Solidarity, empathy and combating misogyny, the limits of the Australian Socialist Alliance's code of conduct

Lisbeth Latham

In the June 2014, the Socialist Alliance adopted a new code of conduct entitled Defending Comradely Solidarity in Socialist Alliance. This document had previously been published in the March issue of the Socialist Alliance's discussion bullet Alliance Voices. Published alongside it was a second article, by Susan Price, Socialist Alliance co-convenor, titled Thinking About Party Leadership and Functioning in the Socialist Alliance, which looked at how left/progressive organisations should address the influence of oppressive social behaviour within the working class.

Neither documents make clear motivations for their drafting, although Price's contribution does make reference to the destructive impact on the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP) of that organisation's handling of rape allegations against former SWP national secretary Martin Smith. The covering note to Defending Comradely Solidarity makes reference to the new code including “appended guidelines to assist leadership bodies dealing with reports of sexual assault by members”, which would suggest at the very least a perception that the organisation's existing Code of Conduct is inadequate for properly handling allegations of oppressive behaviour by members and specifically with the ability to handle allegations of rape. As a person who is keenly interested in problems of misogyny within the left and as a former Socialist Alliance member this is a critical reading of the documents, discussing both the merits and limitations of Alliance’s attempt to address issues of oppressive behaviour, particularly rape.

Why Challenge Oppressive Behaviour?
Both Thinking About Party Leadership and Defending Comradely Solidarity motivate the need to challenge oppressive behaviour primarily on the impact of such behaviour on the unity of the working class as a whole and on the internal “political solidarity and mutual confidence so essential to building a united team of activists and an effective political leadership”. Such explanations are common in many left organisations when focusing on the need to challenge oppressive behaviour. In a recent contribution to the US International Socialist Organisation's (ISO) internal discussion bulletin which examined the handling of rape allegations in that organisation, the need to challenge misogyny was posed on the need to “practice our fight on the needs of the oppressed” on the basis of “considering it fundamental that the overthrow of capitalism will require the confrontation of oppression by the oppressed themselves. We must therefore do everything we can so that victims of oppression can feel safe in the ISO and with ISO comrades, in order that they can fully participate in the struggle”. These instrumental arguments downplay the broader impact of this behaviour on individuals experiencing the behaviour – they do not motivate opposition on the basis of empathy, or even morality, but instead a calculation of the cost to the organisation of the behaviour. By doing so you risk making decisions to take action (with regard to oppressive behaviour) based on this calculation, a calculation which historically has seen the retention of members of dominant social groups, most notably cis straight white men, as more valuable than members of oppressed groupings.

What are discrimination, bullying and harassment?
Defending Comradely Solidarity seeks to define discrimination, bullying and harassment as behaviours that are viewed as inappropriate for members to display towards other members. This falls short in a number of ways: the focus on behaviour within the organisation is problematic, as often some of the worst behaviour by members of the left is reserved for individuals outside their own organisations; behaviour which is often given a pass due to the tendency of organisations to defend the action of their comrades from external criticism. It is important to note that Defending Comradely Solidarity includes a comment that violence by SA members, whether towards members or non-members, will not be tolerated; however, it is unclear how this functions in practice as the guidelines that are set out only apply to members raising complaints.

Discrimination – Whilst Defending Comradely Solidarity is correct in saying that discrimination can be defined as “treating a person or people less favourably than others, because they are a member of an oppressed group”, this tends to specifically be a feature of direct forms of discrimination. Such a definition does not countenance forms of indirect discrimination. Indirect forms of discrimination occur when policies and practices are adopted that, while not seeking to disadvantage someone on the basis of being in an oppressed group, the requirements of these policies or practices are likely to disproportionately affect an oppressed group. It is also important to recognise that you can act in a discriminatory way if you fail to take reasonable action to address an experience of disadvantage, i.e. you don't treat a person who experiences oppression in a preferable way.

It is the questions of both indirect discrimination and the need to seek to provide preferable treatment to oppressed groups that many left organisations struggle with. Price in her piece in saying that “sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, ageism in the party are unacceptable!”, immediately says that, “at same time, we are a political not a welfare organisation – and there are limits to what we can do to right the wrongs of an unequal, racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic and ableist society”, which gives the organisation a pass on anything beyond direct discrimination by individual members, in which case “if a member’s actions bring the Alliance into disrepute or if a member engages in behaviour that is considered to be detrimental to the best interests of the Alliance. In such circumstances, a financial member can be asked to 'show cause' as to why their membership should not be suspended or cancelled”. This approach denies that the internal life of a left organisation could be actively discriminatory, a conclusion that it is not safe to draw given the problematic attitudes held by many left organisations historically. The approach also poses the question of discipline as being hinged on the behaviour being detrimental to the organisation – how do you judge that? – rather than on the basis that the behaviour is problematic.

Defending Comradely Solidarity defines bullying primarily in terms of direct interactions between people in meetings, ranging “from raising one’s voice and finger pointing to more extreme forms of physical and psychological intimidation. It can also include physical behaviour designed to undermine the confidence of a person when they are speaking". The problem with this definition is that it makes no differentiation between individual acts and repeated behaviour (which is generally key to most definitions of bullying); it also tends to focus on subjective interpretations of interactions within meetings and formal interactions while not problematising behaviour which is aimed at marginalising or undermining individuals outside of formal settings. The discussion also totally fails to deal with the question of power within the context in which the behaviour is occurring, whilst those with limited power can bully those with more power, this is generally only possible if it is based on a group of the less powerful ganging up on someone, or alternatively an individual with less power being supported by others with more power. Moreover, it fails to address how in many organisations bullying behaviour is seen as being a sign of being an effective organiser and is a standard aspect of internal discourse – such as dismissals of concerns or differences based on individuals being demoralised or unwell.

Defending Comradely Solidarity in defining harassment tends to again focus on direct verbal and physical harassment which, given the existence of both social media and the phenomena of stalking, seems an overly narrow focus. This approach also places significant emphasis on how the victim of any harassment perceives that harassment, which can put an individual member in the difficult position of having to raise concerns about the behaviour of another member against them – ignoring problems of power within the organisation or the standing of the individual within the organisation who is harassing them. It allows the organisation to step away from its duty of care and instead leaves it up to individuals experiencing the harassment to make this call – which can be difficult given the potential consequences of making a complaint. Defending Comradely Solidarity states that “persistent and/or serious sexual harassment by a member should trigger prompt consideration of their membership status in accordance with the constitution, whether or not the harassment would constitute an offence under criminal law”, however it does not clearly empower the branch to take this action off its own bat. It is also unclear how the terms “serious” and “persistent” are being used in the context, particularly persistent – is it in relation to harassment of a single individual, or does it extend to a pattern of harassing behaviour towards a range of individuals?

Duty to report
A positive aspect of Defending Comradely Solidarity is the paragraph under the section “What can I do?” which states “All members with knowledge of antisocial violence perpetrated by another Socialist Alliance member have a responsibility to report it to their branch leadership”. Although as I discuss below, how this duty relates to the rights of survivors to not participate with a process and have their privacy and confidentiality respected is not clear.

Guidelines for dealing with reports of sexual violence
The final section of Defending Comradely Solidarity provides the guidelines for the handling of allegations of sexual violence within the Socialist Alliance. There are a number of positive aspects to both the document as a whole and the guidelines, but there are also some weaknesses.

Positives
There are a number of positive aspects to these guidelines, these include:

• That they emphasise the right for an individual to seek redress within the organisation for violence against them, and that this right to redress is not dependent on the outcome of any legal process.
• That reports of violence at a local level are required to be passed up to the national representatives.
• The requirement that people who are close friends with, or people who have worked closely with, a person accused of violence are not to be part of any decision making process.
• It is also positive that an individual is able to refer a complaint directly to the national leadership, bypassing the local leadership.

Weaknesses
In the introductory remarks to Defending Comradely Behaviour it is stated that, “Socialist Alliance recognises that there are serious flaws in the way the Australian legal system deals with both survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence. We are struggling to replace sexist bourgeois law with socialist laws and processes that truly address and reduce all forms of violence”. This statement does not acknowledge that the flaws of the legal system are not simply the consequences of bourgeois laws and capitalist state, but the extent to which ideas that normalise and justify violence against women undermine the ability of survivors to achieve justice; and that these ideas operate within socialist organisations and often persist based on the organisation's rejection of “bourgeois morality around sex”.

The concept of consent does not feature at all in the document. This is a major omission because it is central to the issue, as sex without consent equals rape. A major reason why survivors have so much difficulty in obtaining justice is that in our society statements that a person did not give consent are not readily believed and so survivors find themselves in a situations where they have to prove they didn't give consent rather than the perpetrator having to prove they had consent.

A key issue in the British SWP's handling of the allegation against Martin Smith was that members of the investigation committee mobilised rape myths during the interviews with the survivor “W”. The mobilisation of these myths served to rationalise the denial of “W's” account of what had happened.

Given this, individuals mobilising rape myths and rape apologism to justify and or defend their behaviour and shift the blame onto others is a question that the left needs to address. Defending Comradely Solidarity does not do this. Defending Comradely Solidarity emphasises the importance of educating individuals to shift their world view, e.g. we are all socialised in an oppressive society and we will thus carry and continue to be exposed to problematic and oppressive attitudes. However, if a person is actively mobilising sexist ideas to justify rape and an organisation's response is simply to seek to educate that person you would have to question the extent to which survivors could hope to feel safe in that environment. While education may be appropriate in some circumstances, where members are actively aiding attempts to further victimise a survivor then surely their membership should be called into question. Defending Comradely Solidarity’s anti-harassment section should go into detail here and be explicit that this is the case (if so).

The Socialist Alliance's procedures in handling allegations allows accusations to be investigated by a sub-committee of a relevant body but requires that any decision regarding an individual's membership to be decided by the body as a whole. It's unclear what form this decision would take – would it be a rerunning through of the case or simply an endorsement of a recommendation? If it is the former, it makes it difficult for a survivor's privacy to be maintained and it would also make for a flawed subsequent process. If the process is seen as being purely a formality why refer it back from the sub-committee?

Clause 5.8 of the Socialist Alliance's constitution allows for decisions to suspend or cancel an individual’s membership to be appealed at the organisation's national conference. This is a standard feature of most left organisations’ constitutions. It is unclear on what basis such an appeal can be made. Is it limited to procedural questions or does it extend to a testing of the facts? If it is the latter, maintaining confidentiality would be impossible in such circumstances and it would be a serious disincentive for survivors to report abuse.

Once a decision has been made to exclude an individual from the Alliance it is unclear whether the Alliance or its members can continue to work with them. It is also unclear whether the decision to cancel a person’s membership, and why the decision was made, will be made public. Both of these are questions that need to be answered. If exclusion does not stop the Alliance or its members from continuing to work with an individual whose membership has been cancelled then the disciplinary action will effectively be meaningless and make life extremely difficult for any survivors. Failing to make public a decision to cancel a person’s membership will leave a predatory individual free to be abusive other people in other organisations – lots of left organisations are more than happy to recruit the ex-members of other left organisations, and will trumpet such recruitment as reflecting the superior character of their organisations. To stop predators and abusers from being able to simply do the rounds of the left, it is important that the abusive behaviour is made public. There is an incentive for left groups to not publicise the exclusion of a former member – to not admit that the organisation’s membership included an abusive individual, implications being what that says about their organisation. Due to this pressure it is important to make it very clear that there is an obligation to the broader movement and survivors to make it known when they exclude someone.

Another unanswered question in Defending Comradely Solidarity relates to the tension between maintaining the autonomy of survivors, including their right to confidentiality, and the maintenance of a safer space. What happens when a survivor decides they do not want to proceed with an allegation, or if someone brings a concern forward where the survivor does not want to proceed? It is important that individuals have the autonomy to control their own lives and to not have things that have happened to them discussed without their permission. At the same time it is important that active steps are taken to identify predators and exclude them from organisations. In part this comes down to who the onus is on to raise a concern – responsibility should not have to lie with a survivor making a formal complaint for action to be taken – but also a survivor who for whatever reason doesn't want to participate in a process about something that has happened to them cannot and should not be made to participate in a process, and no information which they provide should be used without consent nor should their right to confidentiality be violated.

A final question focuses on the Socialist Alliance's interaction with individuals or organisations who behave in oppressive ways, or have been accused of behaving in oppressive ways. The guidelines are completely silent on this question, but questions of violence and oppressive behaviour are not simply internal questions and there have long been criticisms of the willingness of left organisations to ally themselves with problematic individuals and organisations when it serves their interests. Doing so sends a strong message about the strength of the left's commitment to the struggle against oppression.

A recent and obvious example is that of Julian Assange. Whilst it is possible to draw a distinction between the campaign by imperialist governments against Wikileaks and the allegations of rape made by two Swedish women against Assange, Socialist Alliance’s statements around Assange have not drawn this distinction clearly and have often a relied on a blurring of these issues to make their arguments. Moreover, while the Socialist Alliance were critical of the Wikileaks Party's preferencing of right-wing parties in the Senate in NSW and WA during the 2013 Federal elections they did not critique whether a person facing allegations of rape should stand for parliament. This sends a specific and negative message to survivors.

How do we address the pressing issue of working class oppressive behaviours directed towards marginalised groups? While it is welcome that the Socialist Alliance has sought to have an internal discussion about these questions and to develop formal guidelines, member experiences in many organisations show that the problem is not simply solved by the development an effective document and policy. The development of the political confidence and will to implement policies if and when an individual with significant social capital behaves in an oppressive way is imperative. Despite the positive aspects of Defending Comradely Solidarity, limited thinking through of the problems associated with oppressive and violent behaviour raises serious concerns for the extent to which it would aid Socialist Alliance members in dealing with problematic behaviour by a prominent member of that organisation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

SWP Rape Allegations and Lessons for the Left

- Lisbeth Latham

Trigger Warning: description of rape apologism, victim blaming, bullying survivors and a detailed outline of the handling of rape allegations in the British SWP 

For those not aware, over the past two years a scandal has been unfolding within the British Socialist Workers Party. SWP is the mother organisation of Solidarity and the founding organisation within the International Socialist Tendency from which Socialist Alternative traces itself, and is the largest far-left organisation in Britain. This scandal has resulted in hundreds of members resigning from the SWP (including 90% of its student members) over the handling of rape and sexual harassment allegations against former SWP National Secretary Martin Smith dating back to 2010. In this piece I argue that the SWP’s experience has important lessons for the left in general dealing with problems of misogyny and particularly sexual predators within the left.

The case 

from sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com

In 2010, a young woman (W) made allegations against the then general secretary of the SWP, that Smith (known throughout the process as Comrade Delta), following the ending of a relationship had continued to harass W. One section of the leadership immediately began to harass W and her supporters. Other sections of the leadership placed responsibility on whether action would be taken against Smith on W’s shoulders.

Based on the harassment she experienced W resigned from the SWP in late 2010. However, based on these allegations the SWP’s Central Committee moved to remove Smith from the position of national secretary. At the 2011 national conference, where this decision was formally endorsed, Smith and the central leadership acted to downplay and trivialise the allegations, suggesting that hostile forces outside the organisation were using the allegations to damage the SWP. Smith’s speech announcing his stepping down was met with a standing ovation including footstamping from the audience and chants of “workers united will never be defeated”. Although removed from the national secretary position, Smith continued as a member of the CC and was heading up the SWP’s union and anti-fascist work, which as central activities of the SWP meant that Smith continued to play an extremely prominent public role in the party.

In Autumn 2011, W rejoined the SWP. As a consequence of the SWP’s condemnation of George Galloway’s rape apologist remarks re: Assange in mid-2012, she became more confident that the SWP would handle her case properly and an approach was made by W to take a dispute against Smith further, and that her allegation was rape. The Disputes Committee hearing was highly problematic:

• W was made to wait for four hours prior to being heard by the DC – without being told what was going on;
• The DC read out a “legal definition” of rape and said that this would be the benchmark; 
• While Smith was given W’s allegations and statement in advance to prepare his response, W was not given Smith’s material in order to be able prepare; 
• The DC’s questioning of W was inappropriate, asking why she had gone for a drink with Smith, detailing the nature of her relationship with him, and her other relationships and sexual history. 

from sussexasn.tumblr.com

The DC’s “verdict” was that the accusation of rape was unproven. In the wake of the hearing W was subjected to bullying from her “comrades” in the local branch. This largely included being ostracised and being treated as if she didn’t exist – when she did try talk to talk to members she was told by one member “it is not appropriate for me to speak to you” and by another that she was a “silly girl” and that “14-year olds get groomed not 19-year olds”. Some members started holding meetings in the cafe area of W’s work despite her request that they not do this.

At the same time a second member (X) came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against Smith. X had a meeting with the DC following which she was told her evidence was not relevant. During the hearing X was asked questions about her drinking habits and whether she could have misconstrued Smith’s behaviour as he was a “friendly man who often bought her coffees”.

Under the SWP’s disputes process any DC decision goes to the national conference and supporters of W began organising to challenge the DC report. In the lead up to the conference, which was in January 2013, four SWP members were expelled for “factionalism” based on a Facebook chat where a discussion occurred over whether to form a faction – and it was the decision to not form a faction that was used as a basis to expel these members. In the end, a small faction was formed with the intention of articulating a statement calling for changes in how the SWP handles rape allegations. The CC and supporters of Smith organised to limit the ability for the faction members to be elected as delegates (in the British SWP delegate elections are based on a winner-takes-all scenario, with different sides putting forward slates of delegates).

In the DC session at the Conference the report presented a very sketchy outline of the proceedings: that W had made an allegation against a CC member “Delta”, and that they had concluded that the allegations were not proven. In the discussion, members were barred from discussing the detail of the allegations or the hearing and W was barred from attending the session, despite requesting that they be able to attend. One DC member informed members present at the session that the case was very difficult because Smith and W presented very different stories and none of the witnesses saw what had happened. Despite this, the report was passed by a thin margin of 239 for accepting, 209 voting to reject and 18 abstentions.

Following the conference, the CC moved to close down discussion. Paid full-timers were told to toe the line or they would lose their jobs. Despite this, and the SWP’s bans on factions outside of the pre-conference discussion period, members started organising for a new conference. Ultimately, while this push was successful in forcing an emergency conference, opposition forces were heavily defeated and a wave of resignations began. Another wave has just occurred, after oppositionists who remained in the party were unsuccessful in trying to force the most recent national conference to adopt an apology from the party to both W and X and to block Smith’s supporters along with Alex Callinicos and Charlie Kimber, the party’s current national secretary, from being re-elected to the CC.

In the meantime, X and her supporters continued to push for X’s case to be heard, which the CC resisted and wanted to put off until 2014. X was removed from their full-time position in the SWP centre on the basis that it would improve office dynamics. Despite the efforts of the CC to protect Smith, however, pressure mounted from within the organisation and also from outside, with more and more people becoming aware of what of had happened as a consequence of a range of leaks. Not only did the right-wing media attack the party, but a large number of prominent left-wing activists publicly distanced themselves from the SWP. Under this pressure and with X’s allegations still looming, Smith resigned from the SWP in July 2013. It has emerged that a range of prominent SWP members had been seeking to find ways to help Smith, and he had secured a funded PhD place in Social Work at Liverpool Hope University, where a SWP member is a senior academic. Following Smith’s resignation the CC agreed to have a DC hearing into X’s allegations, where it was found that Smith had a case to answer, but no action would be taken unless he rejoined the organisation – which hardline supporters are now rumoured to be pushing for. Despite Smith’s resignation his supporters still accused X of being an MI5 agent (British domestic intelligence) and argued “we aren’t rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth – and guess what, some women and children lie”, which received a round of applause during a session at the conference.

This case brings together a number of threads that get tangled together and encourages a view that the problems were specific to the SWP – particularly how it interprets and applies the concept of democratic centralism and the specific problems associated with how the SWP handled the allegations. This tends to result in a view that the problems in the SWP are a consequence of either the political regime in the SWP, the SWP’s hostility to feminism or a necessary consequence of handling a rape allegation internally.


It couldn’t happen to us 
There has been a common refrain from a section of the left that this could not happen to us. To anyone who thinks this, my response is that it probably has and if it hasn’t, it definitely could. Any conceit that it couldn’t will only make it harder for people who have been assaulted in your organisation to raise their experiences because you are already in a mindset of denial.


 The SWP undoubtedly has an extremely problematic internal life and structure. These include a large apparatus with considerable authority, which is detached from the lived experiences of the rest of the membership, with access to information which the majority of members don’t have, along with the time to think about the work of the organisation in a way in which most people who are working full-time and do the bulk of their political work in their spare time do not. However, this is the reality in all political organisations that have some form of apparatus – it has been recognised as a key feature of the tendency towards bureaucracy identified by social theorists such as Weber, Michels and Gramsci more than 100 years ago.


The SWP's regime
The SWP’s approach to internal democracy is also problematic, as there are a number of features that make communication between members and fights for organisational change difficult. These include: limits to the forming of factions outside of pre-conference discussion periods; the limited number of preconference discussion bulletins produced – normally three – which particularly limits the ability of the oppositionists to respond to criticisms of their position from the leadership. The leadership is not limited in this way as they receive contributions as they come in and so can respond in the same bulletin as the original statement, which undermines the impact of any statement or rebuttal by an opposition member, being immediately countered in the readers mind, while creating the impression of the leadership as almost omniscient. The leadership also has the added advantage of being able to legitimately communicate its views to the membership almost at will through the medium of the organisation’s Party Notes bulletin.

However, most far-left organisations have similar organisational rules, although there may be some differences regarding how and when factions can be organised, how many pre-conference bulletins will be produced and who is able to contribute to and what is able to be included in the organisation’s regular membership newsletter.

More generally the SWP, like much of the far-left, values bullying and non-consensual behaviour. Such behaviour is central to much of the political activity, discourse and interactions both within the organisation and with the external world. Most people who have had their names on a contact list from a left political organisation will be able to tell stories of receiving unwanted phone calls which continue well after they made it clear they weren’t interested in participating in the organisation – often the person won’t have even known they were putting their name on a contact list having simply signed a petition (which was a contact list masquerading as a petition). Bullying behaviour only becomes a problem when there is a falling out between the leadership and the bullies. At which point the leadership will either suddenly “discover the bullying” or produce the dirt file they have already been keeping on the individual/s in question, depending on the particular internal culture of cynicism in that organisation.

Feminism and the SWP

from revoltingpleb.wordpress.com

It is undoubtedly the case that the SWP’s long history of hostility to both feminism and any form of autonomous self organising by people sharing an oppressed identity made it easier for sexist and misogynist arguments to be mobilised by the SWP’s leadership and its supporters. It made it much easier for oppositionists to be denigrated as “creeping feminists” and succumbing to “movementism” as Kimber and Calinicos argued in their International Socialism piece on the politics of the crisis in the SWP written prior to the most recent national conference.

While much of the far-left does not necessarily share the SWP’s public hostility to feminism, autonomous organising and intersectionality, they do share elements of it particularly when you scratch the surface. The old Australian Democratic Socialist Party (which I was a member of), for instance, while supporting the right for people sharing oppressed identities to organise autonomously in the movement did not support the idea of such organising within the DSP. This was based on the idea, shared with the SWP, that the organisation is “opposed to fighting against the oppression of women and is democratically organised” – so it’s not necessary to have such separate organising – however, as a number of oppositionists in the SWP pointed out, this ignores the constant impact on an organisation’s membership of living a deeply sexist society. Moreover, a number of organisations that were “shocked” by what happened in the SWP wanted to keep criticism focused on the SWP regime rather than get distracted by “side issues” such as rape and sexism. The Communist Party of Great Britain, publishers of the Weekly Worker, the socialist equivalent of the News of the World, ran a number of charming articles aimed at combating this feminist error, the most prominent being one entitled ‘SWP and feminism: Rape is not the problem’ which attacked feminist writer Laurie Penny for her criticisms of the SWP.

Case should have been taken to the police
A number of commentators have argued that the complaint should simply have been taken to the police and no effort made to handle the matter internally. This response is problematic on a number of levels. First, many of those making these statements refuse to accept that W had agency in making a decision to not go to the police. I have no problem with people talking about how the SWP’s attitude to the police and their desire to protect the organisation ¬– attitudes shared with much of the left – would create a difficult environment in which to go to the police, however, there are very good reasons why an individual might decide to not report a rape to the police:

• Previous negative interactions with the police;
• Knowledge or experience of how women who report rape are treated by the criminal justice system
• Knowledge or experience of poor outcomes of rape cases taken to the police 

Most importantly, it is the choice of a survivor to act in their own best interests in meeting their own needs and it is not anyone else’s place to judge that.

The discourse around the case and the need to go to the police reflect some problematic attitudes to police in general, and specifically around the investigation of the rape. Implicit in the idea that people have to report a crime and the suggestion that an internal investigation would contaminate the police investigation is the idea that rape investigations are like episodes of CSI, where the case is dependent on forensic evidence, when in fact, with cases where consent is central, the case turns on what people say and who is believed. While it is very true that discussions about events can contaminate people’s memories, a lot of things will do this – that’s why it is important when something happens to someone, if they want a clear record of it, to write it down at the time.

These arguments demonstrate significant levels of both delusions of and reliance on the criminal justice system to not only deliver justice to survivors but to take responsibility for the question of disciplining members. Anyone who knows anything about the way rape is handled by the police and the courts should know that this confidence is not well placed. Even if you don’t, you would expect that revolutionary socialists with a Marxist analysis of society and an understanding of how women’s oppression is central to capitalist domination should also know that the ideas legitimising this domination are central to bourgeois hegemony. Thus, ideas normalising rape and violence again women are wide spread and will act to undermine the ability to obtain justice.

This Marxist analysis of society and understanding of the relations between women’s oppression and capitalist domination should also make it clear that the question of whether an accused perpetrator should be in a left organisation should not simply be based on whether there is a “guilty” verdict. We must take into account, if the “not guilty” verdict is based on being “innocent”, often such a verdict could occur due to lack of evidence or the accused creating sufficient doubt as a consequence of rape apologism or victim blaming. If this is how a person was found “not guilty” then should that person still remain a member of a left organisation? I would think not. In addition, what happens, as in so many complaints made to the police about rape and domestic violence, the party chooses not to proceed with the allegations?

In both the SWP internal discussion and some of the broader discussions there has been easy and confident mobilisation of rape myths, victim blaming and anti-women stereotypes. Dave Renton, in a critique of the SWP’s handling of the allegations against Smith, indicates that at the conference (when Smith stepped down as national secretary), a number of the delegates formed the view that the allegations were based on a jilted lover being unhappy. Renton blames this on the way the leadership characterised the allegations. While there is no doubt that the leadership’s framing of the allegations was disgusting and disingenuous, that these members could so readily dismiss the allegations based on the idea that “it must have been a jilted lover”, speaks volumes about the attitude of a section of the SWP’s membership to women.

What way forward?
The left has to attempt to create safer spaces for women and anyone who experiences rape. An important part of this is to adopt a zero tolerance to rape and to empower all members to raise concerns about rape and sexual violence and for such concerns to be pursued in whichever jurisdiction the survivor chooses.

This requires the establishment of robust and transparent mechanisms for handling allegations of violence. We know that a major problem with the way in which rape is handled in the courts is the extent to which survivors are put on trial. If we think of the refrain “people accused of rape are innocent until proven guilty” then the opposing logic also at play is that those marking allegations of rape “are guilty of lying about the allegation until proven innocent”. Defendants and their supporters (both legal and extra-legal) focus their energy not on proving innocence, but on undermining the credibility of the survivor. This not only has an awful impact on the individual survivor, but on all survivors, both past and future, and their ability to feel supported or like they belong. On the flipside, it sends clear signals to predators and potential predators that predatory behaviour will be explained away and provides strategies for getting away with it.

Far-left party members don’t want to find that rape has occurred in their party, as it may be possible that the predator would have to leave when predators are often seen as valuable to the party (many predatory attributes are valued on the left). Such a finding would also damage the organisation’s reputation. This problem is magnified if the person has played a prominent role and/or the organisation has defended them against allegations. Importantly, it also demonstrates the extent to which the participation of survivors is both not valued and taken for granted.

We need mechanisms that fundamentally turn these dynamics on their head. 


How should this be done?
First, be clear that internal processes are not legal or quasi-legal processes. Second, prioritise the creation of left organisations and social movements as safer spaces and limit the space within which predators can operate. This means not just starting from the framework of believing survivors, but also acting against members who attempt to build support for predators, particularly if this support is based on perpetuating rape myths, victim blaming, or negative stereotypes of women. It is also important to act against any member, particularly leading members who discourage members from bringing complaints, in whichever jurisdiction that they choose.

As a general pattern, the left needs to adopt an approach which makes it clear that they are consistent opponents of violence against women and not simply when opposition to said violence lends itself to anti-system arguments. The exclusion of predators and would-be predators (which is what most enablers and apologists are) is not a loss for the left – it will make the left and the social movements a stronger, safer and better place for building a new world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article originally appeared in issue #3 of the Dealing with an Unsafe Left zine. Check them out on tumblr and facebook.

                     

Read more...