Harassment of Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies in Canada by individuals believed to be mentally disordered

Abstract

Politicians may be more vulnerable to episodes of stalking than the general population, due to their public personas. Research indicates that perpetrators of such stalking episodes frequently suffer from a mental disorder. This study surveyed how often Canadian Federal and Provincial politicians, who held office in March 1998, had been harassed by individuals believed to be suffering from a mental disorder, as well as the form of the harassment. Four hundred and twenty-four politicians responded to the questionnaire (41.3%). Harassment was experienced by 29.9% of the respondents, with 87% believing their harassers to be suffering from a mental disorder. Both Federal and Provincial politicians were harassed, and overt threats against politicians were frequent. No association between threats in communications and subsequent physical approach was found. In fact, harassers who did not overtly threaten, or who both telephoned and wrote frequently, were shown to more often approach the politicians.

Stalking experiences reported by Norwegian members of Parliament compared to a population sample

“…This number would probably have been higher with more awareness of the unpredictable risks of threats and harassment. Furthermore, according to the international stalking literature, the prevalence of severe mental disorder is high among the stalkers of politicians (Adams et al, 2009;James et al, 2007;Pathé et al, 2013), unlike general community stalkers amongst whom psychosis is rare, and negatively related to violence. However, we do not have any data on this issue.…”

Public Figure Attacks in the United States, 1995–2015

“…Their fatality rate when attacked was 55%. Stalking, threats, harassment, and problematic approaches are very common for politicians, and can be a source of both hypervigilance and misery (Adams et al, ; Every‐Palmer, Barry‐Walsh & Pathe, ; Hoffmann & Meloy, 2014). In one study of attacks against western European politicians, over half resulted in a fatality or serious injury.…”

“…Meloy, Sheridan, and Hoffmann () edited a volume that explored these efforts in detail, most of which were done in westernized, developed countries, including the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. With the publication of this book, other studies have focused upon non‐terrorist attacks against German political figures (Hoffmann et al, ), western European politicians (James et al, ), the British Royal Family (James et al, ), Canadian judicial officials (Eke et al, ) and politicians (Adams et al, ), and problematic approaches toward the Dutch Royal Family (van der Meer, Bootsma, & Meloy, ), Australian and New Zealand politicians (Pathé et al, ), and terrorist attacks on public figures (Biesterfeld & Meloy, ). New concepts have emerged as important points of operational departure, including pathological fixation (Mullen et al, ), grandiosity, entitled reciprocity, the intensity of pursuit, and the prevalence of mental disorder (Hoffmann, Meloy, & Sheridan, ).…”

Coping With Threats and Harassment in Politics

“…Research into the harassment of politicians and other public officials in Northern America and Western Europe demonstrates that 30-93% of politicians report having experienced harassing or stalking behaviour, which can comprise serious risks for the integrity of democracy and government (Adams, Hazelwood, Pitre, Bedars, & Landry, 2009; Every-Palmer, Barry-Walsh, & Path e, 2015;Hoffmann, Meloy, & Sheridan, 2013;James, Farnham, & Wilson, 2013;Path e, Phillips, Perdacher, & Heffernan, 2014). In more than half of the cases, the behaviour takes place in the victim's private environment, and it consists of physical violence, death threats, libel, and slander and vandalism to private property.…”

“…They use threatening behaviour or undertake malicious attempts to damage the reputation of the politician in order to affect the way the politician feels, thinks or acts on a political issue. Victimised politicians must deal with adverse consequences such as a degree of fearfulness, concern going out in public or being alone at home, a reduction in social outings, a change in routine, a change in personal relationships and work hours lost due to the incident (Adams et al, 2009). There are concerns that threats may interfere with the democratic process (Bjelland, 2014).…”