SWP expulsions and squabbles

[SpineyNorman]

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.

Seriously?

 

[butchersapron]

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.

Not nice to see you sinking into the mud with the rest of them bb.

 

[DotCommunist]

I was under the impression that even proper courts weren't allowed to ask about consumption any more- that and previous sexual history.

 

[butchersapron]

Well the dialectical process of aufheben leads to the revolutionary party being allowed to ask the question at a higher level than that of that state.

 

[discokermit]

I was under the impression that even proper courts weren't allowed to ask about consumption any more- that and previous sexual history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513004

"You make it clear that, if you come in to report this sort of offence, you are not going to be tested according to whether you've reported it straight away, whether you give a consistent account, whether you've ever yourself had drink or drugs etc."

the director of public prosecutions has a better attitude towards women who have been raped than the swp and bolshiebhoy .

 

[DotCommunist]

so she goes to the Party in good faith and they don't hold themselves even to the standards of 'bourgeois justice' and BB defends this.

 

[discokermit]

so she goes to the Party in good faith and they don't hold themselves even to the standards of 'bourgeois justice' and BB defends this.

and if you don't defend it, if you raise any questions about it at all, you're a creeping feminist/autonomist, diverging from our tradition and probably a spook.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

so she goes to the Party in good faith and they don't hold themselves even to the standards of 'bourgeois justice' and BB defends this.

DC you have gone dangerously astray.

Both BB and the Party are immune to the anti-working class feminist confusions so ably and assiduously promoted by bourgeois justice; indeed they are a bulwark against such contagions.

Take care - Louis MacNeice

 

[laptop]

Well the dialectical process of aufheben leads to the revolutionary party being allowed to ask the question at a higher level than that of that state.

I applaud, Sir, your indefatigability as a Ding in an selbst.

Blimey, the erroneous "Ding in selbst" was the first of five search hits already when I checked...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I was under the impression that even proper courts weren't allowed to ask about consumption any more- that and previous sexual history.

This isn't correct.

In both England/Wales and Ireland, questions about previous sexual history are banned in general but allowed if an application is granted (and such applications frequently are). The restriction's main effect is to prevent the kind of trawling through a complainants whole sexual past, to try to present her as a "loose woman", which used to be a staple of rape defence strategies.

In Ireland, questions about whether or not a complainant (or any witness) was inebriated are certainly not banned, and would be normal to the point of inevitability if the witness had been out socialising. I have never heard of there being a ban on these kind of questions in England either, and would be very surprised if there is one. It's a rather different issue from previous sexual history evidence, which is generally considered to be highly prejudicial and a relic of a more misogynist age - the question of the reliability of witnesses (not complainants in particular) who were drunk or on drugs at the time comes up over and over again in criminal cases (not sexual ones in particular).

 

[Nigel Irritable]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513004

"You make it clear that, if you come in to report this sort of offence, you are not going to be tested according to whether you've reported it straight away, whether you give a consistent account, whether you've ever yourself had drink or drugs etc."

the director of public prosecutions has a better attitude towards women who have been raped than the swp and bolshiebhoy .

For clarity's sake, it should be pointed out that this article is about what the police should ask and what tests the DPP should apply in considering whether or not to proceed. It is not about restrictions on what can be asked in court.

(I say for clarity's sake because obviously I'm not putting forward the court system as a model for how to treat complainants. Far from it. I just don't think that the criminal justice system should be accidentally whitewashed here)

 

[belboid]

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?

the entire tone of your question, indeed the very way you pose it indicates a clear opinion. its not one you are willing to express explicitly, all you do is ask (what you think are) smart arse questions. you have no interest in the answer.

 

[killer b]

you've extrapolated that redcat is a rape apologist from one question? fucksake belboid.

 

[belboid]

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

i'm afraid most of this is irrelevant. its not about what 'should' be done (and i think you are quite wrong in your proposal which shows a misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rape occur, imo) but about what does occur, the processes that have been used. Saying 'they shouldnt have started from there' is purely academic now

 

[belboid]

you've extrapolated that redcat is a rape apologist from one question? fucksake belboid.

no, i've extrapolated that s/he isnt really interested in the answer to the questions posed. dont put words in my mouth if you dont mind

 

[killer b]

why not? seems all the rage on this thread if your posts are owt to go by.

 

[butchersapron]

no, i've extrapolated that s/he isnt really interested in the answer to the questions posed. dont put words in my mouth if you dont mind

I think that there was a misreading a few days ago of what RC said bellers. I think she's clarified enough - for me at least - to get that she wasn't saying that *name* wouldn't lie or didn't.

 

[belboid]

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.

ffs, what is the point of only considering some comments on bloody facebook? thats hardly going to be the considered opinion of most people is it? its like using a drunken argument in a pub as proof of a position. and anyone could just throw back some of the dumber things the hyper loyal facebookers say - like Simon Assafs accusations of people being spooks! Have a go at the considered, thought out, articles, there are enough of those around.

 

[belboid]

I think that there was a misreading a few days ago of what RC said bellers. I think she's clarified enough - for me at least - to get that she wasn't saying that *name* wouldn't lie or didn't.

no, i know, but its the rest of the guff that says s/he isnt really interested in an answer. purely rhetorical tosh

 

[Aargh]

This isn't correct.

In both England/Wales and Ireland, questions about previous sexual history are banned in general but allowed if an application is granted (and such applications frequently are). The restriction's main effect is to prevent the kind of trawling through a complainants whole sexual past, to try to present her as a "loose woman", which used to be a staple of rape defence strategies.

In Ireland, questions about whether or not a complainant (or any witness) was inebriated are certainly not banned, and would be normal to the point of inevitability if the witness had been out socialising. I have never heard of there being a ban on these kind of questions in England either, and would be very surprised if there is one. It's a rather different issue from previous sexual history evidence, which is generally considered to be highly prejudicial and a relic of a more misogynist age - the question of the reliability of witnesses (not complainants in particular) who were drunk or on drugs at the time comes up over and over again in criminal cases (not sexual ones in particular).

It's my personal experience that, at least 10 years ago, it was a fact that drinking, sexuality and that the person didn't go to the police immediately, were use against them by the police. I think Stermer is just saying they shouldn't be, that he has to say that shows that they are commonplace/aren't banned. Even if the police etc stop being like this, I doubt they could stop the defence lawyer being so. But it's great that the DPP is saying these things.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's my personal experience that, at least 10 years ago, it was a fact that drinking, sexuality and that the person didn't go to the police immediately, were use against them by the police. I think Stermer is just saying they shouldn't be, that he has to say that shows that they are commonplace/aren't banned. Even if the police etc stop being like this, I doubt they could stop the defence lawyer being so. But it's great that the DPP is saying these things.

Yes it is good that pressure from above is being exerted to stop the cops from treating rape complainants with greater skepticism than complainants in any other kind of criminal investigation. And, yes, that it has to be said at all necessary implies that the problem exists (not that anyone should have been in doubt).

It is possible to restrict defence lawyers from pursuing certain lines of questioning, but it can generally only done by means of legislation limiting the rights of the defendant. The rules around previous sexual history have largely worked in eradicating general trawls through a complainants sexual past, which is a step forward, but in practice more restricted questioning about particular aspects of her sexual history is quite often allowed. This can sometimes be quite innocuous, concerning things that are technically caught by the legislation but which the complainant doesn't regard as intrusive. But sometimes things get through that aren't innocuous at all.

I'm not sure that it would be workable to exempt complainants from questioning about whether they were inebriated. It couldn't be an absolute rule, given that some rape and sexual assault charges deal with situations where a core part of the complaint is that the complainant was too inebriated to consent. And it is very difficult to see any judge deeming the inebriated state of any witness to be irrelevant information if the rule isn't absolute. In turn, although it should be handled sensitively and shouldn't be treated as an excuse not to believe a complainant or to fail to follow up her complaint, if the defence are likely to ask about possible intoxication, the cops do actually need to elicit that information at some point to avoid hamstringing the prosecution. There is a thin line however between gathering information that a prosecution team will need to know the answers to - because the defence will ask in court - and asking those questions in a way that sees the answers as an excuse to disbelieve the complaint.

(Obviously most of this is irrelevant to the disciplinary processes of private organisations)

 

[comrade spurski]

i'm afraid most of this is irrelevant. its not about what 'should' be done (and i think you are quite wrong in your proposal which shows a misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rape occur, imo) but about what does occur, the processes that have been used. Saying 'they shouldnt have started from there' is purely academic now

Fair enough to dismiss my post as irrelevant but how on earth are you able to say that my post showed a "misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rapes occur" is a complete mystery to me. I have never addressed this question because ... well to be honest it seems irrelevant.

Rape occurs when one person performs a sexual act on some one else without permission...(I think the law still states that rape involves penetration with a body part or an object) and allegations of rape occur when someone believes they have been raped and tells some one...apart from the exceptionally rare cases when someone makes a false allegation.

your posts seem to be a bit academic in tone ... ain't slagging you off but I think that is what caused the SWP to fuck up so badly in the first place.
It is in my opinion very valid to say what should have happened as we are not just discussing past allegations ... there are allegations still being looked at and have been since the Delta case and nothing seems to have changed.

The point of examining events is surely to learn what went well and what went wrong in order to not repeat mistakes and to get better at whatever it is you do...your response seems to suggest discussing this as if we were not interested parties...which obviously we all are

 

[Red Cat]

the entire tone of your question, indeed the very way you pose it indicates a clear opinion. its not one you are willing to express explicitly, all you do is ask (what you think are) smart arse questions. you have no interest in the answer.

No it doesn't mean that at all you aggressive little prick.

I'm interested in the answer because for me I think it's a shift for people who have remained in the SWP to move from a position of thinking shit we really fucked up here to a position where they think that the party has become so degenerate that someone with her history of supporting women (myself included) would put the SWP before a woman comrade. I'm interested in that shift because I have no doubt that many other women who have been involved with the SWP have had similar experiences to myself and that for them, or some of them, to believe that she behaved as described must involve...a real crisis. The reason I expressed it as I did is because she's not just some DC figure, but someone who has played a particular role in the SWP re. women's liberation, both politically and personally. If I thought that someone like that could become so corrupt, I couldn't imagine wanting to stay in the organisation.

I'm not in the SWP so it hasn't been a crisis for me, I haven't had to leave an organisation that I've dedicated years to, but the past year has been confusing and quite painful for me, and I'm sure it has been much more so for those in the organisation, some of whom I care about. I'm not going to pretend that it's all completely black and white and clear what a bunch of degenerate rape apologists they all are just because the men in p&p tell me that's what I should be thinking. My experience as a young woman in the SWP was that it was the most unsexist environment I'd ever encountered. I'm not going to pretend that my experience was different at that time just because it doesn't fit with the current analysis. I'd have to be pretty lacking in integrity and judgement if my own personal experience as a woman in that organisation didn't cause me some confusion about what is going on now. And I should be able to talk about that without having to make a disclaimer each time about how disgusting it all is just to make sure that all the p&p folk with their certitudes don't think I'm a rape apologist.

I'm also interested in what's happening in the SWP because I'm interested in states of minds and I'm interested in group dynamics, because that is my work, and those things are political to me too.

It has been my experience in p&p that people don't find my posts interesting, they're often misunderstood, or ignored. But I'll continue to express myself in the way I choose, use the words that mean something to me, and post about the things that I find interesting, based on my own experience.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

In Ireland, questions about whether or not a complainant (or any witness) was inebriated are certainly not banned, and would be normal to the point of inevitability if the witness had been out socialising. I have never heard of there being a ban on these kind of questions in England either, and would be very surprised if there is one. It's a rather different issue from previous sexual history evidence, which is generally considered to be highly prejudicial and a relic of a more misogynist age - the question of the reliability of witnesses (not complainants in particular) who were drunk or on drugs at the time comes up over and over again in criminal cases (not sexual ones in particular).

Don't be bringing facts into the discussion. No court, workplace or union tribunal would ever want to know the full facts about the state of mind and physical condition of the parties involved in such an incident. To suggest they would doesn't sufficiently indict the swp's dc of misogyny and is therefore wrong per se.

 

[Aargh]

ah ok thanks for explaining. I don't know if it was the same in your day, but nowadays the SWP are very keen to deny the reality of basic contemporary feminist ideas, that all men are able to benefit from men's oppression of women/male dominance being the main one.

I don't know Rhetta so I'll ask some comrades who do to comment. What I will say is all the woman in the ISN piece says is that Rhetta and Jackie interviewed her. She says she was told it was unlikely the CC would do anything, but doesn't directly say that was by Rhetta, and says that it was true anyway!

Anyone in the SWP who is a feminist would find the SWP's denial of some basic feminist ideas hard. The SWP's idea on the issues are not those of most of the rest of the left, and I think are part of the crisis and why people left, especially the youngsters. This can be seen because the ISN which the leavers set up has standard feminist/left views on women as far as I know.

 

[Aargh]

that was for Red Cat

 

[bolshiebhoy]

ah ok thanks for explaining. I don't know if it was the same in your day, but nowadays the SWP are very keen to deny the reality of basic contemporary feminist ideas, that all men are able to benefit from men's oppression of women/male dominance being the main one.

I don't know Rhetta so I'll ask some comrades who do to comment. What I will say is all the woman in the ISN piece says is that Rhetta and Jackie interviewed her. She says she was told it was unlikely the CC would do anything, but doesn't directly say that was by Rhetta, and says that it was true anyway!

Anyone in the SWP who is a feminist would find the SWP's denial of some basic feminist ideas hard. The SWP's idea on the issues are not those of most of the rest of the left, and I think are part of the crisis and why people left, especially the youngsters. This can be seen because the ISN which the leavers set up has standard feminist/left views on women as far as I know.

I admire your honesty but in fairness the SWP has been arguing against the feminist notion of male benefits since the 80's when we all had the argument the first time round. I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about. Kind of thing you have to do from time to time if you're not just about making friends. If people have lately been joining the party and sticking around for a while and not realising that or only realising it now then clearly the party didn't do a very good job of arguing its own politics with the people it was recruiting.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Not nice to see you sinking into the mud with the rest of them bb.

Don't get me wrong it would be much easier emotionally and in terms of reaction here to take my usual tack of saying "look the party clearly fucked this up but don't those oppositionists have some shit centrist politics". But I'm sorry I'm not letting every last fucking permutation of sentence involving the words rape, drink and the SWP be used to make cheap political capital even when people clearly don't grasp how 'normal' bourgeois courts operate. There are questions that shouldn't be asked and questions that may reasonably be asked. Trying to clarify what those questions are is a hugely difficult process but it's not solved by assuming anything a member of the dc asks is automatically wrong which is the method adopted by the antis.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

ah ok thanks for explaining. I don't know if it was the same in your day, but nowadays the SWP are very keen to deny the reality of basic contemporary feminist ideas, that all men are able to benefit from men's oppression of women/male dominance being the main one.

This particular line has always struck me as an example of the SWP's fondness for instrumentalist arguments. Or to put it more clearly, their habit of defending theoretical views not on their own merits, but on the basis that they allegedly help avoid problematic political conclusions.

So "state capitalism" is more often defended on the basis that it allowed socialists who adopted it to avoid siding with the Stalinist or capitalist states during the Cold War rather than on the strength of its analysis of Stalinism's political economy. The notion that "working class men don't benefit from the oppression of women" is at best a very crude description of a complex set of interactions and relationships, which involve both real benefits in many circumstances and real shared negative consequences in others. But from the SWP's point of view, even if it isnt strictly speaking true, it originally had the merit of avoiding any slide towards the separatism or at least divisiveness of some strands of 80s identity politics. And today it allegedly will help innoculate against the non-separatist but ultimately liberal politics of the Internet privilege/intersectionalist crowd, with their inbuilt tendency to locate the source of oppression in the accumulated "privilege" of individuals who aren't oppressed on a particular axis. I don't think it's a very good idea to adopt this kind of instrumentalist approach to theory.

Their avowed non-feminism is a rather different issue, with its roots in arguments in the early women's liberation movement, between people who favoured "women's liberation" and those who favoured "feminism". Nowadays though that argument has been well and truly lost in wider society, and maintaining that you are not a feminist and using the word in a hostile way makes you look like a cranky sexist.

 

[Aargh]

I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about..

That would be fine except neither Marx, nor Engels, nor many other Marxists held that opinion. It's not what Marx believed perhaps, and definitely not compulsory to be a Marxist. I would say Engels was more of the view that working men are encouraged to make use of their status over women so they have a stake in the system.