SWP expulsions and squabbles

[ViolentPanda]

Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......

Fewer!!!

 

[Plumdaff]

Sure, but the SWP do have that - just not one designed for such a high profile member.

No organisation should have members of its executive on its disputes committee - in fact in most organisations it would be expressly forbidden for, I had thought, obvious reasons. It's deeply unjust to all members.

 

[butchersapron]

Two things I guess.

First given my experiences of the SWP the whole thing does not surprise me much, it is more or less how I would expect them to act.

Secondly I know some of the people from the disputes committee and they should not have been allowed anywhere near any kind of dispute let alone one this serious.

Why defend that party that produces that for a single second then?

 

[frogwoman]

out of interest, do people think any other left wing group, like say the SP, CPGB, etc, would handle a case like this any better?

seems to me that a lot of the weird secrecy etc may be because of a desire to not "damage" the party (of course its going to be damaged anyway, and even more so if theres a suspected rapist in it with nothing being done) whats depressing is its being dressed up with bullshit about democratic centralism and "political" "principles" by the CC

 

[belboid]

I've just read the SWP Constitution and it appears that DC is the old CCC renamed. There's no mention of a Control Commission in the Constitution any more and the section about the DC says that it looks after both issues of dispute between members and into matters of "ordinary party discipline". It also says that the leadership directly appoints (not subjection to election) two of its members.

Quite aside from the kind of issue which arose at this conference, which is way outside what such a body is really designed to deal with, it seems to me to be pretty remarkable to have a body with Central Committee members on it as the body to adjudicate disputes between the CC and rank and file members. I don't see how that can possible inspire confidence in any rank and file member that they'd get a fair hearing if they were in dispute with the CC.

Did they have a separate report on the expulsion of Paris et al? I don't get why that isn't coved in the same session. Nevertheless, in my experience, the commission mainly dealt with matters like pub brawls rather than political issues. Then again, I guess that was much of the political culture, people got expelled for ostensibly non-political reasons. Many of those that did get politically disciplined don't bother appealing either.

From what I've read in the transcript, I agree that they didn't fully separate investigation and hearing. I'm also not convinced that the experience that they cited is the same thing as being competent/skills. Some of those questions should never have been asked, for example.

There's no reference to police involvement and whilst I understand (but don't agree) why, this really shouldn't have been an obstacle in enabling the complainant to go to the police.

And yes, the decision makers found it too hard to objectively deal with a peer, and there was no recourse for appeal.

Obviously, previous sexual history should never ever play any part in questioning - and the fact no one denies that was asked is shocking. But I don't know how much we can comment on the questions asked beyond that. We have a minuscule amount of detail about the detail of a four day process. She does have an appeal tho - essentially it's conference.

I really don't think that an agreement with any rival, organisation is at all practical? Who the hell would agree to do it? And why should the members - of either organisation - believe they would do so fairly?

The police thing is somewhat separate, I think, as we all know the reasons why women don't report, and the likelihood of getting any kind of prosecution at that stage. But, more to the point, I don't know whether they do encourage women to complain to the police or not. If they do, I couldn't entirely blame them for not publicising the fact.

 

[mk12]

seems to me that a lot of the weird secrecy etc may be because of a desire to not "damage" the party

This is inherent in all Leninist parties.

I've just read the last few pages of this thread and, even by the SWP's standards, this is shocking.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

out of interest, do people think any other left wing group, like say the SP, CPGB, etc, would handle a case like this any better?

Better, probably. Adequately, I very much doubt it. I just don't think that small activist groups of any kind are really in much of a position to properly and fairly investigate really extremely serious allegations of criminality and they certainly aren't in a position to impose serious sanctions on anyone who is actually found to have committed such an act.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Did they have a separate report on the expulsion of Paris et al? I don't get why that isn't coved in the same session.

I don't understand this either but at least as far as the SWP Constitution is concerned, its the same body that would deal with both.

She does have an appeal tho - essentially it's conference

I'm not sure that this is correct, at least if some of the contributions in the transcript are accurately reported.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm not sure the SWP conference is the best vehicle for rape allegations to be heard

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm not sure the SWP conference is the best vehicle for rape allegations to be heard

Something of an understatement.

 

[cesare]

Belboid, I suppose what I'm saying in a nutshell, is that we shouldn't expect a lower standard of handling sexual harassment/assault allegations from a small left wing organisation than we expect from small employers. And when you factor in that some organisation members are also trade union reps and used to holding employers to account, they should be holding their own organisation to account in the same way.

 

[emanymton]

Why defend that party that produces that for a single second then?

I was not aware I was defending them, but anyway there are some people in the SWP I would defend but not the party as a whole. My problem is I still tend to agree with the SWP's formal position on most issues, not democratic centralism as it happens I have given up on that idea.

 

[emanymton]

I don't understand this either but at least as far as the SWP Constitution is concerned, its the same body that would deal with both.

It almost looks like the 4 expulsions where not refereed to the Disputes committee but handled directly by the CC, but surely not even the SWP CC could get away with that?

I'm not sure that this is correct, at least if some of the contributions in the transcript are accurately reported.

It's bizarre, conference can decided not to approve the disputes committee report but not overturn it's decisions. SO if someone gets expelled and conference then refuse to approve the DC report the expulsion still stands? Maybe they would be allowed to join again? Also I noticed the report as a whole was voted on not each individual case.

 

[butchersapron]

I was not aware I was defending them, but anyway there are some people in the SWP I would defend but not the part as a whole. My problem is I still tend to agree with the SWP's formal position on most issues, not democratic centralism as it happens I have given up on that idea.

Which idea?

 

[emanymton]

Which idea?

Democratic centralism

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I've gotta say I take back some of what I said earlier. This is a fucking madness, I thought this was just some stupid bun fight in an irrelevant far left group, but this is actually really serious.

I think the point that a person came off the commission because they knew W but all the people stayed on who knew Delta is a madness. As is questioning women about how much they drink and who they have slept with.

But more to the point why wasn't the first thing done was to try and convince W to refer this to the police? How can the SWP possibly think that they are qualified to undertake a rape investigation? It's beyond belief. What if forensics were involved, like an old item of clothing that was kept? Are they gonna send a panel member round to do CSI tests? It's just beyond belief that anyone would think it's ok for a political organisation to investigate a rape case. What about a murder case? Would that be ok to look in to as well?

Further to this if there was an investigation by a political group that was totally flawed, could there be the potential for them to face criminal charges in terms of inteferring with a criminal case? The whole thing is beyond belief.

 

[Santiagotalk]

I'm not sure the SWP conference is the best vehicle for rape allegations to be heard

The SWP conference did not hear rape allegations. It was asked to approve a Dispute committee report.

 

[cesare]

The SWP conference did not hear rape allegations. It was asked to approve a Dispute committee report.

The only possible form of appeal was via the Conference though.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

It was asked to approve a dispute committee report, but in doing so fairly detailed stuff was talked about in terms of the rape allegation and sexual harassment.

It is beyond bizarre that this kind of thing was talked about to 100s of people while the alleged rape victim was waiting outside the building for people to come and talk to her afterwards. It's just utter madness.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I'll be honest until I read the transcript I mostly just thought all this pallaver in the SWP was a laugh, I wanted to see them fuck it up and destroy themselves.

But not like this, it's disgusting, and sad, and they only have themselves to blame.

 

[cesare]

To be fair, It's entirely up to the complainant whether she reports it to the police or not. But this is one of the issues that's unclear - whether or not part of their investigation process deals with what happens with confidentiality at each stage (they only appear to have addressed the issue of confidentiality at a *very* superficial level, if that).

And she could always change her mind about going to the OB at any point of course ...

 

[Oisin123]

www.thepeerage.com/p49057.htm[/url]

Unless he has dropped 'Hugo' and has a birthday on 4 April.

Further down the page is:
Children of Timothy Roy Henry Kimber and Antonia Kathleen Brenda Williams

• Rupert Edward Watkin Kimber2 b. 20 Jun 1962
• Hugo Charles Kimber2 b. 4 Apr 1964

 

[Santiagotalk]

It was asked to approve a dispute committee report, but in doing so fairly detailed stuff was talked about in terms of the rape allegation and sexual harassment.

It is beyond bizarre that this kind of thing was talked about to 100s of people while the alleged rape victim was waiting outside the building for people to come and talk to her afterwards. It's just utter madness.

The details of what was said by the two parties to the disputes committee was not discussed at all at the conference because it was confidential to protect both parties. How could the conference arrangments committee allow one side of the argument to be presented at the conference in person when the other person was not present? The women who asked to speake to the conference had up to the conference had asked not to be identified.

At least comrade your were at the conference and can give a valid opinion on the situation. There are far too many people on here who are putting forward their opinions without even taking the time to read the Dispute Committee report! You can see that by the some of the confused points being made.

Finally its also evident that there are many people on here who are experts at this sort of thing. Yet for some reason they fail to explain how they would sort out this issue, or they retreat into the usual urban 75 stuff of taking the piss.

Everyone of the 700 people at the SWP conference were noy happy about the situation, but at the end of the day we have to move on. Conference after a two houe session voted to accept the
report and that is the end of the matter.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Strange the number of first ever posts this thread has attracted

 

[cesare]

Strange the number of first ever posts this thread has attracted

Likewise with the LP one.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The details of what was said by the two parties to the disputes committee was not discussed at all at the conference because it was confidential to protect both parties.

What appeal process exists for a party unhappy with the outcome of such an investigation?

There are far too many people on here who are putting forward their opinions without even taking the time to read the Dispute Committee report! You can see that by the some of the confused points being made.

What confused points are you referring to?

Finally its also evident that there are many people on here who are experts at this sort of thing. Yet for some reason they fail to explain how they would sort out this issue

There has been considerable discussion here of the drastic problems that dealing with any allegation of serious criminality would pose for a small activist group, which I don't see you engaging with at all.

Everyone of the 700 people at the SWP conference were noy happy about the situation, but at the end of the day we have to move on. Conference after a two houe session voted to accept the
report and that is the end of the matter.

Bloody hell.

 

[cesare]

700 SWP members just at the conference. That's not a small organisation.

 

[discokermit]

that is the end of the matter.

y'reckon?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Everyone of the 700 people at the SWP conference were noy happy about the situation, but at the end of the day we have to move on. Conference after a two houe session voted to accept the
report and that is the end of the matter.

Yes move on and don't discuss the fact that two of your members don't feel their complaints of serious sexual misconduct were taken seriously.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Santiagotalk details clearly were discussed. From how much women drank, to whether they had slept with people, to how they felt. One of the women alleging sexual harassment was talking about her experience. Can't you see how bizarre it was to discuss all this in front of 500 people while the alleged rape victim stood outside, and presumably the alleged rapist sat inside the hall. It's insane.

And so what if the woman who asked to speak to the conference had asked not to be identified up until that point? Can't she change her mind?

I've told you how this should be sorted. It is a serious criminal matter, and if possible should be dealt with by the police. As I said what next, the SWP investigating a murder case? Also if it does end up as a criminal case how can the SWP won't know it won't be done for intefering in a criminal case?

If you think this is the end of the matter you are massively mistaken. Apart from anything else the sexual harassment allegation hasn't even been formally heard yet!