SWP expulsions and squabbles

[butchersapron]

I think you're right. It jumped out at me that nobody referred to that issue anywhere in the transcript.

But surely it's a big issue. There a massive difference between saying that "we cannot be absolutely certain that he did it", and saying "she's probably lying." Which is what the difference would ultimately boil down to.

That specific thing yes, and more as a wider example of the utter incompetence with which this was approached - if this is the case.

 

[cmdrdeathguts]

Just spent some time listening to the cpgb podcast. The analysis of Conrad isn't too far out, though I think he downplays the seriousness of the sexual/ criminal accusations( rightly he does say they should be investigated by the police not a party body).
When he says that the crisis is a crisis of the SWPs political failure, and that it reveals the party's true size of no more than 1000 active members, he's quite right, but this also leaves the cpgb s perspectives right up in the air too. For years they have focused on influencing and adapting themselves to whatever the SWP was doing, the largest revolutionary group in Britain, would in their view provide a large chunk of the cadre for their new unified communist party. That group is now shown to be an addled rump, irreconsiderably split with a leadership willing to absolve serious sexual assault in its determination to remain in power. Where now for Conrad and bridge? A new alignment on workers girder?

Oh, don't you worry about us, comrade. The world is full of walls to bash one's head against.

 

[Athos]

The other thing that jumped out at me is what a farce the whole thing was. The very idea that those with imputed bias (based on a relationship with one of the parties) should fail to recuse themselves militates against the most basic principles of natural justice. Never mind what the evidence was, the hearing was clearly procedurally flawed.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

what options does it leave?

There are no easy answers. Spanky Longhorn's post is good above. But as said in a previous post where do you draw the line. Could the SWP investigate a murder? Could a union branch investigate a rape case and the AGM discuss it? The police are obviously terrible on rape but they are the only ones who could give proper sanctions which could result in someone being unable to carry out more attacks. If someone is a rapist there must a fairly high chance they will do it again. An investigation by the SWP, especially without the guidance SL talks about could actually damage the case and with the inevitable result that a guilty finding will result in police intervention anyway.

 

[sihhi]

I think you're right. It jumped out at me that nobody referred to that issue anywhere in the transcript.

But surely it's a big issue. There a massive difference between saying that "we cannot be absolutely certain that he did it", and saying "she's probably lying." Which is what the difference would ultimately boil down to.

It might have mentioned had things turned out differently on the day:

The main concern for us is that two comrades have come forward, with an allegation of rape and an allegation of sexual harassment. I think the response of ‘not proven’ does not explain in any way, in any sufficient way at all, how those sanctions have been applied, particularly given that two years previously the CC had clearly taken some kind of discussion and action.
The way the CC has dealt with the situation subsequently has very much made the situation worse, by not giving details within the bounds of confidentiality to the NC, for example. And -
(Red ‘stop speaking’ light goes on)

I’m hoping for a little bit of extra time, because people did interrupt me.

KAREN: I’ve given you an extra minute, Viv, I’m afraid. (Viv and Karen talk over each other)

VIV: All I want to say is that it’s very important comrades are clear we are not asking for the disputes committee to re-hear the case. The decision stands. We’re asking that comrades reject the report in recognition that there were serious failings in the way the hearing was conducted, and that a decision of ‘not proven’ does not sufficiently explain how it is that two women can come forward and not be believed. And -
KAREN: No.

You get the feeling someone is being given a limited platform.

 

[Athos]

It might have mentioned had things turned out differently on the day:




You get the feeling someone is being given a limited platform.

I still can't quite believe how it didn't turn out different! How could a majority of those present endorse such an obviously flawed procedure? Bonkers.

 

[emanymton]

The role of the disputes committee is not to judge guilt or innocence but to decide it someone's behavior meets the standard expected of an SWP member (make your own jokes) and therefore whether or not that person should be allowed to remain a member of the SWP. In this case of course the two things are more or less the same as anyone guilty of rape is clearly not fit to be a member of the SWP. The same is not true of all crimes. It is quite conceivable for an SWP member to be found guilty of murder in a court of law while being allowed to retain their membership of the SWP.

 

[emanymton]

I still can't quite believe how it didn't turn out different! How could a majority of those present endorse such an obviously flawed procedure? Bonkers.

Because they allow loyalty to their party to take priority over loyalty to their politics. But I think you already know that.

 

[sihhi]

I still can't quite believe how it didn't turn out different! How could a majority of those present endorse such an obviously flawed procedure? Bonkers.

Because that's how they understood confidentiality:

To conclude, we are obviously – the seven of us – the only people who have heard all the evidence that was brought before us. Because we can’t go into the details, that means that you will have to take our report and the conclusions that we came to really on trust, that we did this correctly. All I can say, all I can emphasise really, is how seriously we took this process. We met over a period of four long days. We were as thorough and meticulous as we could be. And I would like to stress that if we had believed that Comrade Delta was guilty of any misconduct, we would have recommended disciplinary sanctions.

 

[Athos]

Because they allow loyalty to their party to take priority over loyalty to their politics. But I think you already know that.

I think it's fair to say that this incident has not shaken my faith in the SWP.

 

[butchersapron]

The role of the disputes committee is not to judge guilt or innocence but to decide it someone's behavior meets the standard expect of an SWP member (make your own jokes) and therefore whether or not that person should be allowed to remain a member of the SWP. In this case of course the two things are more or less the same as anyone guilty of rape is clearly not fit to be a member of the SWP. The same is not true of all crimes. It is quite conceivable for an SWP member to be found guilty of murder in a court of law while being allowed to retain their membership of the SWP.

They pronounced 'not proven' - they judged his guilt of rape. Or else what was 'not proven? They were not solely judging if he met the waffle standards of party behaviour required. This mixing up of these things (as well as the mixing up of this self selected group as the voice of proletarian justice rather a class court that's been established on that basis) shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.

 

[Athos]

Because that's how they understood confidentiality:

Wrongly, you mean.

You don't have to hear the evidence to know that a tribunal made up of people who know to one of the parties lacks any credibility.

 

[mk12]

shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.

How won't they get away with this? Apart from splitting, can you see anything else coming from of this?

 

[sihhi]

They pronounced 'not proven' - they judged his guilt of rape. Or else what was 'not proven? They were not solely judging if he met the waffle standards of party behaviour required. This mixing up of these things (as well as the mixing up of this self selected group as the voice of proletarian justice rather a class court that's been established on that basis) shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.

There's a reference to probability here in what Pat Stack says:

My disagreement came around the question of sexual harassment, and at the end of the hearing I was very uneasy about that question. After X came forward as a witness, I reached the conclusion that while sexual harassment was still not proven, it was likely that it had occurred. And I also felt that Comrade Delta’s conduct fell short of that that one should expect of a CC member.

Is it conclusively stated in there by the other DC there that Delta did not sexually harass?

 

[butchersapron]

How won't they get away with this? Apart from splitting, can you see anything else coming from of this?

What else can there be? The death of the party - a potential outcome - is all there can be.

 

[butchersapron]

There's a reference to probability here in what Pat Stack says:


Is it conclusively stated in there by the other DC there that Delta did not sexually harass?

That was the verdict 6/1 that he did sexually harrass and 7 unanimous that rape was 'not proven'. Which, horrendously, and i mean really really horrendously was described as coming to a compromise.

Dave S:

There were no witnesses to the events, and there was nothing in terms of evidence and detail that would lead us to believe that Comrade Delta – that it was proved that Comrade Delta (inaudible)

We came to a compromise. The spirit of the ‘not proven’ was that. (inaudible)

 

[sihhi]

A response from Scotland

http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2013/01/06/misogynists-and-the-left/

Anyone know anything about:

a signed statement circulated from women in the party

 

[Nigel Irritable]

That was the verdict 6/1 that he did sexually harrass

I don't think that's accurate.

 

[emanymton]

They pronounced 'not proven' - they judged his guilt of rape. Or else what was 'not proven? They were not solely judging if he met the waffle standards of party behaviour required. This mixing up of these things (as well as the mixing up of this self selected group as the voice of proletarian justice rather a class court that's been established on that basis) shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.

I don't disagree with any of this.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think that's accurate.

Yes, sorry. Wrong way round - pat stack said he did think he was guilty of SH. So 6/1 against.

 

[Athos]

There's a reference to probability here in what Pat Stack says:


Is it conclusively stated in there by the other DC there that Delta did not sexually harass?

Still as clear as mud though. Is he saying that it was more likely than not (i.e. probable) that there was sexual harassment, but that it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt? Did the panel share that view with regard to the sexual harassment and/or the rape? If so, it would mean that there's a member of the CC which the DC think is probably a sex offender! If not, and they believe that he was probably telling the truth, it follows that they believed the woman was probably lying, but they haven't gone so far as to say that. A shambles all round.

 

[cesare]

The role of the disputes committee is not to judge guilt or innocence but to decide it someone's behavior meets the standard expect of an SWP member (make your own jokes) and therefore whether or not that person should be allowed to remain a member of the SWP. In this case of course the two things are more or less the same as anyone guilty of rape is clearly not fit to be a member of the SWP. The same is not true of all crimes. It is quite conceivable for an SWP member to be found guilty of murder in a court of law while being allowed to retain their membership of the SWP.

Well from my link to the constitution, I see that the role of the Disputes Committee is:

(7) Party discipline and the Disputes Committee
Occasionally disputes between members and breaches of normal party discipline may occur. The party has a Disputes Committee to investigate and handle these matters in a principled fashion.
The Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle and to investigate complaints relating to disciplinary matters by its members or units.
The Disputes Committee consists of not more than 12 members. Conference elects up to ten of these, and the incoming CC nominates two.
The Disputes Committee is brought in where local structures prove unable to resolve disputes. Where appropriate, the Disputes Committee may arbitrate between members or party units.
Cases are normally referred to the Disputes Committee by the Central Com- mittee. If a member has a complaint against a member of the CC or a party full-time worker, this is referred directly to the DC.
The DC has the right to refuse to pur- sue complaints if it deems any of the following to be the case:

1. The complaint is frivolous;
2. Based on the evidence presented, there is no case to answer;
3. The comrade concerned is trying to use the DC to win battles already lost in the democratic processes of the party.


In cases of serious breaches, discipli- nary measures such as censure, suspension or expulsion may be taken by the Cen- tral Committee, or by a district or branch committee, subject to confirmation by the Central Committee.

Anyone who is disciplined and is unhappy about their treatment may appeal to the Disputes Committee, who will review the decision and can change or reverse it if they agree. The Disputes Committee may also take such discipli- nary measures as it deems necessary on its own initiative.

Unless the Disputes Committee rules that exceptional circumstances prevail, comrades receive in advance a written statement of the case against them and are present when evidence is given to the DC. They receive a written statement of the DC’s decision

The Disputes Committee may co-opt members to serve for particular investiga- tions. The Disputes Committee reports to Conference, where its activities are sub- ject to endorsement or otherwise.

Which is a bit different, to what you think it is.

 

[sihhi]

I don't think that's accurate.

As I read, it is either 6-1 that Delta did sexually harass or 6-1 that he didn't. It's one or the other, but 7-0 against any charge of rape.

 

[past caring]

Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...

Comrade Alpha from Bristol was expelled from the party for domestic violence. Comrade Beta was suspended for six months for fighting in a nightclub and abusive behaviour, and because he breached his suspension that was extended for a further six months.

Can anyone with more recent experience of the SWP than me (and even when I was in, I didn't ever go to conference) tell me whether delegates/members are provided with any more detail? Because on the face of it this doesn't seem like something the party ought to get involved with, unless there were particular aggravating factors - in which case, you'd think they'd want to say what those aggravating factors were.

Or is that the culture of the SWP really has changed to the extent that this kind of thing is now viewed as a disciplinary offence? (i.e. I had a load of 'non-political' fights with blokes in clubs and pubs when I was still a member - quite a few that district organisers etc got to hear about - and there was never any suggestion that I was going to get shown the door for it).

 

[butchersapron]

"The Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle"

Note, this is listed as the first and primary function.

 

[Athos]

Yes, sorry. Wrong way round - pat stack said he did think he was guilty of SH. So 6/1 against.

Did he actually say that, though? He said it was not proven, but that he thought it likley. Does that mean that whilst he believed it probably happened he could say with sufficient certainty to find Delta 'guilty'?

 

[sihhi]

Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...

Can anyone with more recent experience of the SWP than me (and even when I was in, I didn't ever go to conference) tell me whether delegates/members are provided with any more detail? Because on the face of it this doesn't seem like something the party ought to get involved with, unless there were particular aggravating factors - in which case, you'd think they'd want to say what those aggravating factors were.

Or is that the culture of the SWP really has changed to the extent that this kind of thing is now viewed as a disciplinary offence? (i.e. I had a load of 'non-political' fights with blokes in clubs and pubs when I was still a member - quite a few that district organisers etc got to hear about - and there was never any suggestion that I was going to get shown the door for it).

pc - in the context of Candy discussing chauvinist abuse and DC action against it - it most probably is an aggravating factor of sexist abuse.

 

[butchersapron]

Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...



Can anyone with more recent experience of the SWP than me (and even when I was in, I didn't ever go to conference) tell me whether delegates/members are provided with any more detail? Because on the face of it this doesn't seem like something the party ought to get involved with, unless there were particular aggravating factors - in which case, you'd think they'd want to say what those aggravating factors were.

Or is that the culture of the SWP really has changed to the extent that this kind of thing is now viewed as a disciplinary offence? (i.e. I had a load of 'non-political' fights with blokes in clubs and pubs when I was still a member - quite a few that district organisers etc got to hear about - and there was never any suggestion that I was going to get shown the door for it).

...and within a report back that repeatedly emphasised it's distance from bourgeois morals and judgementalism and its refusal to stick its finger in private life.

 

[past caring]

..and within a report back that repeatedly emphasised it's distance from bourgeois morals and judgementalism and its refusal to stick its finger in private life.

Exactly.

 

[butchersapron]

Did he actually say that, though? He said it was not proven, but that he thought it likley. Does that mean that whilst he believed it probably happened he could say with sufficient certainty to find Delta 'guilty'?

After X came forward as a witness, I reached the conclusion that while sexual harassment was still not proven, it was likely that it had occurred.

Yes -as you say. But, we're drifting into discussing the 'verdict' rather than the 'investigation' right now. Don't think we should be (and i did help move it towards this i know)