SWP expulsions and squabbles

[cesare]

What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
I am generally undecided about this btw .

In general terms (because the course of action will turn on the facts emerging from each individual case) I suggest that <whichever> political organisation reserve their rights from the outset to refer the matter (at any stage) to the OB if (a) the complainant consents and/or (b) if on the face of it the matter is sufficiently serious that it may be a criminal offence. If the complainant refuses to involve the OB in any circumstances and despite any offers of support, then the complainant needs to be referred to a specialist organisation (such as but not necessarily the Havens) and the matter left there.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In general terms (because the course of action will turn on the facts emerging from each individual case) I suggest that <whichever> political organisation reserve their rights from the outset to refer the matter (at any stage) to the OB if (a) the complainant consents and/or (b) if on the face of it the matter is sufficiently serious that it may be a criminal offence. If the complainant refuses to involve the OB in any circumstances and despite any offers of support, then the complainant needs to be referred to a specialist organisation (such as but not necessarily the Havens) and the matter left there.

But in those circumstances how can the matter be "left there"? A decision of some sort has to be arrived at concerning the status of the accused individual in the organisation concerned.

 

[brogdale]

What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
I am generally undecided about this btw .

Like it or not, the only way that a victim will gain, professional support, forensic proof of the attack and justice will be through engaging agencies independent and outside of their political party, no matter how revolutionary that is.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Like it or not, the only way that a victim will gain, professional support, forensic proof of the attack and justice will be through engaging agencies independent and outside of their political party, no matter how revolutionary that is.

Is it your view therefore that an organisation should report any serious complaint made to it to the police, even if that is against the wishes of the complainant?

 

[brogdale]

Is it your view therefore that an organisation should report any serious complaint made to it to the police, even if that is against the wishes of the complainant?

I don't think so, though I think that any responsible organisation might want to flag up, in advance of any reporting, that its policy would normally be to do so.
FWIW, if comrade Delta is innocent it would have been in his interest for the police forensic team to have been able to prove so.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't think so

Well then we're back in the position of trying to work through what should be done in those circumstances.

 

[brogdale]

Well then we're back in the position of trying to work through what should be done in those circumstances.

Yes, but I did make a further suggestion.
IMO, the gravest error made by the party was to suggest to the victim that party discipline could substitute for support and justice offered by professional agencies.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Yes, but I did make a further suggestion.

Do you not believe that might make someone less likely to complain in the first place? Which is hardly a good thing. And even then, would you actually go through with it against the complainant's wishes?

IMO, the gravest error made by the party was to suggest to the victim that party discipline could substitute for support and justice offered by professional agencies.

I'm not talking about what the SWP did or didn't do here. I'm asking what should be done in a hypothetical case where the complainant, despite being offered support to do so, remained adamant about not wanting to involve the police?

 

[Pickman's model]

come on comrades! one valiant push to 150 pages!

 

[Fozzie Bear]

I'm not talking about what the SWP did or didn't do here. I'm asking what should be done in a hypothetical case where the complainant, despite being offered support to do so, remained adamant about not wanting to involve the police?

Perhaps a key issue here is whether or not there are likely to be victims in the future other than the complainant? (Which it would be difficult to determine, obviously.)

 

[brogdale]

Do you not believe that might make someone less likely to complain in the first place? Which is hardly a good thing. And even then, would you actually go through with it against the complainant's wishes?



I'm not talking about what the SWP did or didn't do here. I'm asking what should be done in a hypothetical case where the complainant, despite being offered support to do so, remained adamant about not wanting to involve the police?

It is obviously the victim's right to do whatever they choose wrt the police. In the case of organisations I think that they should make it clear to any victim reporting criminal wrong-doing that they would feel compelled to pass on that information. I believe the same situation pertains with the disclosure of child abuse? From the outset individuals alleging abuse are advised that confidentiality of their report cannot be maintained.

The alleged victim would therefore be aware, in advance, that one additional disadvantage of not reporting to the police would be that they would not be able to confidentially report to the organisation. Obviously, if a member were subsequently convicted, then it would be within their remit to discipline internally.

The error on the part of the SWP was to somehow imply that the organistion had the capacity to handle this case; they patently could not.

 

[Pickman's model]

Perhaps a key issue here is whether or not there are likely to be victims in the future other than the complainant? (Which it would be difficult to determine, obviously.)

that's just the sort of stakhanovite effort i sought to encourage

 

[butchersapron]

What about claims of serial violent and ongoing rapes that would mean, if true, that a member constituted a threat to other women - inside and outside the organisation? How would these robust rejections of bourgeois process stand up to that? And what about the dangers posed to those outside the party that would effectively be sustained by the sort of amateur internal policing procedure that took place here. If we're doing hypotheticals and if the party wants to argue that there is no justice outside of itself...

 

[kavenism]

I’m sure we’ve covered this further back. If the party doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate a rape or to provide what most would consider to be a just punishment (and everyone seems to be in agreement that they don’t), then the obvious course of action is simply not to investigate it but rather make clear to the claimant that they can only investigate claims of harrasment and sexist conduct that would breech the party’s internal rules; the sorts of accusations that a regular HR department or Union might investigate, and for which expulsion would be a reasonable outcome. I don’t think they would be failing the woman if they just said we don’t have the resourses to deal with a rape but we’ll deal with the question of harrasment. Then the ball is back in her court as to whether she thinks that satisfactory.

 

[Pickman's model]

What about claims of serial violent and ongoing rapes that would mean, if true, that a member constituted a threat to other women - inside and outside the organisation? How would these robust rejections of bourgeois process stand up to that? And what about the dangers posed to those outside the party that would effectively be sustained by the sort of amateur internal policing procedure that took place here. If we're doing hypotheticals and if the party wants to argue no justice outside of itself...

no justice, no peace

 

[cesare]

But in those circumstances how can the matter be "left there"? A decision of some sort has to be arrived at concerning the status of the accused individual in the organisation concerned.

This is where I go back (again!) to what I said about checking at each stage of the way about complainant confidentiality.

From the outset, the complainant needs to understand that their complaint will generate a response, and that the response will alter as the facts of the matter emerge. The initial response to a complaint of abuse (whether sexual, racial, homophobic, domestic, bullying etc etc) will be to assess what the complainant wants to acheive by way of a careful conversation with them. Ideally, the person holding that conversation would not be an investigator or decision maker. If the complainant wants/needs support/counselling and no retributive action if upheld - then from the very start the complainant should be referred to a specialist advice/support centre and the matter not pursued internally. Although a record should be kept of the fact of the complaint and the action taken.

And then a similar conversation at each step of the way. For example; having obtained consent from the complainant to investigate the matter with the proviso of referral - the next step would be to start gathering facts/versions of events. This starts with the person assigned to investigate (investigating officer for want of a better expression). The investigating officer obtains the complainant's version of events and obtains further details via proper questioning. After that has been done, the investigating officer says something along these lines as appropriate "well, <name> thank you for telling me about this. What you've described is serious, and therefore I need to investigate further. This means that I have to interview the person that you're complaining about and also take statements from the people that witnessed <whatever behaviour>. Are you happy for me to do that?" If the answer is yes - that's what the investigating officer does. If the answer is no, the investigating officer explains that the matter can't be pursued internally because it's essential to get everyone involved's version of events before proceeding further.

Etc. I won't set out each step cos you'll get TL: DR

 

[Pickman's model]

I’m sure we’ve covered this further back. If the party doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate a rape or to provide what most would consider to be a just punishment (and everyone seems to be in agreement that they don’t), then the obvious course of action is simply not to investigate it but rather make clear to the claimant that they can only investigate calims of harrasment and sexist conduct that would breech the party’s internal rules; the sorts of accusations that a regular HR department or Union might investigate, and for which expulsion would be a reasonable outcome. I don’t think they would be failing the woman if they just said we don’t have the resourses to deal with a rape but we’ll deal with the question of harrasment. Then the ball is back in her court as to whether she thinks that satisfactory.

what do you mean the party doesn't have the resources to properly investigate a rape? they might not have the skills and they certainly don't have the inclination, but they've got the resources, resources which many a poor police department in many countries round the world would love. but it's not like the alleged (!) perpetrator's unknown: there's been no fucking need for resources. no need to a manhunt, no need for a dna test, etc etc. but to say they don't have the resources - pisspoor.

 

[butchersapron]

I’m sure we’ve covered this further back. If the party doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate a rape or to provide what most would consider to be a just punishment (and everyone seems to be in agreement that they don’t), then the obvious course of action is simply not to investigate it but rather make clear to the claimant that they can only investigate calims of harrasment and sexist conduct that would breech the party’s internal rules; the sorts of accusations that a regular HR department or Union might investigate, and for which expulsion would be a reasonable outcome. I don’t think they would be failing the woman if they just said we don’t have the resourses to deal with a rape but we’ll deal with the question of harrasment. Then the ball is back in her court as to whether she thinks that satisfactory.

That pilate option would be political madness, near suicide. Say the woman goes to the police and a conviction follows, the party learns that the CC was informed of a rape and did nothing, and did nothing as a point of principle.The other side of the coin if police are not involved is that the CC again, did nothing, and again, as a point of principle. That cannot happen in these parties due to a) simple practical common sense and b) the political perspective they seek to establish - i.e criticisms of bourgeois law and the leading role of the party pre-and post revolution. They cannot just abdicate what they have spent years saying is their responsibility. You can see this in the opening statement on the DC transcript.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I don't think you are going to get any responses premised on the idea that there's no justice outside the party. The issue is what should an organisation sane enough not to think that do when an adult brings a serious complaint against another member but is adamant that they won't go to the cops?

I don't have a thought through opinion on this.

 

[kavenism]

what do you mean the party doesn't have the resources to properly investigate a rape? they might not have the skills and they certainly don't have the inclination, but they've got the resources, resources which many a poor police department in many countries round the world would love. but it's not like the alleged (!) perpetrator's unknown: there's been no fucking need for resources. no need to a manhunt, no need for a dna test, etc etc. but to say they don't have the resources - pisspoor.

Forensics? That's often what it turns on.

 

[Pickman's model]

Forensics? That's often what it turns on.

you're saying that no doctors or other relevant professionals among the party membership would assist the party authorities in this matter.

 

[brogdale]

what do you mean the party doesn't have the resources to properly investigate a rape? they might not have the skills and they certainly don't have the inclination, but they've got the resources, resources which many a poor police department in many countries round the world would love. but it's not like the alleged (!) perpetrator's unknown: there's been no fucking need for resources. no need to a manhunt, no need for a dna test, etc etc. but to say they don't have the resources - pisspoor.

A political party does not have the victim support services, or the forensics to determine proof of guilt/innocence or access to the judicial system. Wake up man.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think you are going to get any responses premised on the idea that there's no justice outside the party. The issue is what should an organisation sane enough not to think that do when an adult brings a serious complaint against another member but is adamant that they won't go to the cops?

I don't have a thought through opinion on this.

The idea of no justice outside the party runs clear through the DC's reports, even Stacks contribution. I know what the issue is, and i've asked a question of those who would say no recourse to the police no matter what.

 

[Pickman's model]

A political party does not have the victim support services, or the forensics to determine proof of guilt/innocence or access to the judicial system. Wake up man.

the determination of guilt is not the function of the investigation in bourgeois criminal justice but the function of the judiciary. victim support is not an investigative function either.

wake up? you don't even know you're asleep.

 

[kavenism]

you're saying that no doctors or other relevant professionals among the party membership would assist the party authorities in this matter.

That’s very speculative, and I really don’t think they could access the appropriate level of scientific resourses without drawing attention to what they were doing. Then they’d have to answer the same sorts of questions from their detractors. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that from the moment the original alegation was made the party was pretty much fucked whatever it did.

 

[belboid]

fer fucks sake, are we running the entire thread again? With idiotic, ill-thought out, liberal bullshit about how everyone must go to the police, again? Jesus christ, what a waste of time.

 

[Pickman's model]

That’s very speculative, and I really don’t think they could access the appropriate level of scientific resourses without drawing attention to what they were doing. Then they’d have to answer the same sorts of questions from their detractors. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that from the moment the original alegation was made the party was pretty much fucked whatever it did.

what makes you think we agree on that?

 

[brogdale]

the determination of guilt is not the function of the investigation in bourgeois criminal justice but the function of the judiciary. victim support is not an investigative function either.

wake up? you don't even know you're asleep.

So the party proposed to deal with the matter on the basis of no professional victim support, no forensic evidence and with no prospect of justice for either party. Pretty smart, eh?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The idea of no justice outside the party runs clear through the DC's reports, even Stacks contribution. I know what the issue is, and i've asked a question of those who would say no recourse to the police no matter what.

I was just about to say that there's nobody here to answer a question from that perspective, but actually maybe there is.

 

[brogdale]

fer fucks sake, are we running the entire thread again? With idiotic, ill-thought out, liberal bullshit about how everyone must go to the police, again? Jesus christ, what a waste of time.

I don't think anyone posting in the thread has suggested that every victim of rape should report to the police. All the professional support agencies have made that clear for decades.
What is at issue is the responsibility of civil organisations if and when a disclosure is made.