SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Before Theory
Active Member
I
I actually don't know how to post the links from my phone, but take a look at pages 167, 168, 267 and 268 and you'll get some idea of the disgusting lengths to which Callinicos et al will go to preserve their Party at the expense of anyone who gets in their way.
Best of luck in your attempts to democratize the SWP, watch your back is the only advice I can give you
I actually don't know how to post the links from my phone, but take a look at pages 167, 168, 267 and 268 and you'll get some idea of the disgusting lengths to which Callinicos et al will go to preserve their Party at the expense of anyone who gets in their way.
Best of luck in your attempts to democratize the SWP, watch your back is the only advice I can give you
That doesn't answer my question. I don't care what you think. I'm asking whether people in the party who know Rhetta believe that she would do this.
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
So you think that this part of the woman's statement is a lie? Why would she make that up? For factional purposes? Does this mean you think she's making up the rape accusation?
Think back to your first reaction on learning of the rape accusation against MS, did you say to yourself 'I can't believe he would do this'? Now what do you think?
You can never know how good or bad are someone's politics (and personal integrity) is until it's tested, until they have to make up their own mind on a subject. And while the harm of these sexual assaults is the sorriest part of these stories, watching the credibility of dedicated revolutionaries collapse because they are unable to believe the worst is pretty grim too.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I'm not in the SWP but i belive it. Awful women
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Thanks for the info. BTW I'm an ex-member like you... From what I hear some CC loyalists are changing their position:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-rebuilding-the-party-faction-update-1
Thought your previous posts might be useful in that context. I think the oppos are well aware by now that they need to watch their backs!
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
prety fucking stupid to ask on a public message board then, if you dont want an answer. And if you dont think she'd do it, you're being pretty stupid again. Think for a moment. Someone makes an allegation, after a brief investigation a couple of DC members say the complaint is unlikely to be upheld if it goes ahead for lack of corroboration etc, and that the complaints process would be a painful one for all concerned, including the complainant. Not hard to see how that would be taken as talking someone out of making a complaint to protect the party. Meanwhile the likes of Rhetta and the nodding dog idiots who agree with anything the CC say, would look at it and say she did a really good job, protecting everyone, victim and party included, from a horrible hearing that wouldn't have gone anywhere.
I didn't say what I thought, I asked if that was what people in the SWP (the opposition) thought.
Not me that's stupid. I asked a question about what the opposition think, I didn't ask what you thought, nor did I say what I thought.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
What is your opinion then, oh gnomic one? Although it seems pretty clear from the way you phrased your question.
If all you are interested is 'the oppositions' view, why dont you go and find it out from them? You'd certainly get a better idea of it than you would by asknig bolshie
Well, it seems that everything is very clear to you. For those within the SWP it doesn't seem to be does it?
The thing I am pondering (although I don't really think you give a shit what I think) is if you're still in the SWP and you know that Rhetta has worked for much of her adult life with vulnerable women, including women who've been raped, known that she's always been very vocal on women's issues, know that she did her phd on rape, that she has always encouraged women to stand up for themselves and have a voice.....how much of a shift it is to then think that someone like that didn't just fuck up but is deliberately silencing women who have been raped in order to protect both men who have raped women comrades and the party. I was wondering that if you/they believe that is what has happened, what then makes it possible to stay in the SWP? What makes people think it's worth fighting for?
I think that's a little bit different to calling a woman a liar, don't you?
The thing I am pondering (although I don't really think you give a shit what I think) is if you're still in the SWP and you know that Rhetta has worked for much of her adult life with vulnerable women, including women who've been raped, known that she's always been very vocal on women's issues, know that she did her phd on rape, that she has always encouraged women to stand up for themselves and have a voice.....how much of a shift it is to then think that someone like that didn't just fuck up but is deliberately silencing women who have been raped in order to protect both men who have raped women comrades and the party. I was wondering that if you/they believe that is what has happened, what then makes it possible to stay in the SWP? What makes people think it's worth fighting for?
I think that's a little bit different to calling a woman a liar, don't you?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I dont think anyone thinks so crudely - although it may sound like they do if heard shouting annoyedly in the pub after reading the latest horror story (or ranting annoyedly on facebook, essentially the same thing). Indeed the crudeness of your false dichotomies show the problem with the way you are thinking.
It is perfectly possible to believe that Rhetta genuinely believes (possibly partially due to her acquaintance with the accused, possibly not) that no rape actually took place, but that, at the same time, the woman has a genuine belief she it did take place. the question is over a question of bias, not upon anyone explicitly lying.
There IS the fact that Rhetta, despite all her many years as a vocal and powerful worker against rape, she still allowed someone to ask 'isn't it true you like a drink?'
It is perfectly possible to believe that Rhetta genuinely believes (possibly partially due to her acquaintance with the accused, possibly not) that no rape actually took place, but that, at the same time, the woman has a genuine belief she it did take place. the question is over a question of bias, not upon anyone explicitly lying.
There IS the fact that Rhetta, despite all her many years as a vocal and powerful worker against rape, she still allowed someone to ask 'isn't it true you like a drink?'
I'm not making any false dichotomies and I'm perfectly aware of the issue of bias.
And I'm not talking about the Martin Smith case, I'm talking about the recent accusations on the ISN site that explicitly mention her, as posted about by mutley and described by him as having led to the opposition thinking about what they will do in January. Which is why I asked him, and not bb, as you stated, what they believed about her actions.
I mentioned lying not because I think in a crude way, but because another poster suggested it:
If you're going to accuse others of crude thinking, you really need to pay more attention.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
We are 451 pages into this thread and still it goes on.
This is not a theoretical debate...it is one of principle. Leading members of the SWP not only decided and continue to decide that they are able to investigate a rape allegation. Not only this, they seem to think it's ok to tell those who are disclosing rape that they should not talk about it ... in order to respect the privacy and confidentiality of the accused. And just to top it off they even ask about their drinking/drug and sex habits.
There is a very simple premise that women generally do not make up rape allegations and in a "revolutionary socialist party" surely they can accept that if a women alleges rape then the alleged rapist should be suspended without prejudiced (as would happen in many workplaces and organisations).
The person disclosing the rape should be given advice about where to get help/ support and or counselling. And an honest explanation needs to take place explaining that the party is not able to investigate the allegation as they do not have the resources or skills to do so. How does a party have the resources to make genetic tests etc.? Unfortunately in this society only the state ie the police can do that.
If the person does not feel able to go to the police (even with the support of others) then that should be respected and at this point it needs to be decided that the person accused should be told that the party can not let them be a member until the matter is resolved.
The only objection to this is that some one would deliberately make up a rape allegation simply to get someone kicked out of the party and that seems a dangerous reason for objection in my opinion.
Is it a fair way to treat the accused ... not really but
a) as the swp claim that rape allegations rarely happen it won't be a common occurrence
b) it would be less unfair than the current treatment of women who have disclosed rape
and
c) in their terms of protecting the party it would be better.
There is not a perfect answer but fuck me the swp have not even behaved kindly let alone honestly
And what difference does that make to the situation I was pondering? I really think you're missing the point if you think I'm making any kind of defence of anybody. I'm talking about perceptions within the party and if they are such that the most powerful workers against rape are now seen as deliberately silencing women (because that is what the ISN piece suggests) then what does that say about the party? Of what remains of the party? Of why it should be fought for? Because that is what the opposition are doing aren't they?
Red cat, as ever, it is a mistake to try and second guess what 'the opposition' think - its not a unitary entity with one mind.. It comprises about 290 people, who vary from some who do seem to think the women who's been mentioned covered it up, and who don't expect to be in the party in Jan, through to people who are more likely to think that in the intense atmosphere of last Jan some unconscious bias crept in. Some of the former have been speculating as to what kind of grouping they might want. I'm hoping that in December the party won't just have a big foot-stamping oppo-bashing defensive conference, but that something will emerge in which the party's integrity is restored. Don't ask me for odds, I'm not a betting man. But there are signs - faint signs -that some amongst the majority have realized that just dismissing the opposition as slackers, back sliders and creeping whatevers isn't the way forward.
ps red cat didn't realise u were asking me in particular..
ps red cat didn't realise u were asking me in particular..
Well, no, it is calling her a liar/saying you don't believe her. I am one of the opposition, and I believe Rhetta has done this, as after all it's nothing more than she'd already done or supported in the Delta case. That she has worked with rape victims makes no odds if she holds the reactionary views of the SWP, will do anything for the cause and the men who are flavour of the month and her rapist chums. That she has worked with rape victims just makes her betrayal of them even more disgusting.
I'm staying in until conference in the hope that I can help change the SWP, whose politics on women is such disgusting rape apologism and completely out of step with the wider left, especially the younger ones who are very politically correct.
I'm under no illusions and know the faction will lose, but am just trying to make the SWP change as much as I can, and do my bit. I'm also in the ISN, whose position on women is what you would expect from a left wing party. Being around the SWP True Believers I actually find awful, so am doing what I can from a distance. Just wish the SWP conference was this weekend so the trauma could be over!
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
If by earlier fictions you mean the plans of the opposition or elements of it for the party should they win I'm only holding off mentioning them cause it doesn't seem fair to people posting them on FB to share them here. But it's fair to say there wouldn't be much left of the organisation as we know it if they had their way. I'm sure it'll all come out in due course anyhows.
On the dc questions and what is and what isn't allowed. I certainly amn't making up or imagining the members of the opposition arguing that the fact a woman says she was raped should be taken as such sufficient proof of guilt that any subsequent questions are redundant and in fact misogynist. It seems the totally understandable position that women are reluctant to come forward because of a history of not being believed by courts and police has been stick bent to the point that there's almost no point having a procedure at all. Over the last few days I've seen opposition members defriend loyalists for daring to say there should be some sort of legitimate cross examining of both main witnesses. Even to suggest that is for some (not all but not none either) to make you a sexist.
I dont know exactly what questions were asked in this latest case and nor do the rest of us cause we have a fairly brief and one sided account of the process. This is precisely why you can't judge these cases by blog debates, you need sensitive and confidential procedures. It is mind you interesting how the opposition are happy enough to mention facts about drink when it suits. As in the oft repeated claim that MS bought drinks for his victim while he abstained with the obvious implication that he was setting her up. Worth noting in passing that MS as fas as I know just doesn't drink at all, at least he didn't when I knew him well 20 years ago. But if the consumption of alcohol or drugs is worth mentioning when it strengthens the case of the opposition is it not also a valid question in this latest case? Not because people have a right to make assumptions about someone just cause they like a drink. They don't and it would be appalling to do so. But knowing whether one or other of the parties to the dispute were under the influence at the time the incident happened might just be germane to deciding how brutal the attack was, who seems to be describing the incident most honestly etc.
It's become almost impossible in this debate to discuss anything rationally without someone wanting to ascribe bad intentions to the other. Frankly if people really think they're in a party made up of a majority of rape apologists they need to do the honest thing now and not wait until Janurary.
Last edited:
I doubt anyone would phrase it exactly like that. It's more that it should start from the assumption that we believe her- as after all it's statistically far more likely than that women lie about rape often, which is a rape apologist's myth.
New statement by the opposition http://www.scribd.com/doc/176096214/Solidarity-is-our-starting-point actually all it says is they want accountability. Accountability doesn't go far enough. The effective denial of women's experiences of oppression by 'working men' needs to stop.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
grubbing round in the filth, destroying the organisation you claim to defend.
ugh.
No. Again you're missing my point. You think I'm saying what you want me to be saying so that you can make an argument about your position.
I don't have a position.
Did you note the word ponder that I used at the beginning of my sentence?
So, I'll address my question to you directly and then perhaps it is more understandable.
If you think that someone like Rhetta can do what is described, not once in unconscious identification or unconscious bias with Martin Smith, which I think people may understand as a fuck up, but repeatedly and therefore more consciously or deliberately, if someone like that with her history and personality can do such things, what makes you think the SWP is worth fighting for? Why are you still in the SWP?
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
All the more manipulative, then, to be buying drinks for the young woman.
Meanwhile, here's your answer Red Cat: http://www.scribd.com/doc/176096214/Solidarity-is-our-starting-point
Oisin123
So Much for Subtlety
I know.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I'm a "True believer" "reactionary member" whatever you want to call us. Unfortunately, I've also not been active since about 2000. Read few of the publications, just been to the odd Marxism for entertainment value. And so I have no knowledge of the change, if any in the SWP. And I have no knowledge of any of these events.
So as an active member, I have to bow to your greater knowledge and understanding. I'm not in any way questioning your beliefs, or statements.
All I am saying, is I still find this completely unbelievable. I know Rhetta, and find it completely incomprehensible how she could betray not just women, but herself and the party. If you do not stand up against anything like what has been described with Martin Smith, you're not a socialist.
This latest event just seems even more incredible. This is not locking the gate after the horse has bolted, this is locking the gate after the horse has bolted, the stables has been burnt down, and the country in which the stables are, is in Civil War.
How they ever felt this would protect the party with Martin Smith, is unbelievable. Now, is even more unbelievable. Makes no sense to me. :-(
Sorry to raise the thread.
I'm glad it's not just me, thought I was being over sensitive.
In reply to your question Red Cat, as I said, I'm staying in because maybe I'm an optimist, and I want to help change the SWP for the better as much as I can before I leave.
Anyway I'll let you all have some other discussions, because Ugh and Aargh.
I have less knowledge than you, I'm just going on what the comrade said in the ISN post, and I believe her. All she said about Rhetta is that Jackie and Rhetta interviewed her, said it was unlikely the CC would do anything. In general, people told her it wasn't worth her making a formal complaint. As the comrade says herself, that's nothing but the truth.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
it was addressed to me,
But I'd like to throw in my 2 pennies.
The 1st part of your sentence, is where I stood. This had to be some kind of fuck up. Even if you wanted to put the party before the woman, then the obvious thing to do was to take Martin Smith out the back, put a bullet through the brain [metaphorically]. I mean, why jettison the likes of John Rees Lindsey German, and not Martin Smith. I'm not arguing, just does not make any sense to me!
The 2nd event is he so stupid, you wouldn't even believe it if it was in a comedy. And there's nothing funny about it.
That said, I would defend the politics of the SWP I was in. Who this new SWP is, I have no idea.
Similar threads
