[SocialistPunk]

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?

[SocialistPunk]

I think we are all pretty much in agreement that rape and paedophilia are not sexual orientations. How could they be, when they are abuse of other people for personal gratification.

[SocialistPunk]

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

Conference passed a resolution on 'sexual preference'

What resolution are you talking about? I can't find it.

It is the one referring to admitting homosexuals into the party.  Passed in the 90's?  

BrianWould it be possible to provide a link or paste the details here?

[SocialistPunk]

Saw ya title YMS and was intrigued as it is the title to an awesome song by one of the greatest American punk bands ever.Enjoy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoA_zY6tqQw

[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.

I think we should burn them at the stake until they repent, and then drown them for good measure.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…

A very good point DJP. I would say that rapists and paedophiles easily fall into that category. Imagine the damage such people could do to the Party image.

[SocialistPunk]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer?

I'm surprised an ex member is asking this. We don't have any policies save the democratic replacement of capitalism with socialism. Such issues would be dealt with democratically by society, it is not our place to dictate.

DJPI think it's cute the way you miss the point entirely. I'm not on about the Party dictating social policy for the revolution, though I expect racism would be deemed an unacceptable concept "come the revolution".Vin and Brian get it, but just to spell it out clearly have a read of what I wrote earlier.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Getting back to the opening post about a socialist speaker on question time and the Party not having a particular policy on such matters. What would be the policy if this footballer were a Party member?

I'm asking about what would the Party response be to having unsavoury characters in its ranks.I'll put it even simpler for anyone who doesn't get it. Does the SPgb welcome racists into its ranks? What about homophobes, male chauvinist sexists? I expect most socialists would feel very uncomfortable knowing such people were accepted among them. So how would members feel about being in a political organisation that accepted rapists or paedophiles?The SPgb doesn't have a policy regarding letting unsavoury characters in, so long as they accept the DoP. Oops…silly me, I nearly forgot a very important one, and so long as they reject religion.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

such a huge flaw in the plan.

That's where you are wrong, on other threads as well. Socialism is not some "plan" that the Socialist Party is going to implement. I know we are often accused of that, but that's utopian system-building. Socialism is a system of society that the working class is going to establish by prosecuting the class struggle to a victorious conclusion. We today don't have to have the answers to everything. We haven't got them and it would be stupid and arrogant of us to think we could have. All we can say with certainty is that the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources would provide a framework within which all the problems humanity faces can be dealt with, certainly a better framework than the present one of minority ownership and control. The rest can only be speculation, interesting and instructive perhaps but not a "plan". Having said that, when the socialist movement is much larger and nearer to winning then, yes, I'm sure, groups of workers will be drawing up plans on what to do when capitalism is ended, but we are nowhere there yet.

ALBI would be interested to know where I advocate some sort of "plan"? I simply think that as human beings and members of the working class, the SPgb should not shy away from subjective human issues, as if the revolution must only be  an objective process. You can't seperate messy human issues from a socialist revolution. This issue was sparked off with YMS stating the obvious about being against rape, yet when myself  and Vin ask further questions, no one answers. But you are more than willing to jump on a single word I use rather than discuss the awkward issues being addressed here. Talk about distraction.The "plan" I refer to is not some "five year plan", with all answers to every issue, but a Party flaw when it comes to such issues as this that YMS stated.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 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.

So if a Party speaker were asked what the policy regarding sex offenders is, what would be the answer? The answer would be silence or worse still some fudged excuse. Hence a flaw in the "plan" to attract supporters and potential members, because if the SPgb is seen to condone such anti human behaviour, what message does it send?

[SocialistPunk]

VinI don't have any offspring to protect or for that matter a sister to protect from chauvinistic footballers, but I still care about other people being hurt by others for personal gratification. To me morality is the expression of a social code that binds non family groups of people together through empathy. Part of the social bond is how to deal with those who transgress.  As a socialist society will face situations, especially in its infancy, of this nature, then those who advocate such a socialist society need to address these issues now and not wait until a Newsnight type scenario has exposed such a huge flaw in the plan. 

[SocialistPunk]

No takers Vin, hardly surprising, as this issue enters into the realm of morality or for anyone who doesn't like that word, how we should treat each other and expect to be treated. Or to break it down to an even simpler level is it acceptable to hurt others for your own gratification?I take it there is no Party policy on this issue. Perhaps it is time there was?

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Getting back to the opening post about a socialist speaker on question time and the Party not having a particular policy on such matters. What would be the policy if this footballer were a Party member? 

I would assume up to the point that a Party member were proven guilty they would still be eligible for membership, but once convicted of such a crime, what is the Party policy?It surely must have a policy otherwise a situation could arise whereby the Party becomes a safe haven for unsavoury characters.I'm not talking about crimes such as shop lifting or bank fraud, but crimes that cause serious harm and suffering to other people. 

[SocialistPunk]

LBirdI do believe that Jewish circumcision is a religious practice, something to do with a covenant between a god and its worshippers and not a hygiene issue. However I am of the oppinion that somehow hygeine and a religious story were blended.As a socialist I would argue, as I think you would as well, that access to good hygeine would be one of the priorities of a newly emerged  socialist society, so genital mutilation as a preventative measure due to lack of knowledge and facilities to enable good hygeine practices, is a non starter. Leaving only religion and tradition as the reasons for wishing to mutilate children. I can't imagine a socialist wishing to inflict harm to a child. 

[SocialistPunk]

Good point LBird. I have given some thought recently to the idea of a socialist society needing some sort of universal human rights bill. As you point out communities will likely have different traditions that will probably survive into a socialist world, but mutilating kids for the sake of tradition is something that should be prevented.Nothing is ever easy.

[SocialistPunk]

Getting back to the opening post about a socialist speaker on question time and the Party not having a particular policy on such matters. What would be the policy if this footballer were a Party member? 

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

It's important, when having these discussions, to locate 'opinions' within ideologies.They are most certainly not 'individual opinions'!

LBird, Is the ideology here that of a democratic socialist one, ie we as a collective community and not law makers etc get to decide?

[SocialistPunk]

I totally agree YMS, that a change to a socialist society will not mean all cuddles and love thy neighbour. Dangerous people will need to be dealt with, though I see it more to protect us than them, as personally I couldn't give a toss for the safety of a murderer, child molester or rapist. If such people can be rehabilitated, great, but if not they present a danger to us and as such need to be prevented from harming others. How that is acheived would be up to the majority to decide.  

[Author]

Posts