Party Forums Fiasco
- This topic has 46 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
moderator1 wrote:The evidence is available on all party forums to anyone who wants to read it and decide for themselves whether cde Vince Maraty breached the guidelines and rules. The length of the indefinite suspension will depend on how long the EC takes to reach a decision based on the IC report now in front of them.
From Cde Vin MaarattyJust to clarify – You have presented a case to the EC in the belief that the EC has the authority to permamently ban a party member from all forums?Where do you think power lies in the SPGB? Have you informed Vin or Vin's branch of your attempt to permenently ban him from expressing an opinion on the forums. Should you not present a charge to either the individual concerned or to the individual's branch?More importantly what is NERB branch doing while this undemocrat ic affair continues?
lindanesocialist wrote:moderator1 wrote:The reason why this matter is in front of the EC is because we have to inform the EC, and provide the reasons why, we have turned down the appeal to an indefinite suspension.There hasn't been an appeal.
The facts are: Yes cde Maratty made an appeal against his indefinite suspension on the party forums to the IC. This appeal was turned down and a report on the issue sent to the EC. No appeal has been made by cde Maratty to the EC. The EC defered the issue to its May meeting.
I'm afraid that the IC are, from my perspective, acting like a bunch of East German Stazi agents. This is not and I will restate "not" the Party I first joined in 1981. ver the last few years, because of a parcity of members and particularly in the domain of "Computer Literacy, IE competent Computer programming knowledge, a nod has been given and undue sway, to a certain few individuals, that the Party appears afraid of "offending". In this atmosphere, I am ashamed of the current narrative, so should all Socialists/Democrats. We do ourselves no favours indeed, we do ourselves and our movement a disservice, by the current shenanigans.It is as if, anyone should "dare" to raise an objection to, to my mind objectionable practices, then this is a challenge to an untouchable "elite", well, as a Socialist for 35 years, I am used to taking on "untouchable elites".This is wrong! That only a few, if any, are raising objections, is a sad indictment on how far we have fallen!!!Steve Colborn.
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
In a capitalist court an idividual receives a charge and is tried in PUBLIC with a jury of peers. He recieves the evidence against him/her of which the public are made aware of and is allowed to present a defence. This is not fit to be likened to a Kangaroo courtCharges should be clearly stated on a section of this forum for all to see , evidence presented and the right to a defence. This backdoor secret activity is an embarrassment to the movement and action detrimental to the interests of this partyThe actions of the IC ignore the basic tenents of medieval justice. Legal advocate for 10 years
Just to clarify – You have presented a case to the EC in the belief that the EC has the authority to permamently ban a party member from all forums?Where do you think power lies in the SPGB? Have youinformed. Vin or Vin's branch of your attempt to permenently ban him from expressing an opinion on the forums. Should you not present a charge to either the individual concerned or to the individual's branch?
There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora. Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still. But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.
Rule 29 wrote:29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31
rule 31 wrote:The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.
Young Master Smeet wrote:There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora. Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still. But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.Rule 29 wrote:29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31
rule 31 wrote:The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.
I have got to say I fully agree with your analysis. A sine die exclusion from party fora, also has furhter implications when the person excluded is a Branch Secretary and when the Branch in question organises primarily through the party's internet presence! If we have an on line meeting of the Branch to discuss Cde Marratty's ban from the forum, how can cde Marratty be included in that discussion. In my opinion there has to be a way to resolve this dispute in a comradely and progressive way. It also to my mind highlights the need to examine how our internal democratic processes will need to adapt appropriately to the use of information technology.
Young Master Smeet wrote:There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora. Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still. But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.Rule 29 wrote:29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31
rule 31 wrote:The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.
Problem is that the IC, or any other sub-committee of the EC, cannot under the rules make charges against a member. Individual members – from any Branch can make a case – under Rule 29 and forward the charge to the Branch for them to deal with but not a sub-committee.
moderator1 wrote:Problem is that the IC, or any other sub-committee of the EC, cannot under the rules make charges against a member. Individual members – from any Branch can make a case – under Rule 29 and forward the charge to the Branch for them to deal with but not a sub-committee.There's nothing in rule nor conference resolution, to my understanding, to stop a committee sending a complaint to a branch, nor, as per the recent controversy, to stop the EC sending a complaint likewise.
moderator1 wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora. Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still. But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.Rule 29 wrote:29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31
rule 31 wrote:The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.
Problem is that the IC, or any other sub-committee of the EC, cannot under the rules make charges against a member. Individual members – from any Branch can make a case – under Rule 29 and forward the charge to the Branch for them to deal with but not a sub-committee.
I fail to see how that is a problem. The role of committees is not a policing role, but to carry on the work of that committee as per the terms of reference for that committee. Just like the role of moderators is to moderate, not join in discussion under the auspices of being a moderator
steve colborn wrote:I'm afraid that the IC are, from my perspective, acting like a bunch of East German Stazi agents. This is not and I will restate "not" the Party I first joined in 1981. ver the last few years, because of a parcity of members and particularly in the domain of "Computer Literacy, Computer programming knowledge, a nod has been given and undue sway, to a certain few individuals, that the Party appears afraid of "offending". In this atmosphere, I am ashamed of the current narrative, so should all Socialists/Democrats. We do ourselves no favours indeed, we do ourselves and our movement a disservice, by the current shenanigans.Vin is banned from the forum for saying worse than this? Hardly. I think not. More likely its personal and I can understand to an extent, he can be irritating at times Nothing against you cde Colborn, good friend. In fact I agree with you but literally havent got the balls to repeat it lol
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.