I think he got off too lightly.
I’m a strong advocate for due process and the concept of “believe the evidence” (as opposed to some who follow “convict upon accusation”). However, when due process is followed and there is evidence of wrongdoing (especially amongst the top 4), the hammer needs to come down hard.
I would advocate for 1 year suspension, mandatory classes, and lifetime prohibition for holding a management level license in this case.
This Stinziano character may have trouble finding work as a chief mate or any other maritime job. Hopefully he doesn’t end up driving an ice cream truck or working as a clown at children’s parties. He is a poster child for my observation that there are many people working on ships or offshore who would be in prison if working on land.
Quit referring to cadets as teenage boys as they are not. There are thousands of young adults that move away to college, join the military, or are thrown out on their asses every year at the same age and are forced to make it through life. This thread and the suny thread make it seem like these cadets are small children that need to be watched over at all times by a parent figure.
Yeah I guess it’s just that he was literally a teenage boy…19 years old…and the person who was supposed to protect him instead abused him and he had no one to help him. Cadets do not have sufficient protections, and that’s only in the US fleet. In the global fleet you could literally torture a cadet to death and absolutely nothing would happen to you other than maybe losing your job.
I’m opposed to shipboard sexual abuse?
What’s your agenda?
Have you got any basis for that statement that can be verified?
The “Global Fleet” consist of ships registered in many countries with very strict laws against abuse of any kind.
We have strict laws. We have not enforcement. How about you find me an example of someone being punished for abusing a cadet? Or maybe your view is that cadet abuse doesn’t happen in the global fleet? Just one example?
Among the allegations made by South Africa’s Sunday Times newspaper are:
“ Several cadets in the maritime studies programme, speaking to the Sunday Times on condition of anonymity, said there was systematic abuse of power by senior officers, who threatened cadets’ careers if they did not perform sexual acts. The sex abuse allegations include claims that :
Said a former female cadet: “When we arrived on the vessel, there were 10 women, and we were told that the captain is our god; he can marry you, baptise you and even bury you without anybody’s permission. We were told that the sea is no man’s land and that what happens at sea, stays at sea.”
Said another former female cadet: “It was like we were dumped in the middle of a game park.”
The former male cadet who was allegedly raped said: “I really don’t want to talk about it. Bad things are happening at sea and I am one of the victims.”
I did NOT say that abuse do not occure on ships. It does, under any flag.
I reacted to you sweeping statement about the “Global Fleet”:
As I said; “The Global fleet” have ships registered in countries with very strict laws against abuse of all kinds". And yes, many countries do enforce their laws. whether afloat or ashore.
Are you saying that even killing a person, (Cadet, or otherwise) goes unpunished under all other flag, except the US?
This is where it gets really dirty and here we see how Maersk covers up this kind of sexual abuse of cadets. According to the trial transcript, the 2nd Mate gave Captain Paul Willers, master of the Maersk Idaho, a statement on the day he departed the vessel in Genova, Italy on February 3, 2015. That statement said that Stinziano had sexually assaulted the 2nd Mate in a lifeboat by groping him. It also included numerous specific instances in which he had seen Stinziano sexually harass and sexually assault the Deck Cadet 1, and included the details that Stinziano had abused the cadet by working him more than 24 hours at a time and subjecting him to a pattern of “sexual abuse.” Then the 2nd Mate left the vessel, and the 2 cadets were still onboard the ship. Captain Willers initiated an investigation, which was directed by Gary English, Maersk’s in-house lawyer at MLL headquarters in Virginia. While the “investigation” was being conducted, Stinziano, who had been accused of numerous federal sex crimes by the 2nd Mate, was allowed to remain on the vessel with the Cadet he was alleged to have assaulted and abused. The 2 cadets tried to tell the Captain what had happened, but were then intimidated and threatened into giving false written statements denying the harassment and abuse. These written statements had to be overcome at trial by the prosecution. Here is trial testimony from Deck Cadet 1:
A. I was never officially told that by anyone of an official capacity. But it was passed on that you don’t make much of a noise about anything, just get it over with.
Q. To that point about not raising waves, and being the culture of just kind of getting through. I want to talk a little bit about the investigation that occurred from, we had heard testimony earlier and you are aware that Second Mate had filed a Complaint.
A. Um-hrm.
Q. And can you tell me a little bit about how that occurred and what was your involvement in that?
A. In terms of the whole day, or?
Q. Yes, well let me start out with a simpler question. When did you first learn the 2nd Mate had filed a Complaint for lack of a better word, or comments on his performance evaluation?
A. I believe it was the captain that told me that there was a Complaint filed. I can’t recall the exact time of day, it may have been mid-day, early mid-day.
Q. Okay. And that captain, who was that?
A. Captain Paul Willers
Q. okay. And he came to you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you speak with the second mate about what the content of that, his comments?
A. No. I was approached by the second mate the night prior, he didn’t allude to any details. He just said he was going to be dropping off some documents with the captain upon his departure from the vessel. And he just wanted me to be as honest as possible with the conversation about it.
Q. Okay. And did you have any other comments with the second mate about his comments on the performance evaluation prior to his disembarking in Genoa?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Okay. Okay, did you have any interaction with the chief mate [Stinziano] about what was stated in the performance evaluation?
A. I believe, yes, there were several interactions with the chief mate about the document. I, are you, do you want me – on that day or the –
Q. Yeah, well the, let’s start on that day.
A. So the chief mate found out that he had these complaints placed against him. And then he was looking for crewmembers to vouch for his character so the Captain would not dismiss him from the vessel. That’s –
Q. He – go ahead.
A. That’s the only event I recall from that specific day. In later days, the chief mate and I had a conversation where he said the statements that [my Sea Partner] gave were going to get him fired. Those are the two main interactions I can remember from the Complaint.
Q. And when you say the statements that [your Sea Partner] made, what statements were those?
A. I don’t know why, I don’t remember why, but somehow my Sea Partner gave a statement by himself prior to our double discussion with the captain. I don’t recall the exact circumstances that [my Sea Partner] gave an original statement to Captain Willers, I don’t know if it was written or not, it may have been a verbal conversation.
Q. Okay, and did he tell you this directly, or you heard it from someone?
A. Yes, we, when we found out about the Complaint my Sea Partner and I had a discussion between ourselves about the circumstances.
Q. Okay. And did you yourself give a statement?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay, and do you recollect was that a typed statement, was that a written statement?
A. There was a verbal interview with the captain. And then we were asked to provide a written statement as well.
Q. And who was at that verbal interview?
A. It was the chief engineer and the captain.
Q. Okay, okay. And, okay. If I may, Your Honor, and SO – okay, apologize, let me rephrase. At that time, in the verbal interview, and this was prior to any written interviews, correct? What was that discussion?
A. In terms of the official discussion or the private discussion prior?
Q. The private and the official.
A. We, essentially, I don’t remember the exact words, but we were told this, there could be some consequences for our statements, and we should be careful about what we say. And that –
Q. And who said that to you?
A. I, it was, I believe it was the chief engineer, but I, I don’t know for sure.
Q. Okay, and that was informal?
A. That was informal. And then we began the verbal interview in which essentially we went through the statement, and they asked us, did each of these things occur.
Q. Okay.
A. To which we were to respond, yes or no.
Q. Okay. And who was present? That was still the same people, the chief engineer and the captain for that?
A. I don’t remember if the chief engineer left.
Q. Okay.
A. Before that happened or not.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe he did.
Q. Okay.
A. I believe it was just the captain.
Q. Just you and the captain?
A. Yes.
Q. And were there written responses to that, or was that just verbal?
A. I believe – the captain, yes, the captain was recording the details of the conversation on a form.
Q. Okay. Okay.
MS. MEHAFFEY: If I may, Your Honor, the Coast Guard would ask to approach with what’s been marked previously as Coast Guard Exhibit 8, but will be entered into evidence as Coast Guard Exhibit 15 if accepted. THE COURT: All right.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Let me make sure this is the statement to You have it? May the record reflect that I am approaching the witness with the exhibit? THE COURT: You may. (Coast Guard Exhibit #15 was then marked for identification.) BY MS. MEHAFFEY:
Q. And if you could just take a moment then to look through that and when you are ready and comfortable, please look up and I’ll ask you a few questions. (Bricf pause while witness reviews exhibit.)
A. Okay.
Q. You ready?
A. Yup.
Q. Okay, great. So if you could, we, the Respondent’s counsel and myself and Your Honor had agreed to the authenticity of these exhibits. However, if you could talk about what this document if, you don’t have to read it. Do you recognize this document?
A. This must have been what was recording during our conversation, but I don’t recognize it.
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
A. I have not seen this document.
Q. Okay, is that your name at the top there?
A. Yup
Q. And the responses, does this look like an accurate reflection of what your responses were?
A. These were the responses, I gave, yes.
Q. Okay. And I guess knowing that you haven’t seen this before, but as far as the responses, have they been altered, to the best of your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Now, it’s your testimony that this was, this written statement was taken subsequent to a verbal discussion with the captain, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it, what was your intent in writing, in giving these answers?
A. I just wanted to keep everything as easy as possible for my, so the rest of my time of the vessel. I didn’t want to stir, stir up anything. I figured it’d be easiest just to say nothing happened and make it go away than make any noise about it.
Q. And is this an accurate portrayal of what happened?
A. No.
Q. And is your testimony here today, earlier today an accurate statement of what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. And why the difference?
A. Between the two documents?
Q. No, between your testimony here today and what was said to Captain Willers.
A. The difference is I, there’s no reason for me to not tell the truth, I don’t have any reason not to. I’m not on the vessel anymore going to the Middle East. I’m here, so it’s a safer environment, I would say.
Q. When you say, “Going to the Middle East,” can you, what did you mean by that? That you’re not going to the Middle East, I just want to clarify what it is that you meant.
A. That the vessel was going to the Middle East after we finished in the Mediterranean. I didn’t, right, so I was nineteen years old and I had never even left the states without my parents, and I was just pretty nervous about going there on a vessel with a bunch of people I didn’t know. So I figured it would be best to just make everything as cohesive as possible and be as agreeable as possible.
Q. So you were going to be going to the Middle East after this statement?
A. I don’t recall the exact vessel rotation.
Q. That’s fine, that’s fine. Did you ever submit a typed statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. We were asked to type an official statement and we gave it to the captain.
Q. Okay. And what was, and who asked you to do that?
A. The captain asked us to do that.
Q. Okay. And what was the circumstances surrounding asking, them asking you? Did they take you in a room, did they, you know, ask you –
A. It was in this same discussion, with the verbal responses, that we were asked to give the written statement.
Q. Okay. And was there anybody on the phone at any time during that statement?
A. Yes, there was a lawyer for Maersk that was listening in.
Q. That was listening.
A. I didn’t hear any comments, but they were listening in to the conversation.
Q. Okay. And you were made aware of that?
A. Yes, we were told that the lawyer would be on the phone.
A. Yes. And I sat in the computer lounge and [my Sea Partner and I] typed our statements together.
Q. Okay. And is that your signature at the bottom?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, has this been altered in any way?
A. No, it has not.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Okay, at this time, Your Honor, the Coast Guard would ask that Coast Guard Exhibit 16 be entered.
MR. HEWIG: No objection.
THE COURT: There being no objection Coast Guard Exhibit 16 is admitted into evidence. (Coast Guard Exhibit #16 was then admitted into evidence.)
MS. MEHAFFEY: Okay, thank you.
MS. MEHAFFEY: Q. And just to clarify again, is what’s stated in here an accurate reflection of what happened on the Maersk Idaho?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Okay, thank you.
Stinziano is the first USCG-credentialed mariner to be punished for shipboard sexual misconduct aboard a U.S. documented vessel via a USCG Suspension & Revocation trial in more than 25 years.
It does not happen in the U.S. It does not happen anywhere else in the world.
I’m opposed to pages of copy/paste spam. If we want to read the testimony we can click on the link and read it ourselves. Maybe select a few convincing quotations and use that to make a point?
I’m opposed to people confusing testimony/ deposition with fact and conclusion. I can swear under oath that I’m Santa Clause - that doesn’t make me a fat white guy with a beard.
Clearly you have a dog in this fight. Care to share what dog is yours or shall we keep guessing?
Telling someone that you don’t appreciate the joke, or the touch, or the attention is always the first step in stopping an unwanted situation. People are not clairvoyant. Do not expect them to be mind readers. Tell them to stop.
If you tell someone to stop and they stop then great. Problem solved!
If you don’t tell someone to stop and they continue the unwanted action then whose fault is it really?
From the second mate’s grievance :
I did not laugh at Stinziano’s behavior, but I also did not voice my objection to his behavior. He was my boss and my superior officer aboard the vessel, and as such, he held tremendous power over me while aboard the ship.
Two issues. First, he didn’t speak up (see above). Second issue: are we to believe that the power disparity between a first mate and second mate is so vast that this second mate had no safe way to speak up? That’s ridiculous. As a second mate I’ve never had an issue telling my senior officers things I needed to tell them. Maybe their feedback made me uncomfortable but who cares? It’s a workplace, not a safe-space for snowflakes.
More from the second mate:
Upon hearing this statement I reacted the way that I generally reacted to the nearly constant stream of disgusting sexual and sexually violent statements that came out of the Chief Mate’s mouth: I stared at him quizzically and said nothing, or perhaps uttered something without any meaning such as “Huh, you don’t say, Chief Mate?”
It makes me wonder what would have happened if the 2M said to the chef mate, “Hey mate, I don’t appreciate you touching me or saying those things. Don’t do that again.” Because we’ve all seen guys homo-play and think it’s great fun, very frat boy stupid. But not everyone has the same sense of humor.
I’d bet it’s Melogy again coming to the site trying to move his agenda.
“we’ve all seen guys homo-play and think it’s great fun?”
Fortunately, I have not seen guys homo-play on a ship and think it’s great fun.
Blaming the 2nd Mate for reporting sex crimes committed by his boss, the 2nd in command of the vessel sounds a lot like victim blaming. No one has a duty to protect a criminal on a vessel, and sexual assault is a crime.
If the “Safer Seas Act” becomes law, crewmembers will not have a choice when it comes to reporting “homo-play” that rises to the level of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Every crewmember will be legally required to report the incident to the USCG within 10 days of witnessing the conduct or learning of the conduct. I think this is a great law.
Protecting predators and not reporting will be official misconduct and could result in suspension or revocation of a mariner’s credential.
You are describing a maritime culture that is ceasing to exist and you seem sad about that. I’m sorry that you are sad to see the sexual assault homo-play go bye bye.
SEC. 11. Requirement to report sexual assault and harassment.
Section 10104 of title 46, United States Code is amended by striking paragraphs (a) and (b) and inserting the following:
“(a) Mandatory reporting by Crewmember.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—A crewmember of a documented vessel shall report to the Secretary any complaint or incident of sexual harassment or sexual assault of which the crewmember has firsthand or personal knowledge.
“(2) PENALTY.—A crewmember with firsthand or personal knowledge of a sexual assault or sexual harassment incident on a documented vessel who knowingly fails to report in compliance with paragraph (a)(1) is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000.
In Melogy v. Maersk you posted earlier I noticed the 2M admits to not reporting his suspicion of crimes being committed on board. 2M didn’t report it to either the outgoing and incoming captain (until the very end) nor did he report it to the designated person ashore, or to anyone at Maersk, the Union or the Coast Guard. 2M did explain why he didn’t report this to anyone. His reason is as shocking as it is disgusting: he was worried it might hurt his future job prospects:
In contrast to Stinziano, I was a junior officer and an entry level member of the IOMMP with no seniority or security in the union. I was working aboard the ship under a 70-day contract that contained no guarantee of ever being employed by Maersk again. Stinziano held the power to essentially destroy my reputation and career within both Maersk and the IOMMP, and this was a major factor in my unwillingness to take a stand against his behavior towards me and other crew members.
The 2M didn’t said he was afraid for his life; he wasn’t afraid the Chief Mate would stab him or push someone overboard. No, 2M remained silent and chose not to do his legal and moral duty to report because it might be a bad career move!
It’s plain that 2M doesn’t understand his roll as enabler of the abuse. Instead he sees himself as victim or hero: victim for being abused (even as he never tried to stop it); hero for reporting the incidents to authorities (after letting it go on and on for personal benefit).
He even explains his bafflement at not being called as a witness:
In the days, months and years following the delivery of my Report to Captain Willers, I often wondered about how Captain Willers had handled my Report, how he had conducted his “investigation,” and what he had told his supervisors ashore at Maersk. I also frequently wondered why I had never been contacted by Maersk or by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Let me clarify why no one contacted 2M. It’s because he lost the confidence of the master, the company, the union. Why a loss of confidence? It’s because he suspected something was wrong, maybe criminally wrong, including possible sexual assault and he spent weeks or months doing nothing about it. He failed to say something when he saw something. He had a duty to immediately notify the master, or company, union or USCG but did nothing. If what he had to say was so important why didn’t he say something to begin with?
He was no hero for compiling a report. He was no victim. He was an enabler. He was an accomplice. He must be held accountable and punished for his inactions.
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” - John Stewart Mill
If you can read these allegations and maintain that the victim is to blame for not asking this Chief Mate to stop abusing them, then you are part of the problem in this industry.
If you have ever sailed and can deny the existence of a power imbalance between senior and junior officers, you are part of the problem in this industry.
When you use language like “safe-space” and “snowflake”, it becomes glaringly obvious what type of person you must be. Rejecting harassment as a workplace norm does not make someone a snowflake, and I would hope that we’d all be advocating for vessels to be a safe place for mariners.
After a quick skim, this is another thread that I don’t want to actually read.
Thank you for being such a powerful victim’s advocate, DeckApe. If everyone in this industry possessed your courage, selflessness, and strength of character, all of our problems would be solved and every vessel would be free or harassment and assault in all of its forms. You are the Hero here. God bless you.
In other news, here’s an earlier article written about this case in TradeWinds:
11 October 2021 13:59 GMT
By Matt Coyne (in Baltimore)
A Maersk Line Ltd (MLL) captain is in danger of losing his license over sexual misconduct, while the AP Moller-Maersk subsidiary appeared to rush to his defence against one of his accusers and the US Coast Guard.
*Master Mark Stinziano is awaiting a decision of a USCG administrative law judge on whether or not his actions on the 4,658-teu Maersk Idaho (built 2000) are enough to revoke his merchant mariner credential. *
*The allegations of abusive sexual contact, sexual molestation and misconduct focus on his treatment of a second mate and two US Merchant Marine Academy cadets between 2014 and 2016, when Stinziano was a chief mate. *
The impending decision comes amid wider furore over sexual assault at sea — including against cadets on board to gain valuable work experience.
Stinziano’s attorney, William Hewig of KP Law in Massachusetts, declined to comment for this story, although the MLL officer has denied allegations against him.
Meanwhile, MLL, Maersk’s US-flag subsidiary, is fighting a $10,000 fine for failing to report the allegations to the USCG and accused the agency of harassment when it attempted to obtain documents related to the case.
But worse for second mate Ryan Melogy is that Stinziano is still working at sea for the containership operator when he believes the master could have been charged criminally.
Melogy said Stinziano should “absolutely not” be allowed to keep sailing.
Melogy was second mate aboard the Maersk Idaho and has since launched Maritime Legal Aid & Advocacy (MLAA) to campaign for the rights of mariners.
"He is a dangerous person and should be banned from the industry for life, " he added.
According to documents reviewed and obtained by TradeWinds, Stinziano was accused of a litany of inappropriate acts, primarily targeting a deck cadet while he was chief mate of the US-flagged Maersk Idaho.
In an amended complaint filed ahead of his June trial at the US Customs House in Baltimore and in trial transcripts, Stinziano was accused of groping the cadet multiple times over the course of the voyage.
He also allegedly grabbed the cadet from behind and pressed his groin against him and simulated sex during a lifeboat drill. During the trial, the cadet said Stinziano did it a second time while he was at the chart table.
Stinziano is further accused of raising his fist in a threat to punch the cadet in the groin, drawing a penis on his hard hat during work with shipmates and requiring the cadet to refer to the chief mate as “big daddy” and to refer to himself as “buttercup”.
The deck cadet also described at trial a situation in which Stinziano inserted a pen into his own rectum in an attempt to keep another crew member from chewing on the pens.
Stinziano is also accused of showing pornography to an engine cadet and drawing a flipbook of a penis becoming erect after offering to diagram a deck procedure, as well as groping Melogy on two occasions.
At trial, both cadets repeatedly described Stinziano’s actions as making them uncomfortable, while the engine cadet said his behaviour was more severe than the crude and off-colour humour common to life on merchant ships.
Melogy, according to USCG documents, wrote a report detailing Stinziano’s behaviour and presented it to the Maersk Idaho’s captain on 3 February 2015.
Instead of taking the allegations to the USCG, MLL appeared to have launched its own investigation, which the deck cadet said began with an informal discussion during which the chief engineer told him there could be consequences for what he said.
A second discussion, for which an MLL attorney was said to be present, saw the captain go through Melogy’s allegations point by point while the deck cadet downplayed them. The cadet also downplayed the allegations in a written statement.
"I figured it’d be easiest to just say nothing happened and make it go away than to make any noise about it.”
He said his story changed because “there’s no reason for me not to tell the truth”.
“I’m not on the vessel anymore. … I’m here, so it’s a safe environment,” he said.
Both cadets said there was a culture at the US Merchant Marine Academy to keep things quiet as there are a limited number of vessels for students to get the sea time required to obtain officers’ licenses. The engine cadet said he also encountered the same culture in the wider industry.
They also said their experience made them reconsider whether or not they wanted careers at sea, though they would both ultimately graduate.
“I was pretty worn out, depressed, so I considered dropping out of school but I didn’t, I don’t know why I didn’t, but I didn’t.”
At trial, Stinziano said none of what he was accused of happened, while Hewig suggested there should have been witnesses to the alleged behaviour. The defence painted Melogy as a poor mariner, who made several mistakes on the voyage and held a vendetta against Stinziano for giving him a bad evaluation.
The engine cadet was alleged to have had a bad attitude, left his room a mess, lost his room key and departed the ship without key papers or his pay cheque.
Hewig further described Stinziano as a decorated mariner, who earned high marks on his evaluations, cares deeply about his shipmates and is quick to help out a young mariner, despite his sometimes crude jokes.
Coming to light
Following MLL’s investigation, Stinziano was issued a non-disciplinary letter in March 2015, saying their findings were "inconclusive " and recommending a training course.
The USCG would not begin its investigation until Melogy sent an email to their officials in 2019. In August 2020, revocation proceedings again Stinziano would begin.
The $10,000 fine was levied against MLL on 3 November 2020 for not forwarding Melogy’s allegations, made in writing in February 2015, to the USCG in accordance with a federal law mandating it be notified of all sexual assault allegations aboard US ships.
The case is still open and the USCG declined to provide TradeWinds with details, but a letter from MLL from December 2020 had the company requesting documents to determine how to fight the fine.
At Stinziano’s trial, USCG investigator Charles Wolfe said MLL forced the agency to file subpoenas for documents related to the case, telling him they were “proprietary in case of litigation”.
In a motion seeking to compel disclosure of the ship’s crew list, MLL argued that subpoena and others were part of a "campaign of harassment and misrepresentation " from the USCG.
MLL further filed a federal lawsuit against the USCG in September in the Eastern District of Virginia under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking the release of documents related to Melogy and MLAA, some expressly related to the Stinziano case.
TradeWinds sent a detailed set of questions to MLL, but the containership operator did not answer.
“[The allegations] are taken seriously in the sense that they are perceived to represent an enormous liability for the companies and other involved parties,” Melogy said.
“Great effort was expended by the [Maersk] Idaho’s captain and senior officers and [Maersk Line’s] legal department to shield themselves from liability for Stinziano’s conduct.
“They did not care about protecting crew members from a predator. Taking something seriously and wanting to do what is right are not the same thing.”
Thank you for speaking out, TSVDL. Even here, on an anonymous message board, very few have the courage to speak up on this subject and on this case. It seems that of the hundreds who have now read this thread, only 3 have actually condemned Stinziano’s behavior.
People are afraid. They are 1000x more afraid to speak up on a ship when they actually see something happening to someone else, or even to themselves.
Clearly you have failed every harassment training ever!
Yes, even if you don’t tell someone to stop harassing you, it is still that person’s fault for harassing you. The fact that needs saying is a massive problem.