A socialist speaker on question time
- This topic has 87 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Found it. It is this from 1995:
Quote:That this Conference regards Clause 4 of our Declaration of Principles as committing socialists to opposition to all prejudices, based on gender, race or sexual orientation. (1995).Incidentally, there has never been any bar on homosexuals joining the party even when this was illegal. In fact at least one prominent member was during that period. Also an abortionist when that was illegal too.
I don't think this thread has anything to do with being gay or sexual preferences.How does being gay link to rape an paedophilia? I don't see the connection.
Vin Maratty wrote:How does being gay link to rape an paedophilia? I don't see the connection.It doesn't.I guess the only link with those and the resolution is if you classify paedophile or rapist as a sexual orientation.
DJP wrote:…. if you classify paedophile or rapist as a sexual orientation.I certainly don't and I don't think the resolution could in any way be interpreted that way.
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.
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?
DJP wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:How does being gay link to rape an paedophilia? I don't see the connection.It doesn't.I guess the only link with those and the resolution is if you classify paedophile or rapist as a sexual orientation.
Which is what Joe Public does. I agreed that the jury is out on establishing the difference between 'orientation' and 'preference' but why should we wait when a simple addition/amendment to this Conference resolution would clarify where we stand on the issue of applying sexual discrimination when it's obviously harm against the person.
BrianWhat exactly are you proposing?Sexual orientation refers to a persons attraction to either the same sex, the opposite sex, or to both.Preference refers to choice. Abusing others for gratification is a choice.
gnome wrote:DJP wrote: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…If we had any suspicion about any applicant's 'credentials' then clearly it would be infinitely advisable and far, far simpler not to admit them in the first place. Those of us who've been around for more than a few years know that it's become virtually impossible to expel anyone from the party…
It may well be difficult to expel members over ill defined indiscretions. But here we are discussing the issue of the possibility of a Party member being a rapist or paedophile. Vile, abusive crimes against others for personal gratification, not internal disputes blowing up into rowdy arguments.If it's not enough that such people as we are discussing here have damaged or taken part in damaging other peoples lives irreparably, then think of the harm these people could do to the Party, simply by association.
SP,the short answer is that such a person would be charged, and their membership debated. Now, there is a complication that Evans has a plausible claim of inoocence and wrongful conviction (I don't, personally believe he was, but you can read for yourselves).http://www.chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-factshttps://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evansI think the key to the case is that in the space of four hours the victim drank somewhere in the region (my estimate) of 15 units of alcohol. Half of that would be enough to leave most of us the worse for wear. I think that may be what sunk him with the Jury.
Young Master Smeet wrote:the short answer is that such a person would be charged, and their membership debatedDo we really want to go down this road and debate the morals of members and applicants? Look what happened in the SWP. I don't think so.And who wants to cast the first stone?
At the very least the question of their socialist understanding would come into play; and the question of bringing into disrepute.
ALB wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:the short answer is that such a person would be charged, and their membership debatedDo we really want to go down this road and debate the morals of members and applicants? Look what happened in the SWP. I don't think so.And who wants to cast the first stone?
I thought the SWP got into trouble when they tried to investigate or cover up an allegation of rape, instead of going to the police with the matter.This is about how the Party should deal with a convicted sex offender who refuses to accept they have done anything wrong. I don't see why an in depth debate about the offending Party members morals would be relevant.
What is in effect being proposed here is that someone should be retried before a jury of the whole party without the checks and balances (such as they are, e.g regarding evidence) of a proper trial. Or are we going to assume that they did do it even if they say they didn't (a guilty decision in a court of law doesn't mean somebody did it, only that a jury thought they probably did). We can't go down that road. It would be immensely disrupting and turn the party away from its main function of propagating the case for socialism. It could also lead to legal action against us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.