SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Karmickameleon]

Should be involved covers a lot of ground. More specifically are you saying that the SWP should have gone to the cops against the wishes of the complainant?

One thing is the DC investigating a punch up at a party, quite another is investigating a rape accusation. From the outset, it should have been made to clear to W that there was no way that a committee of non-experts could decide on something as serious as this (ditto for grevious bodily harm or, indeed, manslaughter/murder). Then, she might just have gone to the police instead of being taken through the macabre farce of being "judged" by Smith's mates.

 

[comrade spurski]

Should be involved covers a lot of ground. More specifically are you saying that the SWP should have gone to the cops against the wishes of the complainant?

The swp should have been honest...
" we can not investigate a rape claim...we have no ability to do so...we will support you if you decide to go to the police and if you decide not to"
should have been the starting point.
They could have offered access to a sympathetic solicitor...but mostly they should have suspended Delta immediately (...just like they would have done if it had been any other non cc member ) and should have expelled him after the second complaint.
For a socialist party not to realise that by saying he was not guilty of rape that the woman was lying beggars belief.

 

[quiquaquo]

If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer, would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter? Would it buggery. It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.

Callinicos owns a house in Mayfair? Surely not.

 

[belboid]

One thing is the DC investigating a punch up at a party, quite another is investigating a rape accusation. From the outset, it should have been made to clear to W that there was no way that a committee of non-experts could decide on something as serious as this (ditto for grevious bodily harm or, indeed, manslaughter/murder). Then, she might just have gone to the police instead of being taken through the macabre farce of being "judged" by Smith's mates.

So if she refused to go to the police, nothing should be done? That's not good enough, is it?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer, would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter? Would it buggery. It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.

That's not a very good comparison, as the victim there has no wishes to take into account.

Let's invent a fictitious party called something like the Revolutionary Workers Party. Let's say that within such a party, one member in a senior position, Mr Z, is accused of carrying out a serious sexual assault on another member, Ms E. Ms E does not want to go to the cops because she is traumatised by the whole experience, has a very sceptical view of how the justice system treats sexual assault complainants, etc. However, she does want Mr Z gone from her political organisation and from any position of authority over her or others.

Now, lets say that the RWP actually advises Ms E. to go to the cops, but she is still opposed to so doing. Going to the cops without her consent (a) is a rather brutal thing to do to her and (b) - this is absolutely crucial - will still not allow the RWP to evade doing something itself. Think about it for a moment. Let's assume the RWP suspend Mr Z without prejudice and then leave the state machinery to do its job. What then?

The state machinery has many of its own flaws, to put it mildly, in how it deals with this kind of allegation. And even if it where to operate as it is "supposed" to do, it is looking into a different question. It is there, effectively, to determine whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Z is guilty of the serious allegations and should be locked up. But the RWP's question should be different - has Mr Z probably behaved in a way incompatible with party membership. There are many circumstances where the answer to the state's question may be "no", including circumstances where the state did something wrong and circumstances where it did everything by its own book, while the answer to the party's question would be yes. Even where the state investigates, the organisation still needs a way to determine the answer to its own question. The same applies to unions etc.

 

[redcogs]

That's not a very good comparison, as the victim there has no wishes to take into account.

Let's invent a fictitious party called something like the Revolutionary Workers Party. Let's say that within such a party, one member in a senior position, Mr Z, is accused of carrying out a serious sexual assault on another member, Ms E. Ms E does not want to go to the cops because she is traumatised by the whole experience, has a very sceptical view of how the justice system treats sexual assault complainants, etc. However, she does want Mr Z gone from her political organisation and from any position of authority over her or others.

Now, lets say that the RWP actually advises Ms E. to go to the cops, but she is still opposed to so doing. Going to the cops without her consent (a) is a rather brutal thing to do to her and (b) - this is absolutely crucial - will still not allow the RWP to evade doing something itself. Think about it for a moment. Let's assume the RWP suspend Mr Z without prejudice and then leave the state machinery to do its job. What then?

The state machinery has many of its own flaws, to put it mildly, in how it deals with this kind of allegation. And even if it where to operate as it is "supposed" to do, it is looking into a different question. It is there, effectively, to determine whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Z is guilty of the serious allegations and should be locked up. But the RWP's question should be different - has Mr Z probably behaved in a way incompatible with party membership. There are many circumstances where the answer to the state's question may be "no", including circumstances where the state did something wrong and circumstances where it did everything by its own book, while the answer to the party's question would be yes. Even where the state investigates, the organisation still needs a way to determine the answer to its own question. The same applies to unions etc.

In this case the RWP central committee ought to overrule Ms E's wishes (brutal maybe) and insist that the long term interests of the working class is dependent upon the RWP being able to develop some significance as a trusted organisation, with the potential to become a viable vehicle for ultimately producing social change, which would be unlikely if allegations of serious sexual assault/s are not seen to be dealt with appropriately. Revolutionary workers have their eyes wide open to the role of the state and its paid defenders, but the need to subordinate revolutionary understanding in this instance is surely crucial. Get the coppers in, clear out the sex offenders from the RWP's leadership and win respect. At a later stage, the RWP can re assess and re organise in the light of what it has learned from the painful processes it has had to deal with, but at least it has been seen to have behaved responsibly.

CC's are there to offer leadership are they not?

As far as i know the prof doesn't have a Mayfair dwelling BTW, but if i were he, i'd conceal the ball pane hammer. You never know who might find it.

 

[belboid]

In this case the RWP central committee ought to overrule Ms E's wishes (brutal maybe) and insist that the long term interests of the working class is dependent upon the RWP being able to develop some significance as a trusted organisation, with the potential to become a viable vehicle for ultimately producing social change, which would be unlikely if allegations of serious sexual assault/s are not seen to be dealt with appropriately. Revolutionary workers have their eyes wide open to the role of the state and its paid defenders, but the need to subordinate revolutionary understanding in this instance is surely crucial. Get the coppers in, clear out the sex offenders from the RWP's leadership and win respect. At a later stage, the RWP can re assess and re organise in the light of what it has learned from the painful processes it has had to deal with, but at least it has been seen to have behaved responsibly.

sorry, but that's a terrible suggestion. Even worse than the one the SWP came up with.

 

[redcogs]

And your recipe for a good outcome from similarly disastrous circumstances is?

 

[Karmickameleon]

So if she refused to go to the police, nothing should be done? That's not good enough, is it?

I didn't say that nothing should be done. As Nigel and others have pointed out, any organisation (and especially a supposedly revolutionary socialist one) would need to decide if a member accused of such a serious offence should be expelled. As a first step, Smith should have been immediately suspended when the accusation was made, this would have given time for the party to seek legal advice on this question and decide how to proceed.
As regards going to the police, W's supposed reluctance to take this path has been used by loyalists as a fig leaf defence: "she wouldn't go to the police, so the DC had to decide" (or similar bullshit). If she had been offered proper support right from the beginning and the alternatives outlined to her by a sympathetic lawyer, then it is quite possible she would have taken the legal road. And who knows, post Savile, Harris etc, perhaps one day she will and good luck to her.

 

[belboid]

There isn't a good answer, but I think rthey should have passed it to their Irish party DC, with full rights to ask about other behaviour and incidents, and for a decision made upon balance of probability, rather than 'proof'.

I dont think any 'independent' body would touch it, and forcing it on the police would only piss the woman off massively, which would make it even more likely that the assaulter got off. As Nigel pointed out above, a police investigation isn't the be all and end all anyway, and given the incredibly low conviction rates for assault, it can be a way of getting the assaulter off the hook. DC refers to police, woman still wont cooperate, Mr Z walks free, RWP say everything has been done, re-instates Z.

 

[redcogs]

Get a private investigator involved maybe? Poirot, Sherlock, Perry Mason?

 

[belboid]

As regards going to the police, W's supposed reluctance to take this path has been used by loyalists as a fig leaf defence: "she wouldn't go to the police, so the DC had to decide" (or similar bullshit). If she had been offered proper support right from the beginning and the alternatives outlined to her by a sympathetic lawyer, then it is quite possible she would have taken the legal road. And who knows, post Savile, Harris etc, perhaps one day she will and good luck to her.

Maybe, maybe. Lets hope so - tho given most of those cases have failed, probably not. I think we have to go along withe the claim that she didnt want to go to the police, in which case....

 

[Karmickameleon]

And your recipe for a good outcome from similarly disastrous circumstances is?

Surely the only recipe can be NOT to repeat anything that the SWP did in the case of W.

 

[Karmickameleon]

According to SW: 2,600 participants at Marxism 2014
Can't see an apology for the polar bear "joke" or have I missed it.

 

[emanymton]

And your recipe for a good outcome from similarly disastrous circumstances is?

If member of a party accuses a leader member of rape I don't think there is such a thing as a 'good outcome'

 

[ska invita]

According to SW: 2,600 participants at Marxism 2014
Can't see an apology for the polar bear "joke" or have I missed it.

apology? from what i can see of the SWP faithful they think its Owen Jones who should be apologising

 

[comrade spurski]

Like I said earlier that is around a third of the number from around a decade ago...and we have had four years of a Tory government and austerity yet only 2600 turned up for their flagship event (according to them).
Marxism throughout the time of 1987-2008/9 was always bigger

As for the "polar bear apology" ... it was an attempt at satire...might have been a shit attempt...might have been tasteless and even hypocritical considering :
1) the big meeting at Marxism 2014 celebrated the life of Paul Foot who was privately educated and grew up very privileged (I have no problem with this as he was a brilliant campaigner and writer who used his skills to help highlight injustice all his adult life)
2) the swp is not short of privately educated members...I was once asked what school I went to by a "leading" member called kevin Ovenden and when I replied "St Pauls" he excitedly asked if I knew X Y and Z in the party cos they had been at St Pauls at the same time...it all went a bit tumble weed when he realised I meant a school in Plumstead SE London rather than the private school he was on about

but the apology bit is a joke ... the media were happy enough to be snidey about bob crow dying and will be about scargill dying so they can fuck right off with their apology demands - imo

 

[emanymton]

I didn't say that nothing should be done. As Nigel and others have pointed out, any organisation (and especially a supposedly revolutionary socialist one) would need to decide if a member accused of such a serious offence should be expelled. As a first step, Smith should have been immediately suspended when the accusation was made, this would have given time for the party to seek legal advice on this question and decide how to proceed.
As regards going to the police, W's supposed reluctance to take this path has been used by loyalists as a fig leaf defence: "she wouldn't go to the police, so the DC had to decide" (or similar bullshit). If she had been offered proper support right from the beginning and the alternatives outlined to her by a sympathetic lawyer, then it is quite possible she would have taken the legal road. And who knows, post Savile, Harris etc, perhaps one day she will and good luck to her.

But again as Nigel said even if the police got involved the SWP sill had to hold its own hearing, the goal of which is not to decide if someone is guilty of rape or not but to decide it Smith behaviour justified censure by the SWP. That the SWP did not fully grasp this distinction was, I think, their first mistake. It is my belief that a revolutionary party should hold its members to a higher standard of behaviour than criminal law, it should be perfectly possible for someone to be found innocent in a court of law yet still be expelled from that party, theoretically the reverse is also true but that does not apply in this case. The problem was not that the SWP had an investigation, one way or another they had to, but that the made a complete balls up of it.

 

[Karmickameleon]

The problem was not that the SWP had an investigation, one way or another they had to, but that the made a complete balls up of it.

They made complete balls up because the leadership sought to cover up for Delta because he was deemed to be too important a player to lose. Fortunately, many of the members took the position on sexual oppression seriously and couldn't and wouldn't stomach this. But with a loss of 800 + members (including most of the students and many of the post 1960 generation) balls up it certainly is!

 

[comrade spurski]

But again as Nigel said even if the police got involved the SWP sill had to hold its own hearing, the goal of which is not to decide if someone is guilty of rape or not but to decide it Smith behaviour justified censure by the SWP. That the SWP did not fully grasp this distinction was, I think, their first mistake. It is my belief that a revolutionary party should hold its members to a higher standard of behaviour than criminal law, it should be perfectly possible for someone to be found innocent in a court of law yet still be expelled from that party, theoretically the reverse is also true but that does not apply in this case. The problem was not that the SWP had an investigation, one way or another they had to, but that the made a complete balls up of it.

But the SWP has done this in plenty of previous cases ... the only difference was on those occasions the members accused were not CC members...that is what makes this so politically corrupt...one (sensible and correct) rule for members but protection for a CC member ...

 

[Karmickameleon]

As for the "polar bear apology" ... it was an attempt at satire...might have been a shit attempt...might have been tasteless and even hypocritical
but the apology bit is a joke ... the media were happy enough to be snidey about bob crow dying and will be about scargill dying so they can fuck right off with their apology demands - imo

The media made a meal out of the Delta scandal (remember the Daily Mail?), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have demanded a complete apology for W and X. That was (and still is) the correct position.
The polar bear "joke" was vile - a 17 year old being torn to pieces by a polar bear is not to be celebrated whatever his social class. As you point out, some prominent members of the SWP have reneged on their class background to become committed revolutionaries.
I really do believe that as a socialist one has to admit one's mistakes and apologise when necessary. But I guess that's why I never made it as an organiser, just not "hard" enough.

 

[ska invita]

But I guess that's why I never made it as an organiser, just not "hard" enough.

or in the wrong group

 

[comrade spurski]

The media made a meal out of the Delta scandal (remember the Daily Mail?), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have demanded a complete apology for W and X. That was (and still is) the correct position.
The polar bear "joke" was vile - a 17 year old being torn to pieces by a polar bear is not to be celebrated whatever his social class. As you point out, some prominent members of the SWP have reneged on their class background to become committed revolutionaries.
I really do believe that as a socialist one has to admit one's mistakes and apologise when necessary. But I guess that's why I never made it as an organiser, just not "hard" enough.

The Delta issue was never a matter of satire so is completely different in my opinion.

I wouldn't have made the joke and don't think it's funny or relevant...in fact I think it's cruel and unnecessary but it's the hypocrisy of the media that piss me off...
As for not being "hard" enough ... that was always the excuse for members to be arrogant, rude and pigheaded...they were just being political hard and bending the stick... stick them in a real workplace and they are considered pricks

 

[Horas]

... stick them in a real workplace and they are considered pricks

not necessarily.

 

[Trappist]

Really? Really?

No, not really. Not thinking straight - shift change.

It is not allowed in an actual rape case - and the committee were pretending to follow the legal demands of a trial, but that shows they weren't doing so.

No, of course it's not allowed. But looking at the transcript I don't think they were intending to act as a trial - no advocates, no cross examination, agreeing to hear a surprise witness after they'd reached a decision, an intention to consider wider aspects of behaviour not just rape and, worst of all, a belief they would be regarded as fair by both parties and by others.

I suspect in almost every case before there were undisputed facts, witnessed events or some form of confession. I think this resulted in overconfidence in their own abilities and in the way their decisions would be received. The consequence was a massive failure of imagination in deciding to take the case on and in the way they handled it. Errors we've paid for dearly, and will do for some time.

 

[belboid]

No, not really. Not thinking straight - shift change.

fair do's, we've all been there.

No, of course it's not allowed. But looking at the transcript I don't think they were intending to act as a trial - no advocates, no cross examination, agreeing to hear a surprise witness after they'd reached a decision, an intention to consider wider aspects of behaviour not just rape and, worst of all, a belief they would be regarded as fair by both parties and by others.

I suspect in almost every case before there were undisputed facts, witnessed events or some form of confession. I think this resulted in overconfidence in their own abilities and in the way their decisions would be received. The consequence was a massive failure of imagination in deciding to take the case on and in the way they handled it. Errors we've paid for dearly, and will do for some time.

so, you can admit a massive failure to behave appropriately, but none of the people who did so should be held responsible in any way? That doesn't seem right, does it? Until they are, why should anyone believe you that you have learnt anything?

 

[treelover]

https://www.facebook.com/events/550015598440621/


They have resurrected Globalise Resistance and are having a summer camp, seeing as GR is aimed primarily at the young who do they think will be going.

its a shame it is them as its cheap, etc.

 

[osterberg]

https://www.facebook.com/events/550015598440621/


They have resurrected Globalise Resistance and are having a summer camp, seeing as GR is aimed primarily at the young who do they think will be going.

its a shame it is them as its cheap, etc.

Just de-lurking to point out that Counterfire's got the custody of GR .
I'll lurk off now .

 

[SpackleFrog]

Quite right Kennedy should have been told to fuck off, and a Socialist alliance speaker should have been on the platform.
But to be honest with the big demo it was really really difficult to relate to it in any meaningful way, given the size of the SWP and the wider STWC we would only be able to talk to a tiny percentage of those that were there, I think it was a bit more 'running around like headless chickens not sure what to do' and a bit less deliberate sabotage I think a lot of people on that demo thought it would stop the war, we did not but how do you communicate effectively with that many people when there are ony a couple of thousand of you at most? Mind you as we can see from future events those SWP members who were leading in the STWC were being pulled away from working class politics by it.
Oh and I can't believe you are younger than me you bastard!

Ahhh yeah... Am I the youngest Urbanite? Must be close...

That's the thing isn't it though? When you're a self-professed revolutionary party, and you find yourselves finally at the head of a mass movement, you're supposed to, y'know, know what to do, and not run around like headless chickens. There's nothing wrong with claiming to be the rightful heirs of Bolshevism and all that, but if you do, you've actually got to deliver when you find yourself in a position to do so. That's why I never joined the SWP - I never had a problem with them claiming to be Marxist revolutionaries, its just Stop the War seemed to demonstrate that they either didn't believe their own hype or were incapable of living up to it.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Reluctantly sticking my toe into the mire at page 586:


Can't speak for every member, but I don't think there are many who think we didn't f*ck up majorly. In more ways than we care to count.

Except, of course, it isn't a fact. Delta was forced out by the second case.

Other relevant [?] facts:

Not only did the SWP make changes to its procedures to try to overcome the shortcomings that had been highlighted, but it also published the proposed procedures in advance of the conference.

On top of this Socialist Worker carried an apology to the two women involved.

Not enough, perhaps, but public apologies by far left groups - how many have you seen?

If he was forced out as you claim, I've no idea why the CC haven't released a statement saying "we've forced the bastard out, he was a right wrong un".