SWP expulsions and squabbles

[october_lost]

Who is the second allegation against? Is it in the public domain and I just missed it?

ETA I think I got it off the previous blog.

 

[Before Theory]

It

Who is the second allegation against? Is it in the public domain and I just missed it?

ETA I think I got it off the previous blog.

It's against the ex Sheffield organiser, who coincidentally shares a surname with Delta (who the first allegation was against).

 

[redsquirrel]

No, of course not. You're still not getting my point. Of course they shouldn't just shrug their shoulders, but they shouldn't set out to judge whether or not the complaint is valid. They should tell the person to go to the police. Otherwise they will end up having to ask embarrasing questions of the complainant (as the SWP seems to have done) or to question the accused without him being able to plead the Fifth Amendment or invoke any of the protections that civil rights lawyers have fought for over the years. If the accused is convincted in a proper court of law, then something could be done but not before. Anyway, that's my personal view.

And when the accuser doesn't want to go to the police, like in this very case, what should people do then?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.

Not only doesn't it follow what you wrote above, its also wrong....unless you believe that we act (including personally) in circumstances of our own choosing or you choose to define the political so narrowly that it is useless. So which are you going for, stupid or useless?

Louis MacNeice

 

[The39thStep]

http://hurryupharry.org/2013/03/09/...-workers-party-figure/#comments#disqus_thread
perp.named in comments

The political level of debate in those comments is astounding.

 

[SLK]

When i went on his FB page , it said you had to be a 'friend' to view it, is this correct?

Yes, but it's going to get out now the victim is saying she's formulating a blog post.

 

[Jean-Luc]

And when the accuser doesn't want to go to the police, like in this very case, what should people do then?

Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?

 

[butchersapron]

Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?

You know those utopian socialists and communists that marx criticised for building abstract models out of their own heads rather than out of real conditions, real experience and the possibilities the meeting of the two contained?

 

[ViolentPanda]

unlike certain others I have demonstrated my concern for women's rights in action, not in pc moralising

I'd say that most people with any decency live our involvement in womens' rights, so we don't have to "demonstrate" anything, whereas you....


...you keep successfully demonstrating that you're like a repro piece of furniture. A thin veneer concealing the structure of crap that lies beneath.

BTW, pulling Hilary's chair out for her - not "demonstrating your concern for womens' rights in action". Neither is going on an occasional protest.

HTH.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?

So you choose useless...glad you cleared that up.

Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

The political level of debate in those comments is astounding.

I suspect you're confusing "debate" and "mutual reacharound".

 

[Jean-Luc]

So you choose useless...

Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.

 

[The39thStep]

I suspect you're confusing "debate" and "mutual reacharound".

I have high expectations which are often dashed

 

[cesare]

Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.

You think a no tolerance approach to DV and sexual abuse is a "lynch mob". Good grief.

 

[Jean-Luc]

You think a no tolerance approach to DV and sexual abuse is a "lynch mob".

Of course not, but many people here are assuming that, in the individual cases that are being discussed, the accused are guilty and should be punished when they are in no position to know whether or not they are.

 

[butchersapron]

Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.

Your defence of your idiot-utopianism (and the perfect bourgeois separation into private life/citizen life that marx railed against as one of the worst characteristics of capitalist social relations) is actually getting worse.

 

[cesare]

Of course not, but many people here are assuming that, in the individual cases that are being discussed, the accused are guilty and should be punished when they are in no position to know whether or not they are.

No. People are saying that the matter should be investigated as a matter of urgency - and that the police can do their thing which includes nothing if outside legislative timeframe; but that doesn't necessarily prevent internal sanctions arising out of a proper investigation.

* internal sanctions can include (but are not necessarily limited to) dismissal (if an employee), demotion, expulsion etc

 

[ViolentPanda]

Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?

Personally, if I were a member of a revolutionary party and had been sexually assaulted, but didn't want the sheer utter hassle and general waste of time that is the UK criminal justice system's take on prosecuting sex crimes, I'd want to shout the assaulter's name from the rooftops, and let them take me through the "bourgeois courts if they felt that I had traduced them. Unfortunately, many people in revolutionary parties are indoctrinated into believing that the "good of the party" must come first, hence the farragos of "revolutionary justice" we've been treated to.
You see, for the complainant, this is a no-win situation, and that's untenable to anyone with even a shred of conscience or the faintest stirrings of a desire for justice. Compel the complainant to go to the police, and there's only at most a one-in-twelve chance that the case will result in a successful prosecution. Do the "right" thing by your political organisation, and that assaulter will likely assault again, with all the guilt that would bring to the complainant. Expose the assaulter for what they are, and watch your revolutionary party split into "do what's best for the party" and "expel the perve with a good kicking!" camps.

What everything reduces to is that the assaulter is unlikely to have to pay any significant price for their crime. Me, I'd make sure that my organisation had strong and clear rules in place about sexual assault in the workplace, as well as a suspension policy for any member being investigated for a sex offence. That's pretty much in line with extant workplace regulations in many large workplaces, as a part of "disrepute" rules. It's not a great stretch for revolutionary political organisations to adopt a similar set of regulations on their membership, including the party heirarchy.

 

[two sheds]

The political level of debate in those comments is astounding.

This one I thought was interesting: "This is just about the essence of cults, I think: to report the abuse to outside authorities may or may not involve physical danger, but certainly does present the prospect of losing your entire social and emotional world."

[/scarpers to shouts of 'Fuck off two sheds']

 

[ViolentPanda]

Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.

I don't know whether you're a TUist, or if you've ever been a union rep, but one of the most nauseating things I encountered as a rep for two different unions was the prevalence of sexual harrassment complaints - they were about 70% of the entire caseload I dealt with, everything from unwelcome "dirty talk" to full-on sexual assaults. I took all such cases very seriously, because if you let even one go, you enable the perpetrator to possibly do it again. What most members wanted wasn't money, it was an apology and a clear message that it wouldn't happen again.

 

[The39thStep]

This one I thought was interesting: "This is just about the essence of cults, I think: to report the abuse to outside authorities may or may not involve physical danger, but certainly does present the prospect of losing your entire social and emotional world."

[/scarpers to shouts of 'Fuck off two sheds']

Not really convinced with the party = cults as a narrative tbh. Don't mind it as occasional abuse but it really doesn't stand up to anything else. There is a conclusion at the end of Against the Stream ( the history of pre war and early post war Trotskyism) which pretty much says there is life without the party. If that was the conclusion then when the far left and anarchist scene was minute and the CP a very big fish then its a conclusion now. Essentially you might fall out some mates who were comrades and lose some baby sitters.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I don't know whether you're a TUist, or if you've ever been a union rep,

Yes, I have been an office rep and there was a groper who everybody knew about but the women took it in their stride and laughed it off, but that was years ago and times have changed. What you say above makes sense (except I'm not sure about automatic suspension as this might give rise to malicious complaints).

Edit: Forgot to add. I wouldn't want to handle a case of alleged rape. Have you ever had to?

 

[SpineyNorman]

As to what the SP should do - I think the guy should be 'suspend without prejudice' while they investigate. there is no presumption of guilt in this. the remit of the investigation should not be to find the guy guilty or not guilty of domestic violence, rather to judge on the balance of probability whether his behaviour is compatible with the membership of an organisation that fights against sexism and women's oppression.

I actually agree with this. But it can only be done if there is an investigation, which cannot take place if the woman concerned isn't willing to cooperate with a political party (I assume) she's never been a member of and may have serious disagreements with. I'm waiting to find out whether this will be possible.

 

[kavenism]

Yes, I have been an office rep and there was a groper who everybody knew about but the women took it in their stride and laughed it off, but that was years ago and times have changed.

You must be trolling. So are you suggesting that these days women are all soft and go running to the authorities the first time someone calls them "love"? Not like your experience where women knew their place and understood their role as always available object for a bit of handsy male action. After all if they don't like it they can always stay at home with the kids!

 

[butchersapron]

You must be trolling. So are you suggesting that these days women are all soft and go running to the authorities the first time someone calls them "love"? Not like your experience where women knew their place and understood their role as always available object for a bit of handsy male action. After all if they don't like it they can always stay at home with the kids!

In their cry for "equality" do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.

 

[frogwoman]

i'd say that while identity politics is a load of shite any "working class" group that seeks to ignore half of the working class is ... well ...

 

[kavenism]

Perhaps this is Jean-Luc's era? Thank fuck times have changed.

 

[frogwoman]

fucking hell (at that article).

I've read the whole thing.


What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands'. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers' movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.


while the suffragettes were frequently made up of middle class women there were trade union movements for the vote and this surely isn't a reason to reject the entire thing

 

[Jean-Luc]

So are you suggesting that these days women are all soft and go running to the authorities the first time someone calls them "love"? Not like your experience where women knew their place and understood their role as always available object for a bit of handsy male action. After all if they don't like it they can always stay at home with the kids!

Of course not. I was just describing what the situation was in the past, not defending it. Of course the change since then has been for the better.

 

[SpineyNorman]

fucking hell (at that article).

I've read the whole thing.


What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands'. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers' movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.


while the suffragettes were frequently made up of middle class women there were trade union movements for the vote and this surely isn't a reason to reject the entire thing

Exactly. Though for balance it's probably worth pointing out that some of the suffragettes propaganda was along the lines of 'how come these dirty smelly prole men get the vote and we superior, morally upright middle class women don't? give us the vote and we'll be a bulwark against socialism'. There was also one that talked about votes for m/c women being necessary to maintain white supremacy. It was all a bit messy back then.