A socialist speaker on question time
- This topic has 87 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Personally, I've always refused to do jury service, not just because it's part of the state, but also because I don't believe in judging and being responsible for punishing fellow workers. So, if I was called, I'd always vote for acquittal (except in the case of capitalists accused of fraud, in which case I'd always vote for guilty). The only of reason I can think for charging a member (apart from breaking the rules or expressing anti-socialist views) would be alleged strike-breaking or stealing from the party or a trade union, not for breaking some capitalist law.
ALB wrote:The only of reason I can think for charging a member (apart from breaking the rules or expressing anti-socialist views) would be alleged strike-breaking or stealing from the party or a trade union, not for breaking some capitalist law.I think physically assaulting or threatening other members, or members of the public whilst representing the party should be taken seriously also..But I don't think we should go spanish inquisition, the argument is that socialism is possible and necessary, not that socialists are angels – though in my case that is obviously the truth.
DJP wrote:I think physically assaulting or threatening other members, or members of the public whilst representing the party should be taken seriously also.OK. Fair enough.
ALB wrote:What is in effect being proposed here is that someone should be retried before a jury of the whole party without the checks and balances (such as they are, e.g regarding evidence) of a proper trial. Or are we going to assume that they did do it even if they say they didn't (a guilty decision in a court of law doesn't mean somebody did it, only that a jury thought they probably did). We can't go down that road. It would be immensely disrupting and turn the party away from its main function of propagating the case for socialism. It could also lead to legal action against us.What about someone openly advocating and proposing the rape of prepubescent children?
DJP wrote:I think physically assaulting or threatening other members, or members of the public whilst representing the party should be taken seriously also.Interestingly, one of the two reasons the last member was expelled from the Party (in 2010 by Central London Branch) was for making threats of bodily harm, both collectively and individually, against other members.
gnome wrote:DJP wrote:I think physically assaulting or threatening other members, or members of the public whilst representing the party should be taken seriously also.Interestingly, one of the two reasons the last member was expelled from the Party (in 2010 by Central London Branch) was for making threats of bodily harm, both collectively and individually, against other members.
I see rape and paedophilia as anti human acts that do enormous harm to people both physicaly, mentaly and emotionaly.Surely rapists and paedophiles would be given no safe haven among the SPGB?
SocialistPunk wrote:Surely rapists and paedophiles would be given no safe haven among the SPGB?Some years ago there was a member who was alleged to have been a paedophile. There have probably also been those who have beaten their spouses. Highly reprehensible. But unless someone has been charged and convicted in a court of law how could we be sure whether the allegation was more than just a rumour? And as someone else has already pointed out a guilty verdict in a court of law doesn't necessarily mean somebody actually committed the crime, only that a jury has been convinced one way or another, often by clever legal argument.No, our paramount aim must be to propagate the case for socialism and to ensure that those admitted to the party have a sound understanding of it. Other considerations are secondary.
If however, someone is found guilty and proclaims they see no harm or problem in their feelings and thoughts, for instance, on paedophilic tendencies, then what is "our" response?I suggest and moreover would expect, that a "prospective member" would be denied membership and a "current member", would have their membership revoked!Paedophilia, as with rape, is a power relationship. As Socialists we view all members of the human race as free and moreover, equal individuals and therefore would not condone but moreover "stop" overpowering of one human beings rights and "free will", by another, for their personal pleasure and personal gratification.
A Capitalist/Worker relationship is about POWER. Why should we not look on other unequal POWER relationships with as much disdain?
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Surely rapists and paedophiles would be given no safe haven among the SPGB?Some years ago there was a member who was alleged to have been a paedophile. There have probably also been those who have beaten their spouses. Highly reprehensible. But unless someone has been charged and convicted in a court of law how could we be sure whether the allegation was more than just a rumour? And as someone else has already pointed out a guilty verdict in a court of law doesn't necessarily mean somebody actually committed the crime, only that a jury has been convinced one way or another, often by clever legal argument.No, our paramount aim must be to propagate the case for socialism and to ensure that those admitted to the party have a sound understanding of it. Other considerations are secondary.
GnomeNo one is talking about some sort of elaborate Blade Runner interrogation for members to determine if they are guilty of deviant thoughts. This thread kicked off with the discussion centered around a convicted rapist. The conversation moved on to how socialists should tackle such issues such as rape and paedophilia. I asked if the SPGB has any policy regarding such abusers. Turns out the SPGB doesn't have any policy regarding members who commit such vile acts.But on a positive note the consensus WAS heading toward the need to deal with such people.The person who has already pointed out the flaws in the current legal system in this country, is ALB. But in the absence of any better way to determine if someone is guilty of vile anti human acts such as rape, paedophilia or murder, how should SPGB socialists proceed to determine if vile abuses have been committed? The answer is you have to rely on the judgment of jurys made up mostly of our fellow class members, in the here and now.If any SPGB members think that a socialist society will not require some sort of investigative, trial by jury process to ascertain whether or not a crime against fellow "workers" has been committed, then I'm afraid they have a utopian view of how a socialist society would function. Perhaps we will all get along famously.I've served on jury service when I was twenty one, and found it an interesting experience. While on a jury I was impressed with the level of thought put into weighing up the evidence and how it was presented. I have every confidence that in a socialist society our fellow "workers" would be able to reach reasonable conclusions based on presented evidence. But until that time…..I would be interested to know what process the SPGB used in the expulsion of the party member in 2010?Steve puts it perfectly.
Steve Colborn wrote:Paedophilia, as with rape, is a power relationship. As Socialists we view all members of the human race as free and moreover, equal individuals and therefore would not condone but moreover "stop" overpowering of one human beings rights and "free will", by another, for their personal pleasure and personal gratification.SP,we don't have a specific policy, because the question has never arisen (although one or two members have mooted a memebrs code of conduct from time to time). There are two factors that apply generally: the membership questionaire/test where if such offences were admitted or known about they would become relevent for consideration. If the offence (or conviction) occurs whilst someone is a member then that may be considered action detrimental under rule, and thus be subject to a charge.We can't say more than that, because each case is unique, and (as has been pointed out here) other factors may come into consideration. All we can say is that we will have to consider their cases as and when they arise.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I was half listening to Question Time on the radio last night, and the topic turned to the issue of Ched Evans playing for Sheffield United. Now, at first, I wondered what a Socialist Speaker could say on the question: after all, we would have no party policy on the matter. But that sort of null answer is poor.Obviously, we are opposed to rape, and we would argue that rapists in socialism would need to be dealt with (incidentally, and to be ultra controversial, there is a case for prison, but the logic is only to protect the guilty from vengence of angry friends and relatives).If it is obviouse that we oppose rape, peadiphilia, reformism and racism then members who express such views should all be asked to leave the party or be expelled. We may well be asked why we only expel reformists and racists; It is inconsistent.
ALB wrote:DJP wrote:I think physically assaulting or threatening other members, or members of the public whilst representing the party should be taken seriously also.OK. Fair enough.
Are members who rape and advocate peadophilia a threat to members and their families?
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,we don't have a specific policy, because the question has never arisen (although one or two members have mooted a memebrs code of conduct from time to time). There are two factors that apply generally: the membership questionaire/test where if such offences were admitted or known about they would become relevent for consideration. If the offence (or conviction) occurs whilst someone is a member then that may be considered action detrimental under rule, and thus be subject to a charge.We can't say more than that, because each case is unique, and (as has been pointed out here) other factors may come into consideration. All we can say is that we will have to consider their cases as and when they arise.YMSI think we've got past that fact by now. I think it has moved on to what should be done about such people if they turned up inside the SPGB, and I'm not talking about rumours but about actual convictions.Oh no, surely not a conviction by a capitalist court [sarcasm]. But seeing as the SPGB has no better alternative at present, a conviction in a court of law is all that can be used to go on.As you or Gnome fail to answer my question about the process used to expell members, I can only presume the members of the SPGB vote on the issue after hearing the err…. "evidence". I remember the in depth, reasoned, unbiased [more sarcasm] process of EC veto of application for membership that was exposed recently for the farce it is. So the SPGB standard for ascertaining the truth of a situation, is way below that of the British justice system.It seems that some people, you included are point scoring with a very serious issue here. I would advise against such games, as anti human crimes as violent assault, rape, paedophilia not to mention murder, are unacceptable today just as they would be in a socialist society and such point scoring and tip toeing around the issue could be construed by unfriendly outside forces as sympathetic to sickening behaviour and views.I'm not alone in thinking that if a Party member were convicted of such anti human crimes they should be expelled as soon as it became known. No "may be" about it.
Vin Maratty wrote:If it is obviouse that we oppose rape, peadiphilia, reformism and racism then members who express such views should all be asked to leave the party or be expelled.We may well be asked why we only expel reformists and racists; It is inconsistent.I think Vins points deserve some answers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.