How Not to Handle a Rape Allegation: the Case of the SWP
Pham Binh | 11.01.2013 06:44 | Gender
With a political backdrop of horrific rapes in India and Ohio, and the unfolding coverup of British entertainer Jimmy Savile’s decades of raping and molesting minors, Andy Newman of the Socialist Unity blog published the 27-page transcript of the British Socialist Workers Party’s (SWP) internal debate surrounding its Disputes Committee report that found that rape, harassment, and abuse charges against ousted Central Committee (CC) member Martin Smith to be “not proven.” This report was accepted by a razor-thin margin of 231 votes for, 209 votes against, and 18 abstentions.
Of course, you won’t find a hint of this in the Socialist Worker report on the annual party conference, the SWP’s highest decision-making body. Instead, we find a glowing report about the SWP’s role in fighting women’s oppression and news that the expulsion of four members for the crime of having “a closed Facebook conversation” (as the CC described it) has been ratified.
However, it is impossible for “Leninist” groups to conduct trials, purges, and expulsions in secret in the age of the internet. The way this scandal has unfolded in the SWP over the past few months bears an uncanny resemblance to the events in Steubenville, Ohio, in the following ways: conflicts of interest seriously undermined due process, leaks by anonymous (both lower case and upper case A) undermined attempts to keep things hush-hush and swept under the rug, and social media (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) has created new evidentiary and political battlegrounds.
The Disputes Committee debate transcript deserves to be read in its entirety by anyone who considers themselves a socialist or a feminist. Whether or not Smith (referred to as “Comrade Delta” in the documents) is guilty as charged is not the key issue, and the debate transcript reveals that both opponents and supporters of the “not proven” verdict sincerely believe that they are upholding their party’s commitment to fighting women’s oppression. However, as Marx explained: “We do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh.”
In other words, the subjective sincerity of the parties involved has nothing to do with the fatally flawed pseudo-judicial processes, practices, and methods applied by the SWP in this instance.
The following flaws and errors stand out:
1. The first and biggest problem was the following admission by “Candy” of the Disputes Committee:
“We’re not a law court. We are here to protect the interests of the party, and to make sure that any inappropriate behaviour of any kind by comrades is dealt with, and we do that according to the politics of a revolutionary party.”
Investigating and taking action against criminal or violent behavior by a member of any organization is best left to the actually existing bourgeois state, at least from the point of view of the victim or alleged victim, the admonition from “Sara B” that “[w]e have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice” notwithstanding. Anything less guarantees that due process will be denied thanks to “amateur hour,” as inexperienced and unprofessional would-be revolutionaries mimic the bourgeois state’s mechanisms of judge and jury but without the power to detain, arrest, subpoena, and thoroughly investigate forensic evidence. Worse yet, incidents like this open the party up to criminal investigation by the capitalist state which does not take a positive view of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and tainting witnesses and evidence.
Anyone guilty of rape should be behind bars, not simply removed from the CC or the party.
Occupy Wall Street tried to handle similar issues internally without involving the New York Police Department and failed miserably, eventually adopting an admittedly flawed approach once they realized dealing with rapes and sexual assaults requires rape kits, counseling, and legal authority to protect victims and/or apprehend suspects.
Victims of sexual assault, burglary, and similar offenses are not betraying any revolutionary principle by calling the cops. That the female who made these allegations chose to handle it internally rather than going to the proper place — a law court — is testament to the powerful, unhealthy emotional attachment of members to their party, an attachment that gives rise to such profound groupthink that those outside the ranks view it as cult-like.
2. The second problem was the Disputes Committee’s inherent bias. Despite their loud and frequent declamations that they truly, honestly, and really were not biased towards Smith whom they “had worked incredibly closely with” and against a woman they practically never heard of, these comrades are apparently unfamiliar with unconscious bias. Again, the sincerity of these statements and reassurances is beyond a doubt, but that does not necessarily make them true.
The reason lawyers in the U.S. can eliminate jurors from a jury pool in criminal cases is precisely to guard against the problem of unconscious or hidden biases. Hardly any potential juror will say “I hate Blacks” or “all criminals deserve to be executed,” so lawyers have to eliminate jurors who privately think and feel this way but would never be so stupid as to admit it publicly.
Candy of the Disputes Committee even admitted that it was impossible to create a truly unbiased body in this situation:
“To be honest comrades, I don’t believe you could have another panel of people who didn’t know Comrade Delta better than they knew that woman.”
3. The Disputes Committee’s bias became exposed in practice when they asked the woman who brought the complaint “about past and subsequent sexual relationships” according to “Viv.” These comrades threw hypocritical and patriarchal bourgeois morality towards alleged rape victims out the door only to have it re-enter through the window. “Sadia” elaborated:
“She was questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about (Karen begins to talk over Sadia to warn about providing details) [sic] … she was asked about relationships with other comrades including sexual relationships.”
Worse yet according to “Viv”:
[O]ne of the most distressing things for her was that she was expected to respond immediately to the evidence that Comrade Delta was able to bring – she never got to see it in advance. He had her statement for weeks before she appeared in front of the panel. Some of the issues that were raised were things she had blocked out, and it was an incredibly traumatic experience for her.
The Disputes Committee’s response to this complaint was, “he didn’t actually provide evidence in advance and that’s why they didn’t, why W didn’t see it.” So the accused knew weeks in advance how to prepare himself and his defense from his accuser but his accuser was expected to respond immediately to that defense.
How is that for revolutionary justice?
When a second woman (“X”, a former district organizer) brought forth a similar complaint against the accused, it was treated in much the same way (he saw the evidence in advance, she was questioned about her drinking habits, and she was removed from her job in the party’s office). The Disputes Committee excused its inexcusable behavior under the following pretext:
we’d asked her whether she wanted to make a formal complaint, and we’d made it clear to her that she had every right to do so. And at that point in time she did not want to make a formal complaint. Therefore we only listened to her testimony in regard to whether it changed our point of view on the original investigation.
The fact that similar incidents happened with two different women strongly indicates a pattern, an underlying systemic problem with the way the SWP is set up internally to deal with these issues.
4. The Disputes Committee in its entirety, including Pat Stack who was the lone dissident who felt “uneasy” about the question of sexual harassment, never denied the substance of the complaints about how the investigation was handled. Instead, they justified their actions using subjective and flimsy excuses based on their good intentions and revolutionary morality.
5. A proposal by 30 members that “included some very very basic things” like “comrades who bring a complaint of serious sexual misconduct should be supported, should be kept informed and not be questioned on their sexual history” were barred (presumably by the CC) from distributing this proposal.
So in the SWP, you can expect to be expelled for comments on Facebook while rape/sexual harassment charges against someone who is high up in the party will not be investigated with anything remotely approaching impartiality or due process, much less empathy.
Pham Binh
Homepage:
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4522
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
SWP's Tom Walker: Why I am resigning
11.01.2013 06:59
Tom Walker Statement
Homepage:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning
Missing the point?
11.01.2013 14:02
It is beside the point that we might distrust the "bourgeois court system" because an entirely different question whether conduct is against OUR rules regardless of how the outside society views the matter. We have to make a decision separately, not instead of but in addition to what the outside society decides.
We might deem conduct unacceptable that the outside society does not consider criminal.
We might deem conduct acceptable that the outside society does consider criminal.
Or we and the outside society both might deem the conduct acceptable/not criminal or unacceptable/criminal.
MDN
Excellent article from prominent SWP blogger
11.01.2013 22:13
Susie
The SWP, Andy Newman, Socialist Unity, Ian Tomlinson, Jimmy Savile & THE POLICE
11.01.2013 23:56
The accusation made in The Independent newspaper is that Andy Newman, a Swindon-based Labour Party supporter, who blogs under the name Socialist Unity, says “I believe that the SWP think they’re outside the law”. Given the way that the police colluded in covering-up for the MURDER of Ian Tomlinson, helped cover-up for the DOZENS OF CHILD RAPES committed by Jimmy Savile, and lied and cheated in relation to Hillsborough and Orgreave etc, the SWP were right to try and deal with this on their own, because THE POLICE AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE TOTALLY FUCKING CORRUPT
That's not to say that the SWP dealt with this well, but you'd have to be a real moron to think that the allegation against Martin Smith would ever be dealt with fairly by the fucking COPS
Ian's Ghost
forgetting something
12.01.2013 00:31
It isn't for SWP or anyone else to decide if they can set up their own investigations / courts etc.
mercury stick
The victim's rights
12.01.2013 00:57
The Independent, CPGB and Labour etc accuse the SWP (no surprise there then!) on grounds the SWP didnt take this to the police, but if the alleged victim wasn't happy to go to the police, then the SWP have no right to go behind the alleged victim's back and go to the police.
Sure an SWP "court" is a joke, but in not taking the case to the police the SWP did the right thing.
In terms of "unconscious bias", it's more a case of involuntary self-expression - the language is a dead give-away - the people who habitually accuse the SWP of supporting Sharia Law are the EDL and the BNP
The SWP are full of shit for all kinds of reasons, but they do provide the organisational back-bone of a huge part of the protest movement, they're a major pain in the arse for the EDL and BNP, and in this case frankly I smell a major rat
AP
The SWP on Assange and Rape Allegations
12.01.2013 06:41
______________________________________________________
"...the bogus distinction between “legitimate” rape by a stranger and rape by someone a woman knows is a common one. Women who make allegations of rape and sexual assault are rarely taken seriously.
Some of those defending Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from persecution by the US have resorted to disparaging the rape allegations.
But stopping the US locking up Assange for his role in exposing US imperialism does not make trivialising rape acceptable. That is why George Galloway was wrong to say what he did last week."
__________________________________________________
Maxine B:
"I tell you, it’s not good enough to say that if a woman makes a complaint, then she is right. We have to be able to listen to the evidence that is there, and that is precisely what we did.
Now Pat didn’t, in the end, sign up to the statement. But I tell you, all five women, who have long term experience of dealing with questions around women’s oppression, did sign up to it, because we believed that he was not guilty."
Theory vs Practice
when i see Martin Smith's photo...
12.01.2013 08:31
is all i think about!
flying lizard
Were the SWP merely using the Assange issue to beat up on Galloway?
12.01.2013 19:28
"The SWP are full of shit for all kinds of reasons, but they do provide the organisational back-bone of a huge part of the protest movement....."
AP (above)
In my experience in Britain, the SWP are the first line of policing any protest movement will meet.
Having said that, Tom Walker had no other option to resign. His position untenable after taking such an unethical position on the Assange extradition case. Anyone with a neuron sees the extraditon to Sweden as a stopover for life in solitary confinement in a U.S. supermax for a person the U.S. views as major impediment to their conduct of war. Why is this context ignored by the SWP. Could it be they were in a rush to use the Assange case to carry on their post-Respect feud with Galloway once he made what many regard as a inappropriate "bedroom etiquette" comment
The Stop the War Coalition (StW) and SWP have been negligent in relation to the Bradley Manning case whose family is British and was raised in his teenage years in Wales. Solidarity with both Manning and Assange should have been major priorities for anti-war activists for the last 2 years, it hasn't. The high powered character assassination campaign led by the Guardian may explain why people have been fearful to go near Assange. Toxic, guilt by association etc etc But what of Manning?
In the Assange case there was no rape complaint. There was a request for a HIV test and a very dodgy police interview with a broader agenda. When the woman making that request sensed she was being used for a larger agenda/ fit up she left the police station and refused to sign a statement written by the interviewing police officer (not audio or video recorded).
Assange co-operated with a police interview while in Sweden and has remained open to further interview by Swedish police in Britain for the last 2 years. The Swedish prosecution have refused to carry out further interviews with him. Why? Because they are not serious about carrying out such an investigation seems to be the obvious conclusion. The offer for interview is still open at the Ecuadoran embassy.
As far as I know, the present position of the Ecuadoran government, Amnesty International and Assange himself is that if Sweden will guarantee that he will not be sent on to the U.S. to face the probability and life in super max for his journalist activity he would return to Sweden. Amnesty International in Sweden, William Hague etc. oppose this position.
Meanwhile those working on opposition to the extradition of Assange now have a liberal left lynch mob joining the British state who wish to define them as "rape apologists","saddos", "devotees", "followers". One imagines this was the case for those who, in the early years, took up the case of the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Maguire 7 and other Miscarriages of justice in Britain. Advocating for these demonised people was presented as being soft on putting bombs in pubs. These accused were regarded as toxic and people who should know better adopted a hostile position without seriously investigating the cases. It is the same situation now with Assange.
Politics is not a game when it comes to people's lives and liberty. Don't passively follow the line whether it is handed down from the state, the Guardian, the SWP or subcultures closer to home.
@
Good lord!
12.01.2013 23:04
No doubt that makes the SWP, STWC and others very upset. How are they to continue with their monopoly on dissidency if nobody takes them seriously?
The biggest problem in Capitalist Britain, is not injustice or corruption, but the ease with which Capitalism is able to subvert so-called radicals. Is everybody in the SWP/STWC capable of actually doing their jobs outside the rigidity of 'paying work'? and taking care of the party line. Truth is, they got too many fingers in too many pies, too much joy for the champagne bottle.
Marx was wrong, Capitalism will not eventually collapse into Socialism...the Socialists won't allow it!
Work that one out?
anonymous
The Tragedy of Indymedia
15.01.2013 00:03
Even within the logic of State-sponsored "justice", Martin Smith is INNOCENT until proven guilty, and no-one has the right to take this case to the police except the people concerned, but yet again IMC is being used to do the Daily Mail's dirty work...
Indymedia, you absolutely refuse to learn, don't you
Figures