Why the SWP are Rape Apologists
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) rape scandal started several years ago and resulted in hundreds of members resigning from the SWP (including 90% of its student members) over the handling of rape and sexual harassment by the former SWP National Secretary Martin Smith dating back to 2010, as well as the party attempting to cover up several other instances of rape within their ranks. I've detailed the case below, as best I could, then provided some Glasgow-specific information (including several instances where members of our group were physically attacked by SWP members). Finally I've included links to a wealth of resources on these events.
The case:
In 2010, a young woman (W) made allegations against the then general secretary of the SWP, that Smith (known throughout the process as Comrade Delta), following the ending of a relationship had continued to harass W. One section of the party leadership (that included members from Glasgow and Manchester) immediately began to harass W and her supporters. Other sections of the leadership placed responsibility on whether action would be taken against Smith on W’s shoulders.
Based on the harassment she experienced W resigned from the SWP in late 2010. However, based on these allegations the SWP’s Central Committee (the leadership body of the SWP, refereed to as the CC) moved to remove Smith from the position of national secretary. At the 2011 national conference, where this decision was formally endorsed, Smith and the central leadership acted to downplay and trivialise the allegations, suggesting that hostile forces outside the organisation were using the allegations to damage the SWP. Smith’s speech announcing his stepping down was met with a standing ovation including footstamping from the audience and chants of “workers united will never be defeated”. Although removed from the national secretary position, Smith continued as a member of the CC and was heading up the SWP’s union and anti-fascist front group (Unite Agaist Fascism), which as central activities of the SWP meant that Smith continued to play an extremely prominent public role in the party.
In Autumn 2011, W rejoined the SWP. As a consequence of the SWP’s condemnation of George Galloway’s rape apologist remarks re: Assange in mid-2012, she became more confident that the SWP would handle her case properly and an approach was made by W to take a dispute against Smith further, and came forward to say that she had been raped. The Disputes Committee (an internal panel made up of members of the SWP leadership, all of whom were good friends of Smith, shortened from here as DC) was convened to decide on how to proceed. This hearing was highly problematic:
At the same time a second member (X) came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against Smith. X had a meeting with the DC following which she was told her evidence was not relevant. During the hearing X was asked questions about her drinking habits and whether she could have misconstrued Smith’s behaviour as he was, in the words of those on the DC, a “friendly man who often bought her coffees”.
Under the SWP’s disputes process any DC decision goes to the national conference (the main meeting for decisions within the SWP) and supporters of W began organising to challenge the DC report. In the lead up to the conference, which was in January 2013, four SWP members were expelled for “factionalism” based on a Facebook chat where a discussion occurred over whether to form a faction (in the SWP if you wish to disagree with the decisions of the CC you have to openly voice your decent and form a “faction”, otherwise you are expelled). It was the decision to not form a faction that was, in a Kafkaesque twist, used as a basis to expel these members. The reason given was that the group were now part of an “undeclared faction”. In the end, a different (and very small) faction was formed with the intention of articulating a statement calling for changes in how the SWP handles rape allegations. The CC and other supporters of Smith organised to limit the ability for the faction members to be elected as delegates (in the SWP delegate elections you vote for a whole group/slate of delegates and the winning group taking all positions).
In the DC session at the Conference the report presented a very sketchy outline of the proceedings: that W had made an allegation against a CC member “Delta”, and that they had concluded that the allegations were not proven. In the discussion, members were barred from discussing the detail of the allegations or the hearing and W was barred from attending the session, despite having specifically asked to be there. One DC member informed members present at the session that the case was very difficult because Smith and W presented very different stories and none of the witnesses saw what had happened. Despite this, the report was passed by a thin margin of 239 for accepting, 209 voting to reject and 18 abstentions.
Following the conference, the CC moved to close down discussion. Paid full-timers (such as Josh in Glasgow) were told to toe the line or they would lose their jobs. Despite this, and the SWP’s bans on factions outside of the pre-conference discussion period, some members (though none in Glasgow) started organising for a new conference. Ultimately, while this push was successful in forcing an emergency conference, opposition forces were heavily defeated and a wave of resignations began.
Another wave of resignations then occurred after oppositionists who remained in the party were unsuccessful in trying to force the following national conference to adopt an apology from the party to both W and X and to block Smith’s supporters along with Alex Callinicos (party ideologue) and Charlie Kimber (the party’s current national secretary), from being re-elected to the CC.
In the meantime, X and her supporters continued to push for X’s case to be heard, which the CC resisted and wanted to put off until 2014. X was removed from their full-time position in the SWP HQ on the basis that it would improve office dynamics. Despite the efforts of the CC to protect Smith, however, pressure mounted from within the organisation and also from outside, with more and more people becoming aware of what of had happened as a consequence of a range of leaks. Not only did the right-wing media attack the party, but a large number of prominent left-wing activists publicly distanced themselves from the SWP. Under this pressure and with X’s allegations still looming, Smith resigned from the SWP in July 2013.
It has emerged that a range of prominent SWP members had been seeking to find ways to help Smith, and he had secured a funded PhD place in Social Work at Liverpool Hope University, where an SWP member is a senior academic. Following Smith’s resignation the CC agreed to have a DC hearing into X’s allegations, where it was found that Smith had a case to answer, but no action would be taken unless he rejoined the organisation (which hardline supporters are now rumoured to be pushing for).
Despite Smith’s resignation his supporters still accused X of being an MI5 agent (British domestic intelligence) and publicly argued “we aren’t rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth – and guess what, some women and children lie”, a comment which received a round of applause during a session at the party conference.
Since that point a third testimony by a former member of the SWP had come to light, detailing a similar pattern of systemic abuse and cover-up by the party.
Glasgow-specific information
Since the original allegations came to light attempts have been made by various organisations and bodies both within and outwith the SWP to try and address their culture of rape appologism that has taken root have been met with hostility and even physical attack.
A letter of support for the central committee was drafted by “loyal” members throughout the party. This was signed by 19 members in Glasgow, all of whom were long-standing members of the SWP and are still members today.
On the 30th of March 2013 Dave Sherry stood up to speak at an anti-Bedroom Tax rally on George Square. He was one of the Disputes Committee members who was directly involved in covering up the rape in the first case and members of the Glasgow Feminist Collective (inc members of the Anarchist Federation and a wide range of other affiliations and none at all) started to heckle him. In response they were physically attacked by members of the SWP.
In 2014 three members of the SWP physically attacked an IWW member for mentioning that they didn't wish to purchase one of their papers as it promoted rape apologism. It was only thanks to the intervention of Unison stewards that the incident went no further (similar attacks have been reported in Manchester, London and Leeds from people from a range of backgrounds and political affiliations).
November 2014 – Members of the SWP attended the yearly Reclaim the Night march and event. When this was brought to organisers attention they took to the stage and stated clearly that members of the SWP were not welcome at the event due to the ongoing denial of rape in their party. The SWP members refused to leave quietly and it was only after direct confrontation that they left, although they tried to return without being noticced several times.
On March of 2015 members of the SWP attempted to attend a memorial rally in remembrance of Leelah Alcorn. Organisers, members of the AF, and assorted other attendees approached them asking that they leave, only to be met with allegations of being “police informants” or “spies”, that people were just being “sectarian” (however the organisers were not members of any political group, just people concerned at the SWP rape apologism).
Similar instances, including threats of violence, physical intimidation and legal threats, have been reported across the UK targeting folks from a wide range of backgrounds.
Other Points of Note:
The SWP have been making propaganda (posters, placards and stickers) with the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' despite the widespread rejection and condemnation of the SWP by BLM and other black liberation groups across the whole of the UK.
While the SWP have been trying to ride the wave of popular opposition to Brexit in order to gain members, they had in fact campaigned in favour of Brexit! This change was not due to any reasoned political conviction, but shows the pure opportunism at play.
11/03/17 – physical threats against antifa, physically threatening organisers of an alternative rally, and shopping antifa into the cops in Alloa. Known SWP members also point-blank refused to admit they were in the party, claiming to be part of RISE or just members of a particular union. This was in order to prevent people ejecting Stand Up To Racism as their front.
March 2017 – Due to close links between the leadership of the SWP and Unite, the latter have been taking action against a members who pointed out the rape apologism of the SWP.
Supporting info:
Appendix: How the SWP Organise
The SWP’s political practice revolves around various front organizations, like Stand Up To Racism, Stop the War, Unite the Resistance, Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees, Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, or Unite Against Fascism. Sometimes their front groups even start their own front groups. While the front groups are present themselves as being independent organisations or coalitions, they are either set up with the SWP and their supporters in charge, or with someone who is unaware of their tactics and intentions for the group at the helm. Ultimately, they use front groups as a recruitment pool and to control struggles as their means of being holding a modicum of power.
Where there is a fledgeling struggle or campaign these front groups come in and (with the help of SWP funds to pay for placards, megaphones, and buses) try to buy into and take over a struggle in order to make the party look good and get members signed up. Much like a mainstream trade union, the SWP want to be the mediators of any struggle, and so act to set the bounds of any activity and try to control and curtail actions that go against their party line. To keep this party line they will set-up or turn up to meetings, splitting people through the crowd and have them repeat pre-determined speaking points which members will agree with and applaud (this is known as “packing a meeting”, as in they are artificially packing it with their members in a way they hope others won't notice or comment on – note they also do this on mailing lists).
They will work with the state and the police if it helps them keep control, and have a history of shopping in anti-fascists to the police. They will also try to act as stewards of rallies and marches, keeping them contained in order to help them maintain the power derived from their relationship with left-wing institutions (the Labour Party, unions, etc). The main aim of the struggle isn't to win on the issue so much as to milk the situation for new members and good publicity. This burns through people and is bad for campaigns, as they are always seen as disposable compared to the party.
To this end conferences and marches where SWP speakers are seen at the top table and in the role of running the show are the norm. Often these events are padded out with Labour MPs and sympathetic union leaders, and these friendly people are nominally members of front group committees that they don’t in practice attend. They also invite people genuinely involved in the struggle to participate if they are unaware of the underlying reasons for the event. It is also of note that on occasion the SWP have been ousted by other trot or union groups within the leadership of a front, often due to a split within the SWP itself.
Front groups also have lots of A to B marches and demo's in front of government buildings that make a lot of noise but do nothing to take action at the heart of the problems at hand. These marches also start and/or end with the same selection of speakers you would find at their conferences.
They often also approach people who are organising and offer to “help”, effectively exploiting others trusting nature in order to use them as a front. If called out they will claim they are acting in solidarity, however this tactic is nothing short of base opportunism. In other instances, where genuine grassroots organising has surpassed them, the SWP will use a front group to get a foot in the door. Claims will be made of wanting to stand in solidarity and coming along to help. However as this is happening the SWP will create photo opportunities where their front group, and importantly their members, look to be leading the situation. They will then try to gain control of the struggle, again with a focus on selling papers, putting out their placards to look like they are in charge (even if in reality they are a minority), and again recruiting members.
It is worth noting that this is why all their placards across the world have the same font, and why all their front groups have very similar design/website design.