[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Please show me where I discussed the case and used intemperate comments?

SocialistPunk wrote:

The issue now becomes how does the Party deal with someone like that in its ranks. If the footballer first mentioned on this thread were a Party member, how would the Party deal with the negative publicity such a person would bring? It's important to keep in mind the denial of any wrongdoing. Would members say let bygones be bygones, he's served his time, who cares if he denies the crime? Or seek to distance themselves from such an unsavoury and harmful character?

Ooops, I forgot I said that….[sarcasm].Is that it ALB? Is that the sum total of me discussing the case? I really think you shouldn't have bothered. If you read it properly the only bit about the case I mention is the denial of wrongdoing, that's hardly discussing the case. If I were discussing the case I would also be talking about the girl and how she ended up in the room and how many others were there and what may or may not have gone on in the room. That would be discussing the case.I'm simply asking a hypothetical question about if such a person were a member of the SPGB, what would be the reaction or response to having a convicted rapist in your midst. You should keep in mind that this is about two years since the trial, and such a hypothetical situation may have already been dealt with and membership may have been revoked back then.As for my intemperate or extreme comments about the footballer, the words unsavoury and harmful are hardly over the top.Sorry ALB but you're clutching at straws.Now let's look at what you said.

ALB wrote:

…..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.

So if you were on a jury of a capitalist fraud case you would vote guilty even if the evidence said otherwise.What constitutes anti socialist views in the world of ALB I wonder. Racism, homophobia, sexism, all unacceptable. Rape, paedophilia, assault…err not sure about those, ALBs seems to have those down as capitalist laws. Breaking Party rules, strike breaking and stealing money from the Party, those are definately unacceptable to ALB.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

SP has shot himself in the foot band and shown why we musn't go down the road he proposes. With his intemperate comments on the footballer whose case was at the start of this thread he has shown how some members would, probably inevitably,  allow prejudice to sway their decision.This is not and open and shut case (not many are):http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/legal-watchdog-fast-tracks-ched-evans-rape-inquiryhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30093565

ALBCould you please explain to this forum how I have shot myself in the foot?I never said anything regarding the case first mentioned on this thread, I am well aware that the case was ongoing, pending appeal.Please show me where I discussed the case and used intemperate comments?I have stuck to general "what ifs", as in what if the convicted footballer was an SPGB member, what would the Party reaction be to such a situation. The discussion moved on to how the Party might react to members who are convicted of paedophilia or assault.How ironic it is, that you first questioned the processes of capitalist courts, saying you would refuse jury service because you don't want to judge fellow workers. Now it seems you have a place for capitalist justice when it suits your stance.I am also very much aware of how cases are never that simple. Remember I mentioned I serving on a jury when I was twenty one. It was not simple, but the jury I waspart of managed to unravel the conflicting evidence quite well.A point of interest. If I'm not mistaken an appeal is decided on by judges, there are no members of the public (fellow workers) sitting on a jury, so that process is firmly in the hands of the establishment.Whatever the legal ins and outs of the case it does look as though the female victim was treated like a piece of meat.  At least YMS and some others are willing to discuss the general subject and suggest ways the Party could deal with similar situations, even with a shit stirrer like me.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

See following

Well done ALB.I see you thought it wise to remove your comment asking YMS why he bothers arguing with a shit stirrer.

[SocialistPunk]

I'm sorry for snapping DJP, I'd just read an unwarranted comment on another thread (now changed) and was probably venting my anger a bit on you.I see what you're getting at now. In that case I don't know the answer to either, just seem to be slipping further down the rabbit hole.

[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

So when people say "It's a nice idea but it'll never work" or "What about the fact people will always want more than they've fair share", is their rejection based on conscious understanding or something else? 

When people say "It's a nice idea and it will work" or "It's a fact that people will not always want more than there fair share", is their acceptance based on conscious understanding or something else? 

Would love to give a fuller more rounded response to your post DJP, but it just looks like a load of bollocks.If you think I'm talking a load of bollocks, I would appreciate you just say so, instead of trying to be clever.

[SocialistPunk]

Would love to get stuck in Steve, but I'm having a problem just viewing the site. By the way it's the same issue I'm having with the Sunderland Echo site these days.

[SocialistPunk]

I'm not sure as to the answer to my own question. in post #177.On the one hand it looks as though such responses are conscious rejections of our concept of socialism.After all once you can get people to discuss the concept of money less, leaderless global socialism of common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources, they will often respond with "It's a nice idea" or "I understand what you're getting at". That does seem to indicate understanding. Then more often than not you get the follow up "But it'll never work" or "It'll never happen, because people will always want more than they're willing to contribute".  So the two together seem to indicate a conscious rejection of socialism, based on an understanding of what we advocate.What is it we in the WSM socialist tradition advocate. Common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources. A money less society, as money is obsolete once we own the worlds resources in common. A leaderless society, because we as a majority will own in common the worlds resources it is us who get to decide what to do with them, not a minority of politicians or capitalists. This kind of society requires us to actively participate in order to make it work, co-operating to achieve our goals of providing enough quality food, clothing, shelter, water, education, healthcare, transport and entertainment amongst many other things that go to make up quality of life for all human kind. We the workers must organise and carry out the enormous task of reorganising society to work for us all.Perhaps the most crucial element people need to grasp in order to understand socialism, that in order for socialism to come about we must make it happen ourselves. The majority of workers must want it and work to achieve it.So when people say "It's a nice idea but it'll never work" or "What about the fact people will always want more than they've fair share", is their rejection based on conscious understanding or something else? 

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,There are two routes.  If a branch hears the charge they have to write to the member with the specifics of the accusation, and invite them to respond, and then hold a hearing where a majority votes will decide the outcome.  This is ratified by the EC, with the member having the right of appeal to conference or ADM.  The other route is deprecated, which is the EC levels the charge directly, with the same right of appeal.  It's generally felt the EC should not use this power, if the member is connected to a branch that can action the charge.The reason I'm circumspect and say "may" is because we are talking about many different circumstances, and it would be up to memebrs at the time to decide how to react.  For instance, if they were convinced there had been a miscarriage of justice;  or, to take another example,a  Romeo and Juliet case of an 18 year convicted of sex with a 15 year old, etc;  what of an applicant with a twenty year old conviction (or a member whose historic conviction is discovered)? etc. etc.  hence why I say "may".  No point scoring.

YMSI do appologise. for suggesting you were point scoring. A large part of my reason for thinking such, was your (and others) failure to address the relevant points put forward by Vin and Steve. Instead I seemed to be the focus of the attention, hence my thinking my non SPGB member status singled me out, to be put in my place and silenced for exposing Party flaws on such a sensitive issue.I still stick to the need for consistency in accepting the outcome of such convictions in such cases. The SPGB can't investigate suspected miscarriages of justice, or go into the details of who said what and where during such trials. I'm not aware that a prospective member has to 'fess up to any previous convictions to get into the SPGB. All I originally asked was what if the footballer in question had been a Party member, what is the Party policy on allowing such a person to continue their membership.  As I stated, things were going ok, with a consensus that such issues needed addressing, until a couple of people started throwing up objections to the heinous concept of capitalist court decisions, and coming out with crap such as not judging  fellow workers, unless it was for strike breaking and advocating reforms.So now we have that misunderstanding between us cleared up, I hope you and the others will address Vin and Steve's points.

[SocialistPunk]

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.

[SocialistPunk]

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.

 

[SocialistPunk]

I've lifted this from another thread on this forum. It comes from someone from a local paper that Steve Colborn is debating with.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/thread-shields-gazette

Quote:

I can manage to understand your concept, I'm just realistic about the rationality of it all – As stated previously, I agree with the principle and agree the world would be a better place; however I am also intelligent enough to realise that the one thing that would prevent it from ever happening is people.Rich or poor, people always want a little more.

A classic case of someone who thinks they understand the concept of socialism, yet can't help but see it through the framework of the current socio-economic system, capitalism."It's a nice idea mate, but it'll never happen because people will always want more than their share. It's human nature mate."Could this foggy thinking be a result of the process of socialisation that has us trapped in a fatalistic outlook?Or is it evidence of concious rejection of our concept of socialism?

[SocialistPunk]

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]

ALB wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

the short answer is that such a person would be charged, and their membership debated

Do we really want to go down this road and debate the morals of members and applicants? Look what happened in the SWP. I don't think so.And who wants to cast the first stone?

I thought the SWP got into trouble when they tried to investigate or cover up an allegation of rape, instead of going to the police with the matter.This is about how the Party should deal with a convicted sex offender who refuses to accept they have done anything wrong. I don't see why an in depth debate about the offending Party members morals would be relevant. 

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

DJP wrote:

In all seriousness you know the answer already. If someones actions are deemed detrimental to the interests of the party then charges can be bought and they can be expelled from the party. We have the democratic framework to deal with these things…

If we had any suspicion about any applicant's 'credentials' then clearly it would be infinitely advisable and far, far simpler not to admit them in the first place.  Those of us who've been around for more than a few years know that it's become virtually impossible to expel anyone from the party…

It may well be difficult to expel members over ill defined indiscretions. But here we are discussing the issue of the possibility of a Party member being a rapist or paedophile. Vile, abusive crimes against others for personal gratification, not  internal disputes blowing up into rowdy arguments.If it's not enough that such people as we are discussing here have damaged or taken part in damaging other peoples lives irreparably, then think of the harm these people could do to the Party, simply by association.

[SocialistPunk]

BrianWhat exactly are you proposing?Sexual orientation refers to a persons attraction to either the same sex, the opposite sex, or to both.Preference refers to choice. Abusing others for gratification is a choice.

[Author]

Posts