KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council has made it clear that winking, path-blocking, wolf-whistling, and even head-patting constitute acts of sexual harassment.
Yes, you read that right—better think twice before you unleash that wink at the water cooler.
In the Jan 18 circular, titled 'Sexual harassment in the legal profession,' Harleen Kaur, the chairperson of the Bar Council Ad Hoc Peer Support Network Committee, decreed what constitutes harassment in the legal profession.
Among the listed offences are offering promotions for a date or a hug, making unwanted advances, and engaging in sexual coercion.
According to the circular, if your colleague has ever sweetened the pot with work-related advantages, such as promotions, connections or job security, in exchange for favours such as a date or a hug, you might be experiencing the classic quid pro quo harassment.
But wait, there's more. Colleagues making inappropriate comments, gestures or physical contact that create discomfort or distress, even if meant jokingly, are now officially on notice.
"This can be in many forms such as, visual conduct (giving you suggestive gestures, such as a wink or hand signs) and verbal conduct (inappropriate comments on your appearance, and it does not even have to necessarily be derogatory)," the circular read.
So, if your cubicle mate compliments your shirt in a way that makes you squirm, brace yourself for a call to HR.
And for those in the legal fraternity who thought wolf-whistling, path-blocking, sitting at a colleague's desk for no reason. or pat on the head were harmless antics, think again.
The Bar Council makes it clear that these actions are inappropriate.
"Threats of retaliation at the workplace involve threatening or intimidating an individual for refusing unwanted advances.
"This may include explicit or implicit threats of negative consequences, such as job loss, demotion or damage to one's professional reputation, if they reject inappropriate requests," the circular read.
The Bar Council did not state any specific reason for issuing the circular. However, it is understood to have been prompted by a couple of cases recently.