Free jailed Colombian trade union leader Huber Ballesteros

A LabourStart appeal by Eric Lee



Once again, LabourStart has launched a campaign in defense of human rights in Colombia -- the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist.

Please take a moment to send off your message to the Colombian president demanding that Huber Ballesteros be released from jail now:

http://www.labourstartcampaigns.net/show_campaign.cgi?c=2020&src=lsmm

For further information: TUC/Justice for Columbia

Anarchists call for SWP to be banned from campaigns

The repercussions of the appalling internal practices of the Socialist Workers Party towards women has finally caused one group on the left to call for their exclusion from campaigns. 

The Bristol Anarchist Federation has issued the following statement:

People may be aware of the allegations of a cover-up of sexual assault and rape within the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), and the subsequent repression of SWP members who questioned it. Anarchist Federation members and other comrades in Manchester and Glasgow were man-handled & attacked when they confronted SWP leaders over their rape apologism. The SWP has not spoken out against these assaults carried out by its supporters.

Bristol Anarchist Federation has always had strong political, theoretical and tactical disagreements with the Socialist Workers Party, however we have sometimes worked alongside them on broader campaigns. For example we joined a coalition with them and other groups under the “We Are Bristol” banner to organise against the English Defence League march last year.

Since then, with these allegations, it has become very clear we cannot tolerate an SWP presence on any similar campaigns again. A large number of SWP members, particularly younger members in Bristol, have left the organisation. On a national level, after it became clear the organisation and its leadership would not change, hundreds of members and some entire student branches have left. As such those who remain offer at the very least tacit support for the views and actions of the Central committee.

Recently what remains of the SWP in Bristol were blocked from entering Bristol University’s Freshers Fair where they had a stall booked. They refused to provide the Students Union with an adequate statement distancing themselves from, and condemning the rape apologism of, their (national) central committee. We support the work of Bristol Left and Bristol University’s Feminist Society who proposed this to the Student Union.

Bristol SWP branch’s unwillingness to condemn this makes them complicit in rape, rape apologism and patriarchal power dynamics and as such we will not organise with them or work along side them in future.

Although we agreed this in private months ago, we recently heard the EDL are coming back to the city, so we are taking this opportunity to make public our condemnation of the Bristol branch of the SWP and their national counterparts in their unwillingness to condemn the sexism, rape apologism and patriarchal power structures which exist within the organisation. TheSWP have taken no steps to deal with this situation and in fact have only shored up these behaviours with their attempts to cover up, persecute dissenting voices from within their organisation, and victim blame.

Further to this the SWP are barred from events, demos, public meetings and all other activities we solely organise. We believe that the presence of people who support the SWP’s central committee, their banners, placards and propaganda, contravenes our safer spaces policy. For these reasons they are not welcome and would be asked to leave. Individual SWP members (not including paid employees of the SWP) who do not support the actions of their Central Committee are still welcome to attend (without SWP propaganda), however we would question why such an individual would still be in the party. Finally we will propose barring the SWP from all future events we are jointly involved in organising.

The rest of the Labour and Trade Union movement should follow suit.  

Musical Interlude - Smoke on the water (Deep Purple)

Posted simply because it is such a stunning performance.

Enjoy!

The Socialist Party in disarray

The travails of the Socialist Workers Party may be at the forefront of most observers of the antics of the far left, but their now larger rival the Socialist Party of England & Wales (SPEW) along with its Scottish and Irish equivalents have their own problems.

The continuing dispute over the niceties of Marxist theory have led to the publication of an "Open Letter" to the executive committees of SPEW & the SP(S) over at Marx Returns from the Grave:

Dear Hannah,

Please find below an open letter to be circulated to all EC members:

Open Letter to the Socialist Party EC and the Socialist Party Scotland EC

Dear comrades,

We would like to warmly welcome the start of the official debate on the important question of ‘The causes of the Great Recession’. We would like to thank all those who worked and spent their precious time in facilitating this, with particular thanks to the comrades who formatted the documents so adequately and efficiently!

We look forward to furthering the discussion which we believe will stand us in good stead for the tasks ahead, as we clarify the ideas and raise the theoretical level of our great international.

At this point we would like to make the following additional preliminary remarks to help facilitate the smooth running of the debate:

We support the idea of a scheduled time table for the debate which the EC originally proposed. This could include deadline dates for a series of members’ bulletins on the issues. Members would be encouraged to write their thoughts and contribute to the collective learning experience.

There are a number of comrades internationally who are interested in reading the documents and debating the issues but need a translation – the key languages being French, German and Spanish.

It could also include a debate at the upcoming Socialism 2013 event. This would be on the basis of a comradely introduction to the ideas and where the differences lie.

We think this would be in the spirit of vibrant, open debate and demonstrate to the wider movement the dynamic and fraternal traditions of the CWI. In this period of mistrust in political parties we think such an approach is consistent with our aims to reach out to the working class, especially the youth.

Branches and regions should be encouraged to hold regional aggregates or branch meetings (depending on what best suits the area) to discuss the issues in a friendly and engaging manner. The signatories are more than happy to speak at these events.

We have found the EC documents useful in bringing out the wider implications of the debate with relation to consciousness, political conclusions and the transitional programme. It is useful to highlight that although the technical intricacies of the arguments surrounding falling rate of profit are very important – they do need to be set out in a way which relates to the current historical tasks and all that flows from it. We mustn’t fall into the academic trap of not locating the theory with practise, even in our party, where members on either side of the debate and in between are firmly rooted and checked by the class struggle.

We do ask though that the both the England and Wales and the Scottish Executive Committees kindly refrain from using statements on Bruce’s personal blog in replies to our document. This is because Bruce’s personal views are not necessarily shared by the other signatories.

We would also like to re-iterate that all signatories are committed members of the CWI and are in full agreement with the theory of the degenerated workers’ state in relation to the former Soviet Union and the deformed workers’ state with regards to Eastern Europe (as opposed to state capitalism).

We also accept the transitional programme as explained by Trotsky, and we are not believers in a ‘final crisis’ of capitalism. Such allegations in official submissions to discussion documents only serve to muddy the waters; not generate the political clarity that we are aiming to achieve.

With that in mind, we hope that the debate does not descend down the blind alley of comrades having to prove themselves on these basic concepts that we hope we are all agreed on! We look forward to furthering the debate and sharpening our analysis.

Forward, to a socialist world!

Comradely,

Steve Bush, Allan Coote, Sandra De Andrade, Steve Dobbs, Pete Glover, Georg Kumer, Rae Lewis-Ayling, Jordan Martinez, Alec Price, Wayne Scott, Bruce Wallace

At the same time the threat of a challenge to the sitting Socialist Party (Ireland) MEP by the SWP, as reported by Mentioning the War blog has led to a very public rant in the Irish edition of The Socialist:

SWP’s sectarian decision could damage chances

It has been confirmed that it is the intention that Socialist Workers Party member, Councillor Brid Smith would be a People Before Profit Alliance candidate in the European Elections next May for the Dublin constituency. When this information initially appeared a few days ago via social media, it caused bewilderment and shock.

This is an irresponsible decision and should be rescinded. It strikes a blow against the struggle to build a genuine Left and Socialist alternative by making it more complicated for Paul Murphy to retain the European Parliament seat. If proceeded with, it would rank as a crass example of political sectarianism.

Of course political groups on the Left have the right to stand in whatever elections they wish. That is not the issue. They also have the responsibility to judge whether it is correct to exercise that right against the specific political background prevailing at the time and the ramifications that flow from their decision.......

Any attempt to justify a People Before Profit Alliance candidate on the basis that the ‘far left’ needs to have more ambition and go out with the aim to win two out of the three seats reflects either incredibly bad political judgement or is simply blatantly disingenuous. Close to 50% of the first preference vote and very good transfers would have to obtained to make that possible.

This is building up to be a massive battle between many forces/candidates, probably for one seat, and the PBPA throwing their hat in the ring could endanger Paul Murphy’s chance of retaining that seat....

......Talk of the possibility of two seats by members of the SWP for the far left is an attempt to prettify or camouflage what would be a deeply sectarian move that will damage the struggle and could well result in giving a left and socialist seat to the right-wing.

Full article: here

Paul Murphy's defeat would be no loss given his unsavoury views on the middle east as previously reported on this blog. 

Sometimes I think these people can't help themselves, let alone other people.

Comedy Interlude: Monty Python Communist Quiz sketch

And now for something completely different......

I've been arguing with Marxists (there's a change) and found this little gem which I thought might cheer you up on this cold Saturday morning.

Another SWP Rape Case

The International Socialist Network, a breakaway group from the Socialist Workers Party follwing the "Delta" affair have just published the following report from a former woman member:

In December of last year – I was still at this point a member of the SWP – another member (I refuse to call that person a comrade) raped me. At first I refused to accept it and actually felt guilty. This person had been sexually harassing me for about a month prior to the attack and part of me felt that I should have said something sooner. In January, after confiding in a comrade who made me realise what really happened, I decided to file an official complaint with the SWP’s disputes committee.

This was not an easy decision to make. I had sat through that disputes report at conference that same month, with the man who raped me just a few seats away, and had been disgusted at what I had heard. However, I and other comrades truly believed that it must have been a one-off – that the appalling behaviour shown throughout must have been a mistake that would be rectified and never repeated. I think we all know now that we were wrong.

In late January I contacted my organiser to inform them I wanted to make a complaint. It was suggested that a female member in the district would hear my complaint and act as my intermediary. The organiser was a close ‘friend’ of both myself and the offender, and had been in the same house at the same party the night it had happened. I am not going to go into the details of the event, but I will outline the disputes procedure.

I made an initial complaint (of sexual assault, however the description of what happened can be nothing but rape) in which I detailed everything that had happened that night to my intermediary, who took notes. She got in touch with the disputes committee, forwarding the notes that she had taken the night I spoke to her. These notes were sent to Pat Stack, who sent them to Charlie Kimber, who then suspended the offender while the disputes committee (DC) looked into the case.

The DC replied that the complaint had to come from me in my own words. I emailed the DC myself, again forwarding the notes from my intermediary, saying, ‘Please accept this email as my formal complaint to the disputes committee. I have attached the previously forwarded, by [***], notes with one slight change and these are the basis of my complaint.’

As it turned out this still wasn’t enough, and I received this rather abrupt email telling me so:

“Currently, the DC is in receipt of your email (30th Jan 2013) that asks the DC to accept this email and its attachment – [***] previously forwarded (23th Jan 2013) notes with one slight change – as your formal complaint to the DC.  You have described these two documents as ‘the basis of your complaint’.

You are asking the DC to accept a third party description of what you said to the third party, as the complaint. This is not possible. Currently, the DC has still not received your account of what happened to you, while the defendant has been suspended for the past two weeks.

You need to finalise your own complaint.

Further, on the phone on Wednesday evening, you named three people to whom you have previously disclosed the identity of the defendant and to whom you are currently disclosing where your DC process is up to. You have done this even though you have open access to your chosen intermediary. Your actions are breaching the confidentiality that must surround complaints processes as well as identities and complaint details.

We recognise that this is difficult for you. We are trying to enable you to communicate clearly with the DC, and to protect the well-being, information and confidential identity of involved Comrades to the best of our abilities. It is vital that we work out the most constructive way forward from this juncture. The DC asks that you contact us at your earliest opportunity to discuss this further.

This correspondence is confidential between the DC and yourselves.”

I replied with this:

“Here is my statement, I have been out of the country so sorry for the delay.

In response to you saying i have broken confidentiality, i spoke to the other comrades before i decided to come to disputes as i didn't know what to do, i was wary of the disputes committee due to recent events and the report back that sat through at conference. Also one of these comrades is a female comrade who i know had previously felt uncomfortable at the behaviour of [***] and had helped me come to terms with what had happened.”

Throughout the whole of this process the need for confidentiality was constantly repeated to me. I, as someone who had been through something horrific, was being told that I could not talk to my friends and comrades – that I must only to talk to a woman who up until this point I had very little to do with.

After sending my statement it was arranged for Rhetta and Jackie from the DC to come to my area and interview both me and the offender. At this point I believed that this was my case being heard. On the evening of the interview Rhetta and Jackie asked me to talk them through the events of the night, which I did. Some of the questions that followed included “what effect would you say drink and drugs had on you that night?” I was also asked and pushed to talk about abuse that had happened to me previously, as earlier on that night I had been emotional and had confided in the man that assaulted me. This was extremely upsetting for me during a process that was already hard enough.

There is also some of the assault that I cannot remember fully, not due to intoxication but rather that I have blocked it out. He spoke to me throughout, however while I can still hear him talking, feel it in fact, I cannot remember exactly what it was he said.

At the end of a very long and upsetting interview I was asked what I wanted to happen next. When I enquired further what was meant by that, I was asked whether I would like to make it an official complaint and have an official hearing. Up until this point I thought that this was already so and that this was part of the official hearing.

They went on further to say that it was unlikely that the DC would be able to find either way, especially taking into account the level of intoxication, without being sure of the effect it had on me (in fact I was stone cold sober by the time the assault happened, which I repeated throughout). They said that I couldn’t remember everything (in fact the only thing I couldn’t remember from the actual assault was what he had been saying to me), and that a hearing would be harder for me.

I was encouraged to drop the case, whilst being told that “it is of course your decision, you do what’s best for you”, etc. Given such a bleak choice I decided to drop the complaint. I in no way feel this decision was mine – I was basically told there was no point, something which, as I found out more later on, was most definitely true.

I feel it is worth mentioning that the interview with Rhetta and Jackie was extremely stressful for me and damaging to my already frail mental health. They made me feel as if I was ridiculous for making a complaint and too damaged a person to really assess what had happened and how to deal with it. Following the interview I fell into a week-long state of mania. This is the real effect of what the SWP’s line towards women and rape is: it damages people, it is dangerous. During the week that followed I was phoned three times by my intermediary and by members of the DC to essentially make sure I kept quiet: “If anyone asks you about the complaint or why it was dropped just say ‘I don’t want to talk about it’ and ‘it was my decision’.” Well actually I do want to talk about it and it wasn’t my decision.

I have since found out that he was able to read my statement, while I have not seen his or even heard from the DC what he had said in response. Also he was able to have a character support, who turned out to be someone not even in the party. I was offered no sort of witness, despite the fact that I listed in my statement another female comrade in the district and mentioned that they would be happy to confirm that they had not only felt uncomfortable in that man’s presence but had also, previous to the assault, mentioned to me that he was acting in a harassing manner towards me.

I feel that it is no coincidence that the DC showed favour to a male member who was very prominent in the district and was starting to make a name for himself nationally within the organisation. A male member who was sent by the district to special conference (after my complaint) – even my intermediary voted for him – on a strong pro-CC line, who then went on to be on the district committee, and who is still a visible presence at demos, meetings, etc.

The similarities in how the cases of W and X were handled and how mine was are striking, and should be proof to anyone that the Socialist Workers Party is a group that is sexist, full of bullies, and above all will cover up rape to protect its male members and reputation. Taking this on board, the SWP is counter-revolutionary and is against the socialist tradition; we cannot have a revolution without fighting for the liberation of all oppressed groups – to cover up rape is oppressing women. So anyone who is a revolutionary, a socialist, a decent human being should have nothing to do with the SWP and its abhorrent practices. Deprive them and all rape apologists of air, do not in engage in any way. They are not worth the energy of revolutionaries – in short they are scum and we need not bother with them. 

The SWP is beyond the pale. One wonders how much more has yet to be uncovered. The SWP do not belong in the Labour and trade union movement.

New report highlights growing incursion of evangelical Christians into state schools

Cross-post from the National Secular Society

A new report published by the National Secular Society has revealed that publicly funded schools are being targeted and exploited by evangelical Christian groups as part of their missionary work.

The report, Evangelism in state schools – the role of external visitors in publicly funded education (pdf), reveals a determined push by evangelical churches and organisations to gain access to state schools with the intention of proselytizing among young children.

The report finds that the activities of external visitors are often undertaken in schools without parents' knowledge and with little, if any, opportunity for withdrawal.

According to the report, the motivations and aims of religious groups, either out of complicity or naivety, are going unquestioned by head teachers, governors, Local Education Authorities and the Department for Education.

The National Secular Society has written to Education Secretary, Michael Gove, calling for national guidance setting out best practice for working with external visitors and contributors and particularly religion and belief groups.

The report also calls for all schools to publish and adhere to an external visitor's policy which forbids proselytizing and evangelism and makes clear that parents should be given prior and relevant information about school visitors.

One parent, Saul Freeman from Sheffield, said:

"Having sent our child to a non-religious state primary school, we never expected to find ultra-conservative evangelical activity. Our son's school has never been open with parents about its close links with a local evangelical church despite our best efforts to get clarity.

"Adults who come in and lead school assemblies are seen by the children as authority figures in the local community – and this means that the school has conferred a status of trust and respect on a group of individuals who preach hate and a fundamentalist, literalist and creationist approach to religion and life."

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said that the educational purpose of religious education is so vague that it is open to exploitation by aggressive religious groups that are determined to reach children in schools.

He said: "The legal obligation on all schools to provide religious education, and a daily act of worship provides a foot in the door to organisations with evangelistic intentions. The ambiguity about the specific aims and purpose of religious education, and its low status in schools, provides an ideal environment for evangelical groups to exploit.

"Given the diminishing interest in religious observance amongst young people and their parents, it's easy to see why evangelical groups are so keen to access schools. But we have to question the appropriateness of state schools being used in this way. The presence of such groups undermines the rights of parents who rightly expect a state education for their child that doesn't run counter to their own religious and philosophical convictions."

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said:

"The targeting of our schools in this way by such dubious organisations must be tackled by the Department for Education. Most parents have absolutely no idea that such groups are present in their children's school until the child comes home and starts repeating the messages they've been given – sometimes about creationism, sometimes manipulative evangelical messages or literature that reinforces a very conservative religious outlook on life."

Mr Sanderson said the whole issue of religion in schools needs to be urgently reassessed.

"Our schools are becoming playgrounds for religious interests who are exploiting their opportunities to the full. The increasing number of faith schools is not going to make this any better. With fewer and fewer people regarding themselves as religious, it is clear that faith groups see schools as their best hope of reviving their fortunes. Children have to be there by law, they are a captive audience."

Read the report: Evangelism in state schools – the role of external visitors in publicly funded education (pdf)

See a list of evangelical groups active in schools

Research into the activities of evangelical groups in schools in ongoing. If you have information or concerns about external visitors in a particular school, please use the form on this page to provide details.

The NSS is calling for religious education to be replaced with a new National Curriculum subject that allows pupils to take a more objective and religiously neutral approach to the consideration of moral and ethical issues. Read our briefing paper setting out the need for comprehensive reform of RE.