Why would membership of the SPGB be refused
- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Steve,say a member were to spout racist views, and criticise the party for race treachery? That would be action detrimental and would be them signalling non-acceptance of the principles. Yes, it would depend very much on the manner in which such views were put across. The question of changing the principles is a constitional knightmare (as we've seen before), but in essence one could avocate changing them whilst still accepting the current ones.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party." If a member criticises the party in such a manner as would indicate that they do not accept the object and principles of the party, their membership would be rendered invalid. Likewise, if they criticise from the standpoint of another organisation, they should go and join it. This would depend on the facts on the ground. Obviously, criticism while still a member is more protected than when a non-member but we'd still be entitled to take it into account (as it was when I rejoined).YMS, are you saying Vin, a long standing party member and hard working activist (who no doubt knows the DoP and accepts them inside out and without doubt), rejected and trashed the DoP? Is that seriously your reference to Rule 1? Because if it is that is pretty serious stuff you are throwing about.As to Rule 6 it would suggest you are laying a claim that Vin sought to join another political organisation in trashing the SPGB. As opposed to the reality that he criticised the forum and in fact ended up defending the SPGB from the attacks of others on that forum.So it turns out this is the argument that supports the rejection of Vin rejoining the party on a number of occasions by the EC. If he had done those things he would have faced action detrimental rapidly, instead he was asked to reconsider his resignation.
ALB wrote:Socialist Punk, I don't know why you are pursuing this matter so zealously. Obviously, the party has a right to question an applicant even an ex-member who criticised the party when they were a member. Imagine the case of a member who, as they are perfectly entitled to as confirmed by that 1973 conference resolution, criticised the party for, for instance, not advocating reforms or for thinking that parliament should be used to get to socialism. There is nothing to prevent them expressing this view. Imagine then that they resign and later apply to rejoin. Clearly, they would have to be questioned on this and in fact if they hadn't change their view could have their application rejected.So, the general position is clear. That's the general principle but only one EC member has said that it should apply in the particular case you are concerned about to bar an ex- member re-joining. It was not the view of the Membership Application Committee, nor of the 2 EC members who voted against. It wasn't even the view of the other 2 present who voted to reject the application. I doubt it's the view of the other 5 EC members who were not present. We'll see. I'm sure it's not the view of most members on this forum or our facebook page who have followed developments since the unfortunate events of over a year ago now.So you are making a mountain out of a molehill and by bringing up what somebody may or may not have said or done in the heat of the moment just before or just after they resigned and which the person concerned regrets you are opening old wounds. Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity.Hi Adam, Why am I pursuing this matter so strongly. Because I see a problem with the answers or lack of being used to justifying the barring of Vin rejoining. We even have imaginary scenarios being presented, when I am trying to stick to reality. It means that if socialists are voting on issues without being aware of the party stance (of all things, free speech) then they are doing a disservice to the principles of democracy. The worse bit of all, no lessons are learnt and it happens again and again.In your imaginary scenario, you say the offending applicant seeking to rejoin would need to be questioned. Where I ask was Vin given such an opportunity by the EC, upon his seeking to rejoin? In the real world some minds had already been made up, concerning Vins so called guilt, despite his numerous apologies and eagerness to rejoin and promote the party.Again I will state that Vin, while a party member, committed no "crime" in criticising the things that disturbed him. He did not attack the DoP, he did not advocate reformism, he did not promote race hate or the allowing of religious socialists into the party, nor did he join another political group. Yet on a number of occasions now, the EC have rejected his rejoining.As a life long socialistI, party sympathiser and one time member, I care enough simply to wish to know on what grounds.I am well aware the MAC accepted his application, I know you and another member voted against the motion. (Like Gnome I'm not sure what you mean about the two who voted with the motion,despite not agreeing with it, sounds a bit odd) and like you I do not believe it to be the view of the absent EC members.All I seek is to ascertain if the reasons given so far for Vins continued refusal are valid, according to party policy. So far the reasons given are weak.I don't understand the reluctance to face reality on this issue. Once more the party has a chance to learn from a mistake and become stronger, take it. Why all the fear of criticism?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Steve,say a member were to spout racist views, and criticise the party for race treachery? That would be action detrimental and would be them signalling non-acceptance of the principles. Yes, it would depend very much on the manner in which such views were put across. The question of changing the principles is a constitional knightmare (as we've seen before), but in essence one could avocate changing them whilst still accepting the current ones.Your scenario, has nothing to do with the events as discussed. Vin is not an avowed racist, has not gone against the DofP. Has not "called" the Party, either undemocratic, nor homophobic!!!So what now, will be the imagined reason for his readmission to be refused? Stop clutching at imaginery straws and admit, (it will not harm the Party, it may well strengthen it's image), that the treatment of Comrade Maratty, is unjust, unfair and without basis in "fact", or reality. To admit this, would be no bad thing, it would be merely be, "seeing sense".
Steve, YMS is not talking about the particular case in question but about the general principle of it being legitimate to take into account what any ex-member applying to rejoin said while a previous member exercising their right to criticise the party, a principle which Socialist Punk has challenged as undemocratic. This is a discussion about this general principle. I don't think this general principle can be challenged, even if its application in a particular case could be.Other reasons to reject an application from an ex-member applying to rejoin that might be invoked would be: not being convinced that their behaviour wouldn't be repeated in the future or that the re-application was premature.Personally I don't think this is really the place to discuss individual cases but it is unrealistic to expect unanimity either way in controversial cases and that it is out of order to challenge the motives or integrity of those who vote one way or the other. Challenging the wisdom of a particular fairly-reached decision is another matter.
I am unsure if I have entered some surreal universe on this thread. Some people seem to insist on derailing the topic by insisting on generalisations and imaginary scenarios. Conveniently forgetting that the present discussion was triggered by an actual event. Not only that, the instigator of the event in question has spoken openly of his reasons for his actions on this thread. We are dealing with a real situ here. It is easy to unravel this. Did Vin go against party policy in criticising the things he found disturbing? The stuff I have quoted below is mostly personal opinion, based on one persons slant of long past events.This needs confronting openly to ensure Vins case is dealt with on a factual basis and not left to personal animosities. The party prides itself on using facts to challenge capitalism, rather than emotion/morality etc. This case should be no different.So here we go again. Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.
Ed wrote:I am perfectly happy to explain my reasons for moving that the form A from Mr Marratty be rejected. The main cause being the behavior of the former member when leaving the party. Where, when it was clear that the EC would not bow to his demands he set about a campaign to discredit the party across various forums and social media Accusing the party of being undemocratic and homophobic among other things. In my opinion his actions have caused lasting damage to the party's reputation and thus qualifies as action detrimental to the party. A charge that would have been filed against the member had he not resigned before it could be put into action. A very convenient way to avoid such a sanction which would have excluded him from membership. It is my opinion that the former member would likely behave in the same way under the same circumstances if he were to be readmitted.
Vin this is not a punishment. I believe that due to your past behaviour you pose a risk to the party if you were to be admitted as a member. This is a preventative measure. It is my opinion that the risk of you repeating your past behaviour is one that the party would be stupid to take. The fact that you don't even seem to remember denouncing the party as homophobic and undemocratic while you were still a memebre only shows that you have learned nothing from your past mistakes and proves to me that they would likely happen again.
As per usual the tag teaming begins.Alan, Marratty denounced the party as homophobic while still a member. Is this acceptable behaviour for a member of the party? Is this not behaviour which you would call detrimental to the party's causeMarratty & Colborn you haven't changed. I can already see you resuming your usual tag teaming games. Painting yourself as victims when you were the perpetrators. Sickening. Accusing others of driving people out of the party when it is you who force members to the point of resigning. You hounded me across various threads for months. I did in fact go back and read them before I made my decision which certainly confirmed it. The way I was treated was disgusting and frankly the party failed to provide a safe space for me. I have no doubts that you will do the same to some other unsuspecting member. Probably after a few drinks…Quote:Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.Something I emphatically have not done. Please withdraw that remark. I have only explained the practical and procedural underpinnings of the party's democracy. I have made no comment about the recent events, other than to note their procedural validity.
Socialist Punk 1st Warning: Rule 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.
Reminder: Rule 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.I am seriously considering enforcing this rule and locking this thread, due to: 1. Posts not staying on thread. 2. The discussion is becoming personalised and not generalised. 3. The thread appears to have run its course.If I do decide to enforce Rule 12. I will not issue an advance warning,
ALB wrote:Steve, YMS is not talking about the particular case in question but about the general principle of it being legitimate to take into account what any ex-member applying to rejoin said while a previous member exercising their right to criticise the party, a principle which Socialist Punk has challenged as undemocratic. This is a discussion about this general principle. I don't think this general principle can be challenged, even if its application in a particular case could be.(my bold)Hang on there one minute Adam. I can see history repeating itself here. This is how situations take on a life and mythology of their own.Please can you provide evidence of where I state anything about the party procedures being undemocratic? The most I have said of what is going on, is that it tarnishes the spirit of democracy, in that there appears to be some conflict of interest contained within it.Of course the party needs to consider the rejoining of ex members who go against the principles of the party, it's common sense. I have never denied this fact. The imaginary scenarios used to distract from reality are examples where party members do not accept party policy and rules etc. In effect not socialists.They could be seen as negative, non constructive critcism. Whereas in the real world the criticism Vin engaged in was positive, in highlighting problematic unsocialist views and actions by a small minority. In this real life situ' such criticism is perfectly acceptable as it does not conflict with party policy.I am now starting to believe that if I applied to rejoin, my criticism here would probably be used against me. That would then be a rejection of an ex member on the grounds he believed in too much democracy.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.Something I emphatically have not done. Please withdraw that remark. I have only explained the practical and procedural underpinnings of the party's democracy. I have made no comment about the recent events, other than to note their procedural validity.
SocialistPunk wrote:I've looked at the party rules 1 and 6 and I don't see the relevance to this case. Could you please explain how these rules apply to (in this case) a party member criticising the party?Young Master Smeet replies.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party."What am I expected to make from your reply to my question? I see no evidence of me engaging in any attack on your integrity YMS.
I would like to suggest that we "all" take a step back and conclude that it is in everyones best interest, to place the debate engendered on this forum, on the back burner and wait to see the outcome of July's EC meeting!Cheers Comrades, be well.YFSSteve Colborn.
steve colborn wrote:I would like to suggest that we "all" take a step back and conclude that it is in everyones best interest, to place the debate engendered on this forum, on the back burner and wait to see the outcome of July's EC meeting!Cheers Comrades, be well.YFSSteve Colborn.Ditto, cde
I certainly do hope this topic wraps up. I made an early contribution to it and ever since I've been bombarded with email notifications. It's got really boring.
Why have you been sent email notifications? Did you tick the, "Notify me when new comments are posted" box? If so, them I,m afraid it was self-inflicted. There are those who still have wish things to be explained on this thread. If you personally, find the discussion boring, then don't read the thread, simples : )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.