as the victim is physically pummeled. Similarly, lawmakers who punish victims for using a firearm on an attacker are no different in their thinking either. 

Another favorite response from school administrators is that a bullying victim should “go talk to a trusted adult” about the bully. However, in the school-yard, this response is thought of as “tattle tailing” and no matter how much so-called experts tout the difference between reporting a bully to authorities, the bullying victim is likely far from interested to be further harassed by both the bully and his friends for simply “reporting” another student. 

Furthermore, can kids truly count on swift action to happen as a result of calling out a bully? Too often, when a victim tells a school staffer about a bullying problem, the child must wait on a school worker’s own timeline for circumstances to change for the better.

In the meantime, the student suffers. Is it no wonder that un-armed adults find themselves at the mercy of their attacker, because lawmakers tell victims of violent crimes to wait for the police as the criminal has their way with their victims. Otherwise, victims can face possible legal prosecution for defending themselves.

This is hardly what victims of bullying deserve and being punished by a school administration for an act of self-defense is far from a suitable solution.