Can the SWP deal with rape allegations?

There are a small number of arguments being put forward by the CC and loyalists which relate to the specifics of how they dealt with the rape allegation.  I attempt here to set out some of the points that I have used to challenge these arguments.  My first point will always be that the party should never have attempted to conduct a rape investigation and I stand by that. 

However, I also believe it is crucial that we take on some of the arguments that we are facing.  This composition has come about as the result of the input (on this blog and in discussions) of many comrades. I don’t take credit for the ideas here.  They have been developed through debate and discussion – exactly in the way that thought and ideas should develop in our party. Nor do I put these forward as a blue print.  They are intended to help comrades deal with the arguments, and I hope that comrades will comment on and challenge this post so that we can continue to develop our thought.

One of my usual experiences is not so much an argument as an incredulous face pulling exercise that seems to go on whenever I ask “would the DC have investigated a murder?”  The expression on the faces of these opponents says it all “why on earth would you equate rape with murder?”  But I think these faces tell a more complex story “why on earth would you equate this allegation of rape with murder”. 

It is not the case that W went to the DC with her clothes torn, bruises and an experience that fits the mainstream story of a rape victim.  If that had been the case, I believe that the DC would have said “we are in no position to investigate this case”.  The reason that the DC thought it was fit to investigate this case is precisely because it did not recognise rape within relationship, acquaintance rape, date rape or whatever you want to call this woman’s experience as a ‘real’ rape.  Part of their disbelief may have been because they were friends or long standing colleagues of Delta.  Part of their disbelief may be because the party’s position on women’s oppression is flawed, it has not kept up to date with the most current theories in feminism and it has not kept itself at the forefront of the battle against women’s oppression.  Part of their problem was that they are human, they live in this world, in this time and, despite protestations to the contrary, they were not immune to the rape myths that exist in this society. 

I have also faced the argument that the DC has investigated 9 rapes in the past (I’m not clear on how recently these ‘investigations’ were conducted).  I believe this argument is put forward to reassure comrades of the competency of the DC.  I don't find it reassuring in the slightest; in fact I find it terrifying.  But it illustrates my points above.  Our understanding of rape has developed over the years.  Rape within marriage was only recognised in law in the 1990’s (England) / 1980’s (Scotland), date rape (acquaintance rape) is an issue that we are continuingly developing our understanding of and we have the women's movement to thank for the progress made in changing attitudes towards these issues.  If the party, in the past has underestimated the seriousness of rape and has attempted to investigate it, surely it is valid to suggest that that time has now passed and we understand enough about rape to understand that it is not a dispute between two people that can be resolved through a disputes committee?

Although one would hope that the SWP would always be at the forefront of understanding and reacting appropriately to violence against women, if we have failed in the past, we need to stop what we were doing and make sure that our approach changes now.  The approaches we’ve taken in the past and those we will take in the future need to be constantly re-evaluated based on what we currently understand about rape.  We should translate the best of practices into our internal mechanisms.

There is an argument, put forward forcefully in individual conversations at the Scottish aggregate which goes something like “What else could the CC/DC do? W wanted them to investigate, they followed her wishes.”  Those of us who challenge the process are then accused of suggesting that women should be forced to go to police.

I would argue that this inability to put forward anything other than the two options above – police investigation or DC investigation – either indicates a cover up or an appalling lack of problem solving skills and actually, we want neither of these in the leadership of a revolutionary organisation.

When my letter to the CC was posted on Lenin’s Tomb blog and then linked to Richard’s Facebook page within a short time there were over 50 comments on one of these forums and over 40 on the other.  Comrades were discussing what could we have done? What does a revolutionary socialist response look like? Where do the police fit in this type of situation?  This is an example of the kind of creativity, willingness to learn and desire to deal seriously with a dreadful situation that exists in our party. This is what should have happened in the leadership and, if it did happen, then it should be straightforward for the leadership to explain to the party the justification for the process it followed.  The CC could tell us what these justifications were without breaching anyone's confidentiality.  The details of the case are confidential; the party's approach to dealing with rape is not.  In fact, if the leadership could explain the route by which it came to decide on its actions then it could only help its case. They are unable or unwilling to do so, and I can only deduce that these discussions didn't happen.

The leadership has also claimed that the DC to investigating Delta was not a problem despite the fact that they knew him well and some were friends of his.  The crux of this argument seems to be they were all long standing and well respected party members and because the party is against women's oppression the DC would somehow automatically investigate the allegations fairly and objectively. 

This is a circular argument. Both W and Delta are also SWP  members. By this logic Delta could not possibly commit rape (presumably if by virtue of being in the party we are immune to sexist ideas we must also by extension be incapable of sexist acts); but then would it not also mean by extension that W would be incapable of experiencing rape at the hands of a party member?  How can that recursive logic resolve itself?  Do all of our relationships with other party members exist without the trappings of historic oppression?

Also concerning (given the difference in age and length of time in the party between the individuals involved) is the linking of the DC members’ length of service in the SWP as evidence of their inability to be anything other than objective in the matter.  What does that tell us about the attitude towards W's age and shorter length of time as a member of the Party?  Is she therefore deemed to be less immune to sexist ideas? 

The leadership also questions what else they could have done?  The DC is the body elected to investigate there was no-one else they could ask to investigate.  I would again argue that this inability to develop alternative ways of dealing with difficult situations looks and smells at worst like a cover up or at the very least a complete lack of the type skills one would want to see in a revolutionary leadership.
 
Comrades have asked for an example of what an alternative approach might look like.  This is only one way in which the situation could have been dealt with, there are others but for starters:
 

1.     Acknowledge that the woman came to the internal process because she trusted the Party – that is an honour and a responsibility it deserves to be treated as such. 

2.     Reassure her that the allegation is taken seriously, and that the organisation wants to provide support but be honest, the SWP is not in a position to investigate a rape.  We are not criminal investigators, there may be other victims and an internal investigation could compromise a criminal investigation. 
 

3.     Explore the complainant’s expectations and what she envisages happening.  It is fine to limit people's expectations; it helps no-one if someone who feels they have been badly treated has unrealistic expectations that are dashed at some point during the process designed to deal with their complaint.
 

4.     Explain that the DC's remit is to investigate if someone has behaved in a way that is not in line with the SWP's purpose, aims and values.  So the DC cannot investigate a rape and neither can they find someone “innocent” or “guilty” or “not proven” or “exonerate” them.  The limits of their findings are to matters of conduct and whether allegations are founded or unfounded.  

5.     Because the allegation is so serious the person against whom the complaint is made should be placed on immediate suspension without prejudice.  

6.     The party will need to investigate if his behaviour at any time was at odds with the party's purpose, aims, and values and if so to what extent and what sanctions are appropriate.  If the complainant decides to go to the police (and she should be encouraged and supported to in making her own decision about whether to do so) a police investigation will take precedence.  The party’s investigation into conduct would not be able to begin until any police investigation is finished.  If the complainant decides at any time during any proceeding to go to the police, the internal investigation will be halted until the police investigation is complete.  The member whom the complaint is against will remain on suspension until the whole process is completed.   The complainant should be reassured that this is a normal process and should not be made in any way to feel awkward or guilty about making her complaint, or about the steps the organisation takes as a result of receiving her complaint.  She should be reassured that she did the right thing by coming forward.

7.     The people dealing with the allegation need to be sure that the woman understands the differences between a criminal investigation and an internal one and the limitations of the latter.  The woman should be supported to go to Rape Crisis or another sexual abuse agency so that she can have support; including an independent supporter to help her come to a decision about what she wants to do. 
 

8.     Outline the process in writing (including limitations, what the hearing will look like, what might be asked, who gets to see what; AND setting out the process for the selection of an independent panel to hear the complaint) and encourage the woman to discuss this with her support agency, take time, come back and ask questions etc.  Discuss timings, find out when the woman would like an investigation to take place, perhaps encourage her to take a couple of weeks to think about her options with support but put reasonable limits on it – the organisation needs to deal with the situation.
 

9.     The party should be happy to co-operate with the woman’s choice of support agency and should offer someone from the party to be an internal support for the woman.  The woman should have a say in deciding who this might be.  

Please note:  the information above about the precedence of a police investigation is absolutely standard practice if there is an allegation of a crime having been committed in a workplace or by a worker whose employer also wants to deal with it.  Likewise suspension without prejudice is standard practice in serious allegations.  In care settings, suspension without prejudice can easily go on for a year while a police investigation is carried out.

It is also worth noting that a police investigation may be dropped because of lack of evidence, or a case be dropped in court, or a defendant found not guilty but an employer or organisation may still find that conduct was below what should have been expected and discipline the individual(s).

 - Linda Rodgers