SWP expulsions and squabbles

[ViolentPanda]

Several people have made very sensible and thoughtful contributions; at least having a good discussion on the possibility of doing it better. And likewise some people who were sympathetic to the SWP have commented that they're shocked by this.

Your decision to simply say that everyone's "mad" makes your post very easy to just dismiss.

You mean you don't dismiss belboid's posts out of hand?

Sorry belbers, couldn't resist!

 

[belboid]

Several people have made very sensible and thoughtful contributions; at least having a good discussion on the possibility of doing it better. And likewise some people who were sympathetic to the SWP have commented that they're shocked by this.

Your decision to simply say that everyone's "mad" makes your post very easy to just dismiss.

I didnt say 'everyone' I refered to a few posts. Only one of which attempted to make any practical suggestions, tho I dont honestly see how they would have made a significant difference if they were implementable at all.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

As I edited my post to above, there is also the issue that if the SWP had found Comrade Delta of rape there is absolutely no chance that this wouldn't be picked up by the media and then the police.

 

[cesare]

It should always be the complainant's choice whether or not police assistance/investigation is required. Calling the OB against the complainant's wishes could be as traumatic for her as the original alleged offence.

I agree. However, one of the most important aspects (and expanding further about what I said back <<<< there) is about checking each stage of confidentiality.

We don't know what was said when the complaint of rape was first raised. We don't know if the complainant was fully informed of what to expect, and that at anytime there may have been a requirement to obtain legal advice and/or report to the police. We don't know what range of options she was given (including but not limited to; referring to qualified rape advisor & counselling, support to report to police with accompaniment, undertaking to carry out investigation with proviso of extent of confidentiality/legal requirements etc etc) and if those options were double checked with her at each stage so there were no nasty surprises and feeling left adrift.

 

[Plumdaff]

And to add to above there are two women here who both feel that they have been treated badly by the internal investigation, one of whom not only has not had her case fully heard yet but is also alleging discrimination at work. I wouldn't be 100% confident that the police or a tribunal aren't eventually involved regardless of how people may have felt at the start.

 

[butchersapron]

To go back to something earlier - some reports on sunday night after the DC vote suggested that the majority (i.e those who voted to accpet the DC report) were chanting "liar(s)" at people. I have no idea if this is true, does anyone? And if so who was it being chanted at and what were they being accused of lying about?

 

[belboid]

The issue isn't really what else could have been done given that W did not want at that time to go to the police. The question surely is, given that fact, why minimal standards of competent investigation were not met i.e how the path that had to be taken at that point was so shitly done, not whether that path was right. And btw that path does not have to entail a simple 7 person body hearing reports/evidence and that it's, sihhi outlined many other options that existed within taking that path that would have gone some way to ensuring those minimal standards were met.

sihhi's suggestions would make either a tiny difference or just would not work. I might be prepared to change my mind on the latter when someone from the SP comes and says who they are going to trade investigation of there serious complaints with, but until then.... Come on, we all know thats a complete non-starter.

And it omits the basic democracy question - that all party members are subject to the same discipline, no special rules for senior members. That needs dealing with too for the whole process to be fair. Dont forget, if Delta was expelled, effectively thrown out of his job, he could sue the party if they weren't unscrupulpously fair to him too! A fucking mindfield.

I believe that the only "safe" way for the SWP to investigate a leading member would have been to commission someone outside the party to do a bit of digging around comrade delta's history within the party, to establish whether he had a reputation for being a bit of a pest with female members. We both know how gossip-ridden the SWP is.

here is an attempt at a better solution, but not one without its own humungous problems. Who appoints the outsider? The only fair way to do this is through a special conference, so that it is democratic, or through the existing democratic structures - CC/DC anyone? None of those are satisfactory, are they? Why would anyone else agree to carry out such a role? An absolutely poisonous one that whoever it was couldn't come out of well. They would be accused of factionalism if they took any strong position, and of uselessness if they didn't. It might make things look a tiny bit better (depending who they were of course), but that'd be it. Also, we dont know what questions were asked around the districts. Its possible they did do those things, we have only a few tiny details of what investigation actually took place. We (seemingly) know some things they asked they shouldn't have but we have no idea what they asked that were sharp and insightful questions, we're just guessing - and making guesses based upon our own existing prejudices.

 

[belboid]

In what sense am I being hypocritical? By saying women who get raped should be encouraged to go to the police?

well, by being one of those workers militia lot now sayoing nothing beyond 'go to the police'. You are STILL refusing to say what you would do when the woman refuses to do so. UNtil you do, nothing you say has any merit.

The person who was accused should be suspended by the organisation immediately. That didn't happen as far as I know

Yes it did, which just shows you didnt bother to read the report very closely.

 

[butchersapron]

sihhi's suggestions would make either a tiny difference or just would not work. I might be prepared to change my mind on the latter when someone from the SP comes and says who they are going to trade investigation of there serious complaints with, but until then.... Come on, we all know thats a complete non-starter.

And it omits the basic democracy question - that all party members are subject to the same discipline, no special rules for senior members. That needs dealing with too for the whole process to be fair. Dont forget, if Delta was expelled, effectively thrown out of his job, he could sue the party if they weren't unscrupulpously fair to him too! A fucking mindfield.

here is an attempt at a better solution, but not one without its own humungous problems. Who appoints the outsider? The only fair way to do this is through a special conference, so that it is democratic, or through the existing democratic structures - CC/DC anyone? None of those are satisfactory, are they? Why would anyone else agree to carry out such a role? An absolutely poisonous one that whoever it was couldn't come out of well. They would be accused of factionalism if they took any strong position, and of uselessness if they didn't. It might make things look a tiny bit better (depending who they were of course), but that'd be it. Also, we dont know what questions were asked around the districts. Its possible they did do those things, we have only a few tiny details of what investigation actually took place. We (seemingly) know some things they asked they shouldn't have but we have no idea what they asked that were sharp and insightful questions, we're just guessing - and making guesses based upon our own existing prejudices.

The quality of the suggestions is not the key here, the key is that the investigation carried out was quite clearly a shambles that served only one group of people. If, as you seem to suggest, the SWP made the best choice to have this investigation (note: not the result of that investigation) as they could in those circumstances at that time, it doesn't follow that you must think that way it was done was even minimally adequate. It wasn't. And again, because you (a general you here) may think the way that it was done was squalid and undermined not only the process but the wider party, it doesn't mean that there were no other options available (even if you reject specific ones). Woods trees situation here bellers and i think you're getting a bit lost in repelling what you see as sectarian attacks and reducing it down to two options - go the police or support the results of this investigation (not the process).

 

[lazythursday]

well, by being one of those workers militia lot now sayoing nothing beyond 'go to the police'. You are STILL refusing to say what you would do when the woman refuses to do so. UNtil you do, nothing you say has any merit.

Surely this is blindingly obvious. The DC should have put some clear parameters around the investigation. W should have been told that, clearly, it would be ludicrous for the DC to act as a kangaroo court on a rape charge. She should take that to the proper authorities (and be fully supported to do so). But if she wouldn't, then the DC could hold an investigation into matters of improper behaviour including sexual harassment on party premises / linked to party business including social events.

The DC would then probably need to appoint a new, more independent team, and take advice from external experts on the best way to proceed with such an investigation. Sexual harassment claims are hardly new - there's plenty of best practice out there on how to go about it. But it appears all that is insignificant compared with upholding the interests of the party. Sheer lunacy, and a glimpse into a seriously twisted little world.

 

[belboid]

go the police or support the results of this investigation (not the process).

you have a point butch. Many of the attacks here are based on only the police can deal with this, or the SWP, because of there internal structures/general theory on womens oppression, cannot possibly do so. If those are posters' positions, then everything else being argued about is essentialy irrelevant, as those things cannot be changed, but they were what the complainant chose to do.

e2a: also, altho it sounds rather like I'm defending the SWP#s particular practise, I dont really mean to, I just dont believe anyone else's organisation would do a particularly better job of it.

The alternative to the police isnt just accept the results, but not the process, tho. As said, I am somewhat loath to comment on an investigation we have heard the bare bones of, tho if it is true, as it seems to be, that someone asked about previous sexual history, the result should be thrown out, no more questions asked. Following that, various improvements could be made - including all participants, in any disciplinary case, being told that such a hearing could prejudice any attempt at a later court hearing, if that isnt done already (we dont know), a somewhat differently composed committee, maybe an external investigator. Yup, they'd be a bit better, but they wouldnt mean that no prick would ever ask about previous sexual history, or somehing similarly stupid.

 

[belboid]

Surely this is blindingly obvious. The DC should have put some clear parameters around the investigation. W should have been told that, clearly, it would be ludicrous for the DC to act as a kangaroo court on a rape charge. She should take that to the proper authorities (and be fully supported to do so). But if she wouldn't, then the DC could hold an investigation into matters of improper behaviour including sexual harassment on party premises / linked to party business including social events.

The DC would then probably need to appoint a new, more independent team, and take advice from external experts on the best way to proceed with such an investigation. Sexual harassment claims are hardly new - there's plenty of best practice out there on how to go about it. But it appears all that is insignificant compared with upholding the interests of the party. Sheer lunacy, and a glimpse into a seriously twisted little world.

Sexual harassment claims have been investigated by the party many times, as I've said, I know that various DC members have supported complainants in the party and in their unions, I do believe they know how those processes work. That isnt the problem, the problem is with it being a comrade they all know so well. And the DC appointing a replacement team wouldn't really be appropriate, would it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

And the DC appointing a replacement team wouldn't really be appropriate, would it?

That's what the SWP Constitution appears to allow for though. The DC can coopt members for a particular investigation, and, as seen in the transcript, DC members can withdraw.

 

[belboid]

That's what the SWP Constitution appears to allow for though. The DC can coopt members for a particular investigation, and, as seen in the transcript, DC members can withdraw.

I appreciate that, but would anyone else really be satisfied with that? Trusting a possibly biased person to pick an unbiased replacement?

Btw - could you name an alternative organisation you think the SP would be happy to oversee its internal investigations?

 

[lazythursday]

And the DC appointing a replacement team wouldn't really be appropriate, would it?

I'm not sure if you mean that it's not within their power or simply that they are so tainted by association that their appointments couldn't be bias-free. It surely would have been better for them to have attempted to find a team that had little prior contact with Comrade Delta.

Of course, that would probably have meant appointing relatively new members. Who would be less politically educated in the SWP tradition, and therefore less controllable.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Btw - could you name an alternative organisation you think the SP would be happy to oversee its internal investigations?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I appreciate that, but would anyone else really be satisfied with that? Trusting a possibly biased person to pick an unbiased replacement?

That's a perverse way of looking at it. The issue is would you rather have one party's close associates judging the case while trying to be unbiased, or would you rather have people with little or no connection to either party chosen by those associates trying to be unbiased. The latter isn't perfect, but it would give rise to much less of a reasonable apprehension of prejudice.

 

[belboid]

I'm not sure if you mean that it's not within their power or simply that they are so tainted by association that their appointments couldn't be bias-free. It surely would have been better for them to have attempted to find a team that had little prior contact with Comrade Delta.

Of course, that would probably have meant appointing relatively new members. Who would be less politically educated in the SWP tradition, and therefore less controllable.

less controllable in terms of asking appropriate questions to a victim of sexual harassment, or to a very senior party member who they don't usually get to question at all - as well as less controllable in coming to an appropriate finding. And would they command the respect and support of the rest of the party in coming to a decision? If they cant do that....

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

see post 631 (amongst others) - it is a suggestion for a possible alternative way of dealing with such issues, asking another group to do it for you

 

[belboid]

That's a perverse way of looking at it. The issue is would you rather have one party's close associates judging the case while trying to be unbiased, or would you rather have people with little or no connection to either party chosen by those associates trying to be unbiased. The latter isn't perfect, but it would give rise to much less of a reasonable apprehension of prejudice.

I agree. But who chooses them?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I agree. But who chooses them?

The DC chooses them.

 

[belboid]

And, in similar circumstances, at the next conference they would be accused of picking people who they thought would choose the 'right' answer.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Anyone can be accused of anything. So what? It's not ideal for people close to one if the parties to be involved in finding unconnected adjudicators. But it's infinitely better than for people in that situation to be doing the judging themselves.

 

[belboid]

An elected body being replaced by a hand picked one is never going to be 'infinitely' better.

E2a: at best, it is a 'least bad' alternative

 

[Bun]

Real power I mean.

They wont! > fondles worry beads<

 

[cesare]

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.

How many members are there on the DC? (ie what proportion are elected)

 

[belboid]

How many members are there on the DC? (ie what proportion are elected)

It's either 6 or 8, not all of whom sit on every hearing. There were 5 +2 in this hearing.



In other news, the SWP have been excluded from the Unite United Left for supporting Jerry Hicks for GS. Senior SW bods from both (all) sides of the split play significant roles within the UL, so it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

well, by being one of those workers militia lot now sayoing nothing beyond 'go to the police'. You are STILL refusing to say what you would do when the woman refuses to do so. UNtil you do, nothing you say has any merit.

Sorry can you point out where I have been "one of those workers militia lot"? Maybe quote a post? Didn't think so.

You have still refused to say what you would do if someone made a murder accusation? Let the the dispute's committee deal with it? You think that has any merit? You think a conference of 500 people discussing a rape accusation while the alleged rape victims stands outside has any merit? You think that the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would inevitably lead to media publicity and a police investigation has any merit by your view? And a not guilty verdict could also do this? Do you think that this kangeroo court, which is there to uphold the party (as quoted), could undermine a subsequent criminal trial has any merit?

There are no perfect answers here but the SWP investigating it seems to be the worst of all worlds, especially as it was such a flawed investigation which left both women feeling shattered by the experience.

There are two different issues here. Firstly the SWP carrying out the investigation, which I think is wrong, and secondly how they carried it out, which seems extremely flawed, which is also the view of the two women who have alleged rape and sexual harassment.

Would a trade union branch carry out a rape investigation? If someone said this was inappropriate is it therefore ok to say that what they say has no merit?

 

[cesare]

So is there a Disputes Committee *and* a Democracy Commission? Or are they the same thing?

Oh! I've just found the constitution! It's at the end of this bulletin: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/PreConf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2012.pdf

 

[dennisr]

It's either 6 or 8, not all of whom sit on every hearing. There were 5 +2 in this hearing.
In other news, the SWP have been excluded from the Unite United Left for supporting Jerry Hicks for GS. Senior SW bods from both (all) sides of the split play significant roles within the UL, so it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

I guess that, in terms of real world politics, this is probably more important than the internal shenagains - what influence does the SWP play in the UL and within the wider union - Unite - though ?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Not a lot from what I know about people in UNITE, but on this question I think they've got it right. In my view McCluskey's record is very bad.

Also as far as I can see Martin Smith has never been asked to step down as national officer of UAF. If he was suspended (I did miss that one), then why wasn't he asked to step down in the UAF?