Saturday, March 09, 2013

The SWP leadership have sown the wind.

Now the SWP must reap the whirlwind. Sad to say a number of us saw this coming. If the In Defence of Our Party faction does not prevail at this Sunday's special conference it means several things. 1) The SWP is a rigged game - IDOOP has more supporters than the CC Faction yet fewer delegates to conference. 2) Either that or the SWP membership are sectarian themselves - or, of course, a combination of the two. 3) Either way the SWP is over. 4) Anybody who cares about the future of socialism in Britain must leave it.

13 comments:

Snowball said...

Interesting - if sad - to note that you now trust Nick Cohen / and the liberal bourgeois Guardian paper over the majority of your former comrades in the SWP...

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Er..., Snowball, how does *that* follow?

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

By the way, Roobin, can you change the link you have to my site?

It was changed in 2009 to:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Snowball said...

Rosa - 1) Roobin seems happy to see Nick Cohen attacking the SWP in the Guardian on the basis of partial truths only.
2) He thinks that if the SWP minority don't win out tomorrow then the SWP majority are 'sectarian' ie. not to be trusted - indeed he urges SWP members to then leave the party.

It therefore looks to me like he has more trust in Cohen than in most of his former comrades. That is sad.

Roobin said...

IDOOP has more supporters than the Hacktion - a fairly important point, I would say.

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Snowball:

"Rosa - 1) Roobin seems happy to see Nick Cohen attacking the SWP in the Guardian on the basis of partial truths only."

He certainly linked to Cohen's article, but how does that make him 'happy'? Are you 'happy' with everything you have ever linked to?

"2) He thinks that if the SWP minority don't win out tomorrow then the SWP majority are 'sectarian' ie. not to be trusted - indeed he urges SWP members to then leave the party.""

530 vs 512, I think. So, the evidence suggests *you* are in the minority.

[But where are the other 6000 phantom members of the party? Don't they care?]

"It therefore looks to me like he has more trust in Cohen than in most of his former comrades. That is sad."

With all due respect, it is even more sad that you seem to have lost your grip on reality.

If you think otherwise, perhaps you can tell us where Roobin says he 'trusts' Cohen?

The fact that you can conclude *this* (from a link!) suggests you are getting rather desperate in your defence of the indefensible.

Keith Watermelon said...

zoidy - it's not about 'trusting nick cohen'; it's about believing a woman reporting a rape by a party organiser and what happened to her when she raised it inside the party.

are you suggesting she's lying? if so, you really can get fucked.

Keith Watermelon said...

zoidy - it's not about 'trusting nick cohen'; it's about believing a woman reporting a rape by a party organiser and what happened to her when she raised it inside the party.

are you suggesting she's lying? if so, you really can get fucked.

Snowball said...

Keith - please read what I said - I said the Nick Cohen article contained 'partial truths' - so I am not saying the women concerned is a liar. However, I would contest her suggestion that "I want people to know it's a systemic thing. They've done this a few times, covered things up in the interests of the party and it's a dangerous environment to be in."

Do people agree with this? That the SWP - of which many of the people on Through the Scary Door have been members and indeed former organisers of - is really 'a dangerous environment for women to be in'?

It worth noting the letter that Charlie Kimber wrote in response to the Cohen article:

'Dear comrade,

Some of you may have seen an article on the Guardian website today that makes allegations about a disputes committee case in 2011.

The party was approached by the Guardian in advance of the story going out, and we made a statement to them. Only a very small part of it was used, so I am letting you see the whole of it. You will see that we do not accept how the Guardian has framed the issue, and we contest much of the detail.

Charlie Kimber, the party’s national secretary, says, “The SWP strongly contests major elements of this account of the Disputes Committee hearing. The woman concerned brought serious accusations to our attention, we investigated, found against the accused and took prompt action. Those are the facts of this case.

“Fighting for women’s liberation is a central part of the struggle for socialism. We take any issues involving women’s oppression extremely seriously.

“We give a guarantee of confidentiality to everyone involved in such hearings, and therefore we cannot go into full detail. But there was absolutely no cover-up.

“The person accused was removed from the party, and the members of the party heard a full report on the case at our annual conference.

“This report, and a special meeting in the district most affected, brought home the importance of what had happened.

“It is to the credit of our organisation that we investigated this claim thoroughly and took effective action on the basis of the evidence that was presented.”

Pat Stack, the chair of the disputes committee during this case, says, “I simply do not recognise this account of the hearing. For example, we did not ask the questions that are alleged. We are very conscious of how difficult such cases are for the women involved. I am sure that we dealt with the case in a proper way.”

Charlie Kimber adds, “I hope that after the party’s conference we can move forward united. We are going to redouble our fight against this vicious government, against the attacks on jobs, pay, benefits and public services, against the bedroom tax and against privatisation.

“We will continue to work in action with as wide a range of people outside the party as possible. The challenges facing working people across the globe are too urgent for us not to seek to build broader resistance to austerity, fascism and war. And at the centre of that fightback we will continue to argue for a socialist future which abolishes exploitation and tears out the roots of women’s oppression, LGBT oppression, racism and everything else that divides us.”

Solidarity,
Charlie Kimber, SWP national secretary'

The question is comrades - do you trust Nick Cohen more than Pat Stack? If so, why do you still support the faction (of which Stack is a leading member)?

Keith Watermelon said...

"The question is comrades - do you trust Nick Cohen more than Pat Stack? If so, why do you still support the faction (of which Stack is a leading member)? "

no, i believe women reporting rape. why is that so difficult for you to get your head around? are you calling them liars? if so, you are a fucking rape apologist.

Roobin said...

Cohen and Malik's report is based on testimony from women reporting rape at the hands of SWP members and how their reports were handled by the leadership of the SWP. If there is anything untrue in the article then it is because those women have told lies - which is a terrible position for a socialist to be coming from. The number of unsolved and unreported rapes dwarfs the number of false allegations (less than 0.5% of reported rapes turn out to be false).

Snowball said...

Hi - okay, lets break this up a little bit.

1) She alleges a rape by another comrade - 'theta' I think Socialist Unity have called him. Now believe it or not I wasn't there at the time so I have no way of knowing myself what happened. She hasn't yet gone to the police to secure a conviction, so at the moment it remains an alleged rape by theta. That said, she took it to the Disputes Committee, who heard the evidence and ruled that theta should be expelled for whatever it was he did. So while it remains an alleged rape, I have no reason not to believe her testimony about what theta did to her.

2) She says that the Disputes Committee asked her inappropriate questions etc while investigating. Now again, I am not on the Disputes Committee, so I don't know and have no way or knowing whether this is true or not. The chair of the Disputes Committee Pat Stack denys that she was treated inappropriately. This I guess comes down to who one trusts here - the woman or the chair of the Disputes Committee. All one can say is that this remains a matter of dispute - but I have no way of knowing what the truth of the matter is here.

3) She alleges this kind of thing is 'systemic' in the SWP and 'it is a dangerous place for women'. This is the bit I would want to contest a bit. If you accept it as the literal truth - which you are entitled of course to do - then it surely does raise some very awkward questions for all SWP members including myself and both Keith and Roobin. You were members of this party for years - one of you at least was a former organiser - if this is true, you must have seen this kind of systemic abuse of women going on / played a part in covering it up yourself. Is this really what the SWP is like? Seriously? If so, why are you calling on people to support IDOOP to 'defend the party' - why not just tell people to get the hell out of the party now - it is not a safe place for women? It is this last bit of her 'testimony' you see that I would really query with - and suggest that she has here been manipulated into saying this by Nick Cohen, a known liar about matters relating to the SWP.

Roobin said...

Oh, so she IS lying, and light-minded. So it just remains to work out whether she's mad, vindictive or working for the state and/or Chris Bambery.

Bravo, Snowball, bravo.