sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
i couldn't see how they could successfully convict someone unless the victim agreed to speak out in court
If the victim is over 16, I think what you say is wholly accurate.
i couldn't see how they could successfully convict someone unless the victim agreed to speak out in court
Sorry, not sure what your point is here.But because as you say we live in the society we do, bringing a charge of rape can mean the victim is deported or investigated for something else, and nothing happens to the rapist.
yes, i know what it was (and it was in derry too): i don't really believe that there was anything to do with rapes in it.Restablishing "the police" in parts of Belfast.
Sorry, not sure what your point is here.
By the way sihhi I don't have any time for the police or the justice system in this country (or any country I can think of). But that is what is in place, and has to be used at times. Their record on rape is appalling. But I would still rather see a rapist banged up than on the streets, as that is the only real option. The working class in the UK is atomised and our organisations weak. Hopefully that will change, but in the meantime I can't see what other option there is. I would feel deeply uncomfortable with my union branch investigating a rape case, and an AGM discussing it given the current situation. And I would feel the same if I was in a left organisation.
The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.
yes, i know what it was (and it was in derry too): i don't really believe that there was anything to do with rapes in it.
Finally we get to it "at times" and neither me, you nor anyone else on this thread can judge in this instance.
The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.
In a sense you are right. But basically I don't trust the SWP to have handled this investigation, or to have done right by the woman, or to have encouraged her to go to the police if it was appropriate (which in the majority of cases I would think could be the best option, but as you say there are exceptions). Not because they are twisted people but because the organisation has become little better than a semi-cult.
Reading about Operation Motorman on Wikipedia now.
Now the huge difference here people say is the fact the bloke is a cc member and not just any cc member. But even allowing for that I'm totally convinced that if the likes of Pat and Candy thought he was guilty of rape they would have said so. yes they know him well, value him etc. But their whole reason for being the committed lifelong socialist revolutionaries they are would be totally undone if they had knowingly let this one slide. I just can't see that happening. But equally what Pat said about the woman not being taken seriously enough initially or people in positions of power seeing her as a problem with some agenda against the party because of her accusations now that is something that anyone in the SWP should be worried about. So is the fact that Pat, who has heard the facts when we haven't, believed the balance of probability was that she had been harassed by the guy concerned. If I was still in the party that would keep me awake at night.
Surely it's ultimately her decision not yours?BB your first paragraph is very good and moving. The dilemma of whether a woman should go to the police to protect other women, is often a heartbreaking and difficult one. I know from people I know who are very close to me. The trauma means some women can't, and then the terrible thing is they then feel guilt for not doing so. But I have to say if I could potentially prevent a rapist by going to the police, I think I may do it even if a woman didn't want me to. But that is an extremely hard moral dilemma, and I don't know what I'd do for sure.
What you say about the panel members may be true but it doesn't take away from the point that people who knew him should not have been on a panel, it is totally wrong. And there is something deeply wrong about 500 people discussing it while the alleged rape victim stands outside, and while people inside clap different points of view, it's disturbing. I also agree about the points you make about Pat (but obviously don't know him).
The only way to do that would be to have some body outside the SWP decide if a party member was guilty of behaviour that would exclude him from membership. There is a very compelling argument to me at least which says only a party body should decide that.You do agree that they shouldn't be needing to "allow for that".
harsh as it may sound unless W was a delegate she had no right to attend.
You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!It's all been very weird round here. People who are usually quite cynical about the leadership talking like party hacks. I suspect a message of some kind has been sent out. But surely they wouldn't get away with telling people to delete their facebook accounts and stuff? If I was told to do that they'd soon be having my membership card surgically removed from a very sensitive part of their anatomy.
No, it says that there is an argument for an external body or external embers to be involved in the investigation process at least. Stop imagining that the self-selected 7 man DC body of the SWP is a proletarian court of honour. It's not and it spits blood on such past bodies that have come out of periods of struggle to suggest that is it. Which is precisely what this ridiculous attempt at polarisation (police or this, liberals or revolutionaries) rests on.The only way to do that would be to have some body outside the SWP decide if a party member was guilty of behaviour that would exclude him from membership. There is a very compelling argument to me at least which says only a party body should decide that.
An example for every case eh comradeYou think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!
He's either disciplined or he's not. if not then as long as he's an accredited delegate he has to be in the room. The constitution is enforced or it's not worth having.It does sound harsh yes, very harsh. Under normal circumstances sure but this was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least. And even with that being the case I think it would have come across a bit better if the accused wasn't in the room either.
You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!
He's either disciplined or he's not. if not then as long as he's an accredited delegate he has to be in the room. The constitution is enforced or it's not worth having.
I know sorry I do seem to have a habit of that, self indulgent maybe but the same stuff does seem to happen again and again and previous SWP experiences might have some relevance.An example for every case eh comrade
For what it's worth when I said frightened liberals I didn't include you butchers, has been clear from your comments so far that your position is more nuanced than that. And I can see the argument for an external, independent group of people being involved. I honestly can. But I'm not sure it would possible in practice to find truely independent people.No, it says that there is an argument for an external body or external embers to be involved in the investigation process at least. Stop imagining that the self-selected 7 man DC body of the SWP is a proletarian court of honour. It's not and it spits blood on such past bodies that have come out of periods of struggle to suggest that is it. Which is precisely what this ridiculous attempt at polarisation (police or this, liberals or revolutionaries) rests on.