That is an excellent question.
In my opinion, we clearly need the training to be more thorough. We know that one hour is absolutely not enough, whether it is in an office, on the Hill, or in a primary school. One hour is useless; it is just a start.
Also, if people do not have follow-up courses six or eight months after training on the role of peers and on bystander intervention, they will forget what they have learned and they will lose the confidence they need to act.
At the moment, a lot of people intervene as bystanders, but without the victims’ permission. So they witness something happening and tell themselves that they have to do something so that, if it becomes public, people will know that they have done the right thing. So they rush to file a complaint without the victims’ permission. The victims lose the courage to do anything, because they did not give permission. That then dissuades other people from doing anything because complaints are left with no follow-up.
We clearly need training on the role of bystanders that is at least three, four or five hours long. The training should be followed by a refresher course after six or eight months to focus on the tools and also to give people the confidence to do something. That is what is missing.
We absolutely know that the people giving the training must be experts. I have no confidence that the army currently has any experts. We also know that the most effective model is a course given by a man and a woman together. That way, they can consolidate their power, and can also give each other more confidence. In fact, we know that the format that works best is when the woman is the expert and the man is there to support her and corroborate what she is saying. We are seeing that this works in any context. In my opinion, particularly in the army, the training must be given by a man and a woman together. I feel that that is the key.