SWP expulsions and squabbles

[oskarsdrum]

Whatever they thought of the merits or otherwise of the case, they'd have done better to stay quiet. Relating this case directly to any sort of theorizing of domestic violence would also have been a mistake, though these are certainly important issues that need to be addressed more abstractly.

Ah sorry, yes, rather than expecting several paragraphs pontificating on the subject I meant they really should have considered their response in the light of such, which I can't see that they've done.

I think you'll be waiting a long time for a retraction or apology, oskar. However foolish or inappropriate this statement was, though, I can't seeing there being too much fallout for the SP. Can anyone else? The accused's speedy resignation put distance between the case and the organization. The party's poorly-judged actions - consisting merely in issuing a highly problematic statement - are just incomparable with those that have occupied most of the thread.

True - I suspect the SP can fall back on a little more goodwill from the left at large than can the SWP, as well. On the other hand if he maintains/takes up a leading role in NSSN and TUSC then it could become more of a running sore, since that's "exoneration" to all intents and purposes (although the occupation of such a role in TUSC is perhaps a paradigmatically moot point )

 

[oskarsdrum]

Yeah - it's a daft statement but it's a hell of a stretch, and IMO unfair, to draw an equivalence between that and the Delta affair (though I get the impression that oskarsdrum has as much as admitted that comment was more an emotional reaction, which I can understand - my initial reaction upon hearing the Delta stuff wasn't exactly rational either).

Yes I'll take that. They are substantially different and it's mainly unhelpful to consider this in light of the Delta case (that said - there are some lessons for any left organisation from the SWP's many errors in the matter, as the bureaucratic imperatives driving them are an inescapable pressure requiring constant vigilance).

Nonetheless I do think the statement itself, and the practical commitments it contains, is a serious problem. Since we can't be certain that his version of events is accurate, let's just consider what has happened if she's in fact telling the truth. If that's the case then the SP have promoted a brutal and libellious victim-blaming statement from an abuser. Now - we don't know whether that's the case, of course, but for the SP to leave open the possibility....I think that's a really important mistake that needs to be reckoned with, and not disregarded as a frustrating curiosity.

That's of course giving the RMT and SP the benefit of the doubt in every contentious respect. I wonder, on the other hand, whether any of the EC know anything that supports her side of the case, or whether the relevant RMT individuals do, or indeed - how it would look supposing a transcript of the RMT discussing their own investigation process were leaked......? Who was on the RMT investigating panel, were they completely removed from any conflict of interest? Could they demonstrate how they set aside any consideration of protecting their own reputation and one of the top individuals in their hierarchy? What about the minutes of meetings when the complaint first arose, can they show that the only concern has ever been to treat all parties fairly and never to protect the organisational interest? If so then frankly a new form of superhuman species seems to be present in the RMT leadership. Did the SP use its connections to establish the overwhelming probity of every aspect of the RMT procedure? I very much doubt that, since they seem to be misusing the lack of punitive action by an employer as justification for something very different (acceptance of continued role in the movement).

This goes far beyond the one case. Whether male or female (but in the society we're in, mainly male), any prominent individual in a union or socialist party possesses the kind of credibility and status that makes abusive behaviour more likely to escape sanction. Obviously, only a small minority of people in such positions have the interest or intention to carry out such behaviour. But we urgently need to find better ways of addressing situations where it's alleged that sexist abuse has occured. Given the irreducible uncertainty of most such cases, intuitive responses cause enormous damaage by producing a power imbalance always favouring the high-status, credible accused.

ok.....I'll leave off for a while!!!

 

[oskarsdrum]

Sorry one more thing. Fair play to SP members giving honest commentary on this. Bit of a contrast to the fateful final line of the facebook 4 discussion - "We're in the SWP, not North Korea!" oops!

 

[dennisr]

You sound like the SWP CC, oskar - knowing what is best. Maybe you can provide us all with the answers to your questions and expert solutions to these concerns if proven?

We can all speculate and wonder about this aspect and that aspect - frankly Steve's political life and past leadership role is over, destroyed - regardless of wether he is guilty or innocent. This has already happened - there is no return to the situation before this came out.

As for internal critisism of how even the statement was handled by the SP EC? - that will come from the layer of SP activists who cut their political teeth in the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV) campaigns and present anti-sexism campaigns they are involved in - far from being covered up or silenced or resulting in cheerleading at rallies of possible rapists or expulsions of those who disagree. This is a completely different situation to what the majority of this thread is about.

I do not know what organisational structures can or could be put in place that could or would provide a perfectly fair and accountable solution to all parties involved in a situation as serious as this - individuals have raised this problem on a number of occasions on this thread and others have made useful suggestions (some of nigel and cesare's posts in particular) - I would be very open to people's ideas on the matter. I don't have easy solutions to the problem - and i am not happy with some easy option of simply bending the stick one way or the other in terms of assumed guilt or innocence - that will not lead to genuine justice only to a backlash from any party feeling victimised.

Christ on a bike.

 

[oskarsdrum]

You sound like the SWP CC, oskar - knowing what is best. Maybe you can provide us all with the answers to your questions and expert solutions to these concerns if proven?

.....

As for internal critisism of how even the statement was handled by the SP EC? - that will come from the layer of SP activists who cut their political teeth in the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV) campaigns and present anti-sexism campaigns they are involved in - far from being covered up or silenced or resulting in cheerleading at rallies of possible rapists or expulsions of those who disagree. This is a completely different situation to what the majority of this thread is about

"oskarsdrum is not an institution of capitalist society......"

anyway, as I implied, I think I've said plenty already, except to respond with 2 more things..... 1) as seems to be the consensus, the statement made was a grave error, and 2) the statement in particular and the wider matters of such cases raise serious issues for all of us on the left. What is needed isn't a 6 point "solution" for all time of how things can be done, that would certainly be the preference of CC types everywhere. Instead we need to develop new methods, that are reflexive and immersed in the political context, to respond appropriately. I doubt that the division between "internal" and "external" is part of the solution though, except in maintaining the confidentiality that is essential, but that should sit beside absolute transparency in procedural (not factual) matters.

 

[dennisr]

oskar, your attempted conflation of how the two organisations dealt with the respective situations is a false one.
Are you RS then? stop implying, say what you think.

 

[articul8]

This is odd too, it feels as if the SP are hiding information from their readership - might not be the case - "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."
I have no means to comment any further.

Yes this is a very odd thing to say - the alleged victim has made very public her complaints about the procedure - together with the rep who attended the investigation interview with her. So what do they mean "no flaws have been drawn to our attention"? And who else would such a complaint come from?

To me it reads like SH has scripted this statement and asked the EC to issue it on his behalf. Think they were very unwise to do so.

 

[Fedayn]

Are you RS then? stop implying, say what you think.

Of the Germany book?

 

[articul8]

Of the Germany book?

Ha no, of the Hitchens variety I'm guessing

 

[Fedayn]

Ha no, of the Hitchens variety I'm guessing

Eh?

 

[articul8]

might be wrong altogether but Oskar sounds a lot like yer man from Lenins Tomb

 

[Fedayn]

might be wrong altogether but Oskar sounds a lot like yer man from Lenins Tomb

Aaaahhhh

 

[dennisr]

Which would be interesting if true - and if s/he is happy to discuss - plenty of questions raised on past posts on this thread alone

 

[oskarsdrum]

haha RS?? no indeed! I've posted elsewhere as oskarsdrum if you want to double check. however I'm sure bb is relishing the implication that all InterSN individuals are indistinguishable clones! Personally I think my style is rather different to his, much admiration though I've got for the fella, but anyway....

I'm not an academic or anything. still in my line of work I've seen enough relevant cases in detail to be convinced that it's almost always impossible to definitively establish the facts of these matters and what we can best do is apply an understanding of gender and sexist violence to the possibility of establishing guilt or innocence in any satisfactory way. I'm not trying to claim any special or inaccessible knowledge, but I do wonder whether a false impression of the effectiveness that most (not all) such investigations can have informs some of the debate here. That's also why transparency about the process is essential, without diminishing confidentiality around the facts of any particulate case.

Hence my earlier arguments that except in rare cases where the complaint can be shown to be completely implausible (or vice versa), we have to accept that we can't escape the risk of wronging one of the parties, but better to run against the grain of power than with it. Since in the end actions have to be made in a condition of fundamental uncertainty. (the response of friends and close associates of the accused will rightly differ often to the institutional response that I'm talking about - hence the conflict of interest problem)

The cases are substantially different it's true, but nevertheless they raise some of the same important issues.

 

[cesare]

What's your line of work (broadly) oskars, that the relevant cases you've seen confirm your theory that "it's almost always impossible to definitively establish the facts of these matters"?

 

[xslavearcx]

Think in any situation involving a lack of witnesses its almost impossible to establish incontrovertible evidence one way or the other... Acts like domestic violence, rape etc by virtue of their behind closed doorness will pretty much always tend to end up in situations like that...

Its hard to argue against oskars reasonings in this, given that this is the nature of situations behind closed doors and then any agent deciding upon a case will have to either favour the accuser or the accused testimony and i guess in the state of affairs of how domestic violence plays in maintaining gendered oppression of our society, then i guess one would have to favour the accusers accounts on these matters...., (if coming at this from a lefty perspective) but from my own personal experience of having violence done upon myself by a previous partner including being slashed in the face, makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable with acceding to oskars argument....

 

[oskarsdrum]

ah sorry yes, well maybe i shouldn't have mentioned it but. homelessness investigations which, in the degraded neoliberal welfare state, need a thorough look into the "facts", sometimes on both sides (depending on who is staying in the home), collaboration with social workers and police DV specialists, use of civil measures to exclude the accused from a home etc. Not to get into the many practical difficulties about how services work in these areas!

In such cases and I think rightly, the benefit of the doubt invariably goes to the accuser. The reason why doubt is so prevalent is that it's nearly always a one-person's-word-v-another situation. This isn't easily amenable to a satisfactory investigative process, judgements which are inevitably partial, first, and second, structured by the institutional and social context (including the use of most 'witnesses' - who will be more about character and credibility unless the allegation is of abuse in the presence of other people).

 

[cesare]

From the POV of an employer making a decision, the facts don't have to be incontrovertible btw. It's based on reasonable belief.

 

[oskarsdrum]

xslavearcx, that's a very fair point. For that reason the accused (edit, *as worker*) should be given a quite different response to that as party member, or leading political activist. Also, good support/advice is essential if people close to the accused believe they are innocent - a dignified and concise public response is the only option here. Ultimately I don't believe there's any alternative unless/until domestic violence becomes an almost extinct phenomenon.

 

[xslavearcx]

yeah i found oskars post about different burdons of proof applying to different situations (ranging from criminal courts to memberships in political organisations) quite illuminating with the scale of burdon of proof being related towards the consequences of how a judgement would impact upon on an accused...

It is a bit of a nightmare with behind closed door things, because it seems that there is no perfect way to ensure that justice (in some kinda abstract perfect platonic kinda way) can ever be done. For instance, it is often discussed about how rape cases need to be altered because the conviction rate is grossly below the widespread incidence of such crimes. But then there is the issue that if one tinkers with the legal process too much could fundamentally alter the nature of the assumption of innocence until proven guilty that it is posited happens with all other cases. How such problems get reconciled satisfactorily i do not know

Edited to add that was in response to ceasres last post

 

[oskarsdrum]

Employers - yes, that's for good reason I think, because the consequences of error are so drastic on either side. The standard of proof used should, in general, be consistent with the balance of risk in case of erroneous judgement (to go back to housing/exclusion orders - being thrown out of home is bad, but being subject to violence in the home is worse, so the burden of proof falls on the accused - creating individual injustices, but a least-worse situation overall)

edit - apologies for windily repeating what xslavearcx just said!

 

[cesare]

Well, from an employment perspective it's more about balance of probability than balance of risk.

 

[xslavearcx]

well i was windily repeating what you said so its all good haha...

Just as an aside, i read earlier the mentioning of the hedley case citing some data from a 'mens domestic violence support group of sorts', i would state that whilst violence from women to men is a phenomena that undoubtedly happens, it cannot be seen in the same terms as violence against women, in so far as violence against women is a phenomena that perpetuates a generalised power differential between genders. The problem with mens rights groups in general is that they transform isolated events as being a mirror image of phenomena that maintains patriarchy (ie domestic violence of men to women) with the consequence of a denial of the existence of patriarchy or worse to justify patriarchy in some horrible nietzchiesque terms of will to power constructed as a battle of the sexes...

 

[oskarsdrum]

I think the balance of risk (the negative consequences of error on either side) is the factor that determines what balance of probability should be used (in judging whether or nit to apply a sanction). though I'm not what the best terminology to use is....

 

[cesare]

I think the balance of risk (the negative consequences of error on either side) is the factor that determines what balance of probability should be used (in judging whether or nit to apply a sanction). though I'm not what the best terminology to use is....

See, I'd probably argue that the perceived risk would be just one of the factors in demonstrating that an employer's belief in an employee's "guilt" was reasonable.

 

[oskarsdrum]

back on topic, sort of:

"This brings us to the SWP. Must we? Yes, we must, and not for the last time. I have no desire to spend the rest of my political life writing about the party I have just left, but there is a necessary process of political clarification following such a break. I have until now defended the party's general lines and strategies, notwithstanding my Syriza heresy. But in the course of an acute crisis triggered by an unbelievable and unforgiveable rape cover-up, the contours of a chronic crisis linked to the lack of democracy, congealed dogma and strategic vapidity became clear(er). An accounting of this is called for, if the right decisions are to be taken now."

http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-actuality-of-successful-capitalist.html?m=1
maxi-me throws down the gauntlet!

 

[tenniselbow]

I'm broadly in agreement with oskar and xslavearcx regarding the seemingly intractably problem of dealing fairly with these kinds of one-word-against-another cases.

A question that looms in the background here, though, is justice. I think it's easy to take the common-sense liberal notion of justice for granted as a kind of default. But particularly in cases of violence within relationships, this seems problematic. For one thing, interpersonal relations are really complex and can't always be reduced to the guilt/innocence of each individual. And where this can't be ascertained -- either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities -- which is going to be so in many cases, we don't necessarily feel 'justice' has been done. Second, if we believe that individual behavior can't be isolated from its social context, we have to take into account both the generalized power differentials between men and women, both in terms of how abuse is distributed systematically and also how individuals are shaped by the society and culture around them.

This all seems to me to point towards some sort of position that -- in a sub-set of cases -- moves away from the default liberal notice of justice, recognizes the difficulty in always ascertaining guilt/innocence in this model -- pointing to how it is fundamentally unsatisfactory -- but seeks to take seriously the gender and power imbalances involved, the systematic patterning of interpersonal violence, the complexity of relationships, and the way in which individual behavior is shaped in fundamental but not wholly determining ways by wider social and cultural forces.

Where that leads, I'm not sure. To some kind of restorative justice model that stresses the importance of rehabilitation and reeducation? Could the left move towards a more complex understanding of these cases that would not result in the kind of "no case to answer" statements we've seen? To me, the challenge here does seem to lie both in problematic institutional cultures and in political analyses of patriarchy/women's oppression that are too reductive to take this kind of complexity into account.

 

[xslavearcx]

damn that was a belter of a post!

 

[oskarsdrum]

"ace" analysis, tenniselbow. Your reference to restorative justice points a way far beyond the rather Hobbsian frame that I've been operating within! Although I guess that the need to minimize possibilities of power abuse - status or bureacratic power or both - remains. You might say that we need a way to 'regulate' the manner in which various forms of social capital can be valorized by abusers to protect themselves. But an effective restorative approach could achieve this and much besides. A prevention-rehabilitation model would also likely elicit far more factual information about the nature of a situation than the common investigate-adversarial approach. Nice work!

 

[TremulousTetra]

Maybe, but the neither should the SWP cases have been. Some might argue that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander especially as the gander has been prominent in criticising the goose. In neither case is anybody here is in a position to judge what actually happened. So there's no point in discussing them. Time to archive this thread?

which is why I have neither defended, or attacked the SWP over the allegations handling.

The political criticisms of the leadership though are in the open, and are quite weighty in my opinion.