Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

Cambridge Defend Education bans the SWP

Solidarity with all survivors! | 07.12.2014 12:57 | Cambridge

'As activists and students within Cambridge Defend Education (CDE), we wish to make it absolutely clear that we will not, under any circumstances, organise with the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP).'





As activists and students within Cambridge Defend Education (CDE), we wish to make it absolutely clear that we will not, under any circumstances, organise with the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP). This is not because of any disagreement on theory, but because of the SWP's historic and continuing role in supporting rape culture, and undermining liberation groups.

At recent demonstrations worryingly large sections of the activist community have continued to directly engage with the SWP (by holding their placards, buying their newspaper, etc.) Others have nonetheless not made it clear that the SWP are not welcome at such events. People in both of these groups are either unaware of the SWP's history, or are unwilling to hold them to account. While ignorance of the SWP's history of institutional sexism may well be considered an excuse, that such ignorance persists is symptomatic of a culture which marginalises, stigmatises and routinely denies the experiences of survivors of sexual violence - beliefs and attitudes still far too often found within the left.

The lack of action on the part of the unaware and the unwilling directly undermines the claims of liberation politics, causes psychological distress and harm to survivors of sexual violence, and directly contradicts any claims of solidarity with women and feminist movements.

An increasing number of people seem to be unaware of, or have forgotten, the SWP's history, so, for context, we will go into some detail about recent events. In 2013, a leaked report showed that a senior member of the SWP - 'Comrade Delta', later revealed to be Martin Smith, former National Secretary - had been accused of the sexual harassment and rape of two junior members. [1] The issues were dealt with internally via a 'disputes committee', a mock court staffed by friends and long-time colleagues of the accused. The women who made the complaints were subjected to extended victim blaming,and cross-examined over past relationships. Since the leak, others have come forward with similar stories, painting a picture of systematic institutionalised sexism and rape apologism. Attempts to challenge the SWP, both internally and externally, have been met by vicious and sometimes violent responses. Hundreds of party members have since left, with those former members who spoke out or challenged the SWP's handling of the allegations being threatened with expulsion and accused by the party leadership of 'creeping feminism'. Others have been harassed, threatened, and bullied into silence.

Historically, the SWP's attitude towards activists who do not toe the party line has been threatening and dangerous to various movements. Those who seek to directly confront racists and fascists, for example, have been prevented from doing so or even turned over to the police by SWP organisers. Most recently, the organisers of a prominent SWP front threatened to give personal details of the London Black Revolutionaries to police after they dared to organise solidarity demonstrations for Ferguson without consulting the self-proclaimed "leaders of the movement". [2]

Following the Free Education demonstration on 19th November, members of CDE appropriated copies of the SWP's paper, the Socialist Worker, and burnt them. They did this for two reasons. Firstly, as an act of solidarity with survivors of sexual violence and those organisations and individuals that have already taken a stance against the SWP, such as students at Sussex University, Goldsmiths Feminist Society, and Edinburgh University Student Union. Secondly, in order to send a clear message to the SWP and their supporters that their presence - indicative of the left's refusal to seriously challenge sexism within its own ranks - is not a welcome one.

We acknowledge that burning literature is a controversial tactic, although it remains unclear whether or not SWP recruitment tools count as literature except in the most literal sense. The burning of SWP leaflets and papers may well have been a rash act, but it was borne out of legitimate anger at the attempts of rapists and rape apologists to (re)legitimise themselves through attendance at recent protests. It's a real and genuine form of privilege to be able to reflect on all the potential consequences of expressing your anger before you shout out. There's more to political discussion and action than sanitary discourse in existing and well-defined debating space. We wanted to tell the SWP - a group with considerable economic power for a 'left' organisation, and the white male capital to rebrand itself as authoritative on issues it knows nothing about - that they are not welcome.

We stand with the student groups who've attempted to keep their campuses free from rape apoligism, and were inspired in our action by the Goldsmiths Feminist Society, who similarly burnt SWP materials, and faced a huge backlash from individuals within the left. Moves to disrupt circulation, expressions of destructive anger are often the only tools available to those shut out of other means of political expression. Fascists burning books is a different act from survivors of sexual violence and their allies destroying the means by which a group of rapists and their apologists try to silence them.

It is in this context that the Socialist Worker's Party is not welcome in CDE's spaces and actions. This is not because of their Marxist politics. It is instead due to the SWP's role in reproducing rape culture and patriarchy within activist communities, which is in direct conflict with CDE's commitment to creating safe and accessible activist spaces and communities. CDE will not work with rape apologists. They are not the leaders of our movement.

[1] http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disput…/ and  http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-swp-alleged-rape-cri…/
[2] https://www.facebook.com/events/312433102293366/permalink/312949965575013/

Solidarity with all survivors!


Comments

Hide the following 10 comments

An Intersectionalist Speaks on behalf of the CDI

07.12.2014 15:46

As activists and students within Cambridge Defend Intersectionalists (CDI), we wish to make it absolutely clear that we will not, under any circumstances, organise with anyone, including ourselves, who does, has ever done or will ever do anything that we don't like. More than that, we will not... etc... organise with anyone who has ever associated with anyone who fits into the above, rather large, category. We are a dwindling band and will be launching a programme of compulsory re-education quite soon to rectify this untenable situation.

Included in the above category of 'groups and individuals we won't organise with, ever' is the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP), all of it. That includes its leaders, members and anyone whose filthy hands have ever touched a copy of Socialist Worker, unless for the express reason of setting light to it, although we advise wearing gloves for the avoidance of doubt.

Our position on the SWP is not because of any disagreement on theory, but because of the SWP's historic and continuing role in supporting rape culture, and undermining liberation groups. You want to come and see how we do things in our safe little ghettos. It's great! We've completely dispensed with the need for evidence, we do all our trials on twitter and have great fun venturing out of our safe spaces to attack anyone we take a dislike to (mainly blokes who laugh at us). When they get angry, we run back inside quick, bolt the doors and get on our blogs to do a bit of creative writing about being oppressed and telling other people to go and attack them too.

What's really upsetting us is that not everyone out of the people we don't yet hate seems to understand our message which, put simply is "If you're not with us, you're against us." We're with George W Bush on that one. Some people won't join in with the book burning and they've got to understand that if they don't, we're gonna burn their books too... or tear their publications up and throw them on the floor and stamp on them... or throw beer glasses at them... and we're definitely going to ban them from our nice safe spaces. In general, we've found it best to pick on easy targets, but when the media turns on a celebrity, we don't like to pass up an opportunity. So it is that we find ourselves in coalition with the gutter press. They might have tits on page 3 but Wotthehell! They're after Russell Brand, so we love them (and public nudity can be viewed as quite liberatory). Sweden is obviously pursuing a vendetta against Julian Assange on behalf of the US but it suits us to have him as the pantomime villain. Besides, some of us are paid by the state to discredit him. Anyhow, we digress... let's get back to the SWP.

Even if people haven't yet had the benefit of hearing our analysis of the evil SWP, that's no excuse. It hurts us when they don't join in the book burning and we're going to make sure they hurt back. An eye for an eye an' all that. Someone told us that Gandhi added a bit to that Biblical quote but we're way too busy with Operation Offended to waste time looking up what some bloke in a film said.

For the record, in case any of you don't believe us, really bad things happened in the SWP and they weren't dealt with according to the global safer spaces policy. That's all you really need to know. Also, historically, some of us have never liked that bunch of Trots with their A to B marches and top down organising. The only way to deal with people like this is to burn their newspapers, OK? Nothing else will do. It sends the message nice and clear that we aren't going to tolerate their existence and that the oppressed of the world are now rising up and are going to take over, along with the fash. We are currently in talks with EDL about synchronising events to maximise our joint impact on the left.

Some of you have told us you don't like book burning. Well, that's easy to say from your privileged position of having time to think it through properly. We're just too fucking busy dealing with this scourge to think anything through, and in any case if we raise doubts about tactics we're liable to find ourselves on the wrong side of the intersection and we know we don't want to end up there. Besides, fire raising is fun!

We burn books. Fascists burn books. There is no fucking similarity between these two facts whatsoever, apart from tactics. Our reasons are loads better (if incomprehensible), and we've already explained that we're in talks with the fash about how we can work together on this one to our mutual benefit.

So, one last time,

SWP = Rapists
Anyone who doesn't burn books = Rape Apologists
The rest of us = Feminists and Fascists

See you at the barricades, comradettes.

Cambridge Defend Intersectionalists


Hmm...

08.12.2014 13:32

Meanwhile there's BPAS clinics being targetted by anti-abortion nutters around the country while the self-appointed champions of women , the Cambridge Defend Education (who?) would rather burn bits of paper .

Underprivileged


The less SWP contamination the better

09.12.2014 11:49

Many people involved in activism will be only too familiar with the interference and sabotage tactics of the SWP. If they approach your group under the guise of organising together, run a mile! They hi-jack and destroy everything. Their rape apologism is another (particularly horrifying) symptom of their warped mind-set.

Skid-Marx


More info

09.12.2014 20:54

You say that others have come forward in the comrade Delta case. Do you have links or more info on this?

@


Comrade Delta - in perspective

09.12.2014 21:23

a/ No-one's ever heard of this (tiny) group, so their "banning" the SWP is frankly a bit of a joke

b/ None of the allegations against "comrade Delta" have ever been proven, but unfortunately some self-styled "radicals" (by Virtue of ideological bias rather than by virtue of having any particular legal, investigative or forensic expertise) appoint themselves as the proverbial judge, jury and executioner, not just for the individual in question, but in fact for an entire organisation

c/ Similar allegations were used to disrupt and discredit the Occupy St Paul's protest camp, and caused huge damage, before the alleged rapist was found completely innocent

Granted the SWP suck, but focus your energies on fighting the Tories!

Lorna


Trial by gossip

09.12.2014 21:24

Rumors carry more weight than fact?

Casio


Article 11

10.12.2014 12:02


Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

International Day For Human RIghts
- Homepage: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/


Some Boring Facts

10.12.2014 14:21

Perhaps the CDI posting above is the best answer this nonsense deserves, but for the benefit of those who are unaware of the circumstances surrounding CDE's statement here are a few boring facts:

"While ignorance of the SWP's history of institutional sexism may well be considered an excuse, that such ignorance persists is symptomatic of a culture which marginalises, stigmatises and routinely denies the experiences of survivors of sexual violence - beliefs and attitudes still far too often found within the left."

It is the height of solipsism to believe that those who disagree with you can only be ignorant or corrupt. Consider for a moment the possibility the possibilty that the SWP is not a sexist organisation, but is a fallible one.

For instance, both the SWP's leading bodies (the Central and National Committees) have a high proportion of women (7/15 and 22/50 respectively). If anything, this speaks to a structural anti-sexism, but don't let ignorance of the facts stand in the way of a good insult, eh?

"Martin Smith, former National Secretary - had been accused of the sexual harassment and rape of two junior members."

Just to be clear, he had been accused of rape by one member and another had claimed sexual harassment. By conflating the two you are suggesting that there were two rape accusations. There weren't, though one was bad enough.

"The issues were dealt with internally via a 'disputes committee', a mock court staffed by friends and long-time colleagues of the accused."

This was not a "mock court" set up for this case, but an internal disciplinary committee elected each year at conference. Given their knowledge of the accused they clearly made a mistake agreeing to hear the case. But in fairness to them, it was unlikely they could have found many members with no knowledge of the party's national secretary. Incidentally, and irrelevantly, they were mainly women.

"The women who made the complaints were subjected to extended victim blaming,and cross-examined over past relationships."

Again, we have the conflation of two separate cases. Look at the transcript of the report to conference:

"We asked one question [about her sexual history] that was related to the testimony brought to us by the complainant. We didn’t introduce new material into that. We asked her about what she’d brought to us because she thought it was relevant to our investigation of what had happened. We asked a question about that, she told us the answer to that, and we accepted the answer."
( http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/ )

That doesn't sound like "extended victim blaming" or even "cross-examination."

"Attempts to challenge the SWP, both internally and externally, have been met by vicious and sometimes violent responses."

Admittedly, there was sometimes use of intemperate language on both sides of the debate on this issue. But I challenge the authors to point to any reports of actual violence from the SWP. Bear in mind that for the past two years in some circles it has been almost compulsory to denounce the SWP online and gleefully report on physically attacking their stalls and paper sales. Where in all that blogging and tweeting is there a single report of SWP members being violent?

"Hundreds of party members have since left, with those former members who spoke out or challenged the SWP's handling of the allegations being threatened with expulsion and accused by the party leadership of 'creeping feminism'."

Yes, hundreds have left and some of these have become the party's bitterest critics, but thousands stayed, including many who felt that the cases had been handled badly. Rather than threatening expulsion every effort was made to retain members. The only threatened expulsions were when it was discovered that some individuals were actually organising a split.

As for "creeping feminism" - heated debate can sometimes lead to stupid remarks. Unfortunately, the withdrawal and correction of said remarks are rarely so pithy. The party will have to live with that mistake for some time yet.

"Others have been harassed, threatened, and bullied into silence."

Well that's working isn't it?

"Historically, the SWP's attitude towards activists who do not toe the party line has been threatening and dangerous to various movements."

More random insults. For decades the SWP has argued for its politics within numerous movements. It does this by seeking to persuade through discussion, by example and spreading the lessons learnt from other campaigns. If it went around threatening those who disagreed with it it would never have been able to play a significant part in so many campaigns over several decades.

"Those who seek to directly confront racists and fascists, for example, have been prevented from doing so or even turned over to the police by SWP organisers."

Oh come on! This is beyond insulting, it's actually dangerous. Cite evidence or keep your fantasy world inside your head.

Imagine the scene - a UAF demo against the EDL, a small group, their faces covered by scarves break away down a side street, the police follow and eventually kettle them. Now what is more likely - that the police were acting on the instructions of the SWP; or that they saw an opportunity to pick on a group that had deliberately isolated itself?



Just for the sake of clarity, I am not suggesting that the SWP handled this whole sorry mess perfectly (or even well). But the mistakes they made were just that and not part of some patriarchal, rape denying conspiracy. They apologised for their mistakes and revised their procedures in light of those mistakes. Not only that, they published both the draft and the final versions of the revised procedures.

See  https://www.swp.org.uk/press/dispute-procedure-review
and  https://www.swp.org.uk/content/swp-conference-december-2013

If you're interested it might be worth looking at how it compares to the procedure of your union or university

Tedious D
mail e-mail: daveallen571@gmail.com


the counterfire alternative

10.12.2014 20:38

for those who are sick of the swp leadership, i urge them to get involved with counterfire.
Counterfire was set up by John Rees and Lindsey German, and ex swp who are unhappy about the Callinicos leadership would do well to get involved with Counterfire.

D-real


Cambridge Defend Education are lying!

18.12.2014 01:44

"Attempts of rapists and rape apologists to (re)legitimise themselves through attendance at recent protests"???

Really? Even if Martin Smith had been proven guilty (which he hasn't) did the "rapists" (sic) attempt to legitimise himself through attendance at recent protests? No he didn't. He hasn't been seen on protests since all this blew up. Therefore the CDE are lying! QED

As for that accusation as it's leveled against rape "apologists", provide hard evidence of a single SWP leader EVER apologising for anyone who's been CONVICTED of any proven rape

Last but not least, bear in mind Cambridge Defend Education are participating in a smear-campaign that's been enthusiastically promoted by the Daily Mail

Godzilla


Links