Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
What? Some small political groups have already published their stance on how to deal with rape allegations?
Do you have links?
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
What? Some small political groups have already published their stance on how to deal with rape allegations?
Do you have links?
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Btw Saville should have a SWP member, as he would be perfectly ok under their watch.
We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those.
We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
For example:
http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/britain-solfed-statement-about-sexual.html?m=1
I imagine they don't provide public access to the processes they use.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
"I want to move on to how we came to our decisions, and some of the questions that we discussed in advance. So we were asked by the chair to, if any of us felt that we were too close to any of the parties involved, or if we felt that we would be seen to not be objective in any way, to rule ourselves out. One comrade who was from W’s district did do that.
We then discussed the situation that we all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the central committee, and none of us knew W or knew her well. We agreed that we would have to be especially careful to take that into account in the way that we dealt with this."
No truck with bourgeois impartiality
We then discussed the situation that we all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the central committee, and none of us knew W or knew her well. We agreed that we would have to be especially careful to take that into account in the way that we dealt with this."
No truck with bourgeois impartiality
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
The SWP aren't happy
"Charlie Kimber To office@socialistunity.com
Dear Andy Newman,
I am shocked and outraged that you have published a transcript of the Disputes Committee session at the recent SWP conference. It is of course fundamentally an attack on the individuals involved and their right to speak openly about these events. They did so in the belief that what they said was for the people in the room only. You – and whoever sent you this information – have betrayed that trust.
Did it occur to you to contact anyone involved in the case, or any of the people who are readily identifiable from this transcript before you published it?
It is also an assault on the SWP, its democracy, and our attempts to deal with this issue fairly.
Organisations that have to deal with personal cases and allegations of this sort deserve the right to privacy about the details of the proceedings. Do you think that trade unions, for example, should publish transcripts of such cases?
I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity.
You should never have published the transcript and should take it down immediately.
Charlie Kimber , SWP national secretary"
"Charlie Kimber To office@socialistunity.com
Dear Andy Newman,
I am shocked and outraged that you have published a transcript of the Disputes Committee session at the recent SWP conference. It is of course fundamentally an attack on the individuals involved and their right to speak openly about these events. They did so in the belief that what they said was for the people in the room only. You – and whoever sent you this information – have betrayed that trust.
Did it occur to you to contact anyone involved in the case, or any of the people who are readily identifiable from this transcript before you published it?
It is also an assault on the SWP, its democracy, and our attempts to deal with this issue fairly.
Organisations that have to deal with personal cases and allegations of this sort deserve the right to privacy about the details of the proceedings. Do you think that trade unions, for example, should publish transcripts of such cases?
I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity.
You should never have published the transcript and should take it down immediately.
Charlie Kimber , SWP national secretary"
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It is, and it should be.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I'm afraid I can't extract anything of substance from that. It's a vague statement of good intentions apart from a (similarly vague) defence of excluding people from "our spaces" (undefined) when allegations have been made.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
So partiality/impartiality re the alleged victim = bad whereas partiality/impartialty re the accused means they gave to be "especially careful". Fuck me this stinks...
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Aye.
Though he's right about this I suspect:
"I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity."
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The news is that he's from a banker family. Don't know - shouldn't matter but it might. But as role as industrial organiser..
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He's 100% correct in that and i hate people who deny it in the name of something better.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It's a statement that they (for example) have acknowledged that sexual assault can occur within anarchist and activist communities, that they will take allegations seriously, and take steps to deal with it. As I said, the internal steps/processes that they use are not posted publically.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Not being funny but, wrong time (although on reflection, it's exactly right - apols)
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Yes, that's what I mean. At that level of abstraction there's nobody at all who would disagree with it. But it doesn't get us very far, precisely because it's so obvious. What do they mean by "activist communities"? What "steps to deal with it"? How? By what means?
It's a statement of vague good intentions, not a framework for dealing with v. serious allegations of wrongdoing. I don't mean to put the boot in and I'm sure that it is well intentioned, but I don't see how it addresses the real problems a small activist group would have in dealing with very serious issues.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nah, it does feed into who gets to judge this case and how.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Who is "us" and what do you want to take you further?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Rotten DC apples. Produced from a different tree.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
With CKs dad dead does that make him a baronet now?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Us= People who give a shit about allegations of sexual misconduct on the socialist left.
As for taking us further, you linked to that document in response to me saying: "Even with training, I don't see how a small political group overlapping heavily with social circles can be in a position to give people a "fair" hearing even by the low standards of the criminal justice system. And what sanction are they going to apply if someone is found to have done something v. serious? "You can't be in a our marginal political grouping any more?"
The article doesn't address those points in any meaningful way.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Well I'm sorry that it doesn't live up to SP go-to standards, which you'll perhaps furnish us with?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I have no idea why you seem to be getting defensive about this, or why you think I am singling SolFed out. I made a broad point about the problems which would face any small political group in dealing with very serious allegations of a sexual nature. I didn't exclude the SP from that or anyone else. I am absolutely not trying to score points.
I was genuinely interested when you responded by saying that some groups had addressed these problems recently and so I asked for a link. Unfortunately, at least as far as I can see the link you provided doesn't really address the problems I was talking about in a substantial way, confining itself largely to rather vague statements of good intentions. I don't think that there's anything wrong with stating good intentions, but I don't think that really answers most of the key issues that arise.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
If there were such a tribunal, you'd have been riding a tumbril long ago, matey!
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I'm not defensive, I'm annoyed. There was a much more in depth conversation on the LP thread about sexual assaults and safe guarding and there were a number of links on there. You wanted links again rather than going back to the LP thread so I just picked one at random that was easily searchable. There's far more detail where I originally said there was and I don't see much point repeating it here rather than you going there to see for yourself (if you don't remember).
Further, the statement I linked to goes further than good intentions as I've already pointed out. And also, those intentions have already been put into action cf the tout for example.
In terms of information for small political groups, my point still stands that some of these "small" groups are a damn sight larger than employers who are expected to carry out investigations into sexual harassment and assault and do so. And I have already set out how the basic process should work, which can be adapted according to the relevant organisation.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
There are 11,500 posts on the LP thread! Saying that something is discussed there isn't really very useful, you know. I asked for a link because you seemed to know who these groups were and what they were saying. I'm honestly baffled that you think that was some kind of unreasonable imposition.
cesare said:
It really doesn't, and I think I've somehow missed you pointing this out.
How does it go beyond good intentions?
It says in a rather vague and long winded way that it supports "community accountability" (undefined), that it supports excluding "perpetrators" (accused people surely?) from "our spaces" (undefined) once an allegation has been made, that it wants to learn from feminist traditions of community accountability (still undefined), that sexual allegations can't be seen in isolation from the sexism of society and that "activist communities" (undefined) perpetuate and reflect this sexism.
Is there something else here that I'm missing? How does any of this address the very real problems facing small left groups where an allegation of serious sexual misconduct has been made? Even if you accept all of it, (and there probably isn't much in it that a member of the SWP DC would balk at!) how does it enable a small group of people, most of whom know one or both of the parties and are involved in overlapping social circles with them, with no investigative powers, experience or apparatus and no sanctions other than exclusion from a marginal political group, to deal with that sort of allegation in a fair and reasonable way?
cesare said:
I wouldn't expect a small company, where friendship circles overlap heavily and one or both parties is known to the investigating authority to be able to give reliably fair outcomes either.
cesare said:
Where have you set this out?
Similar threads
