Why would membership of the SPGB be refused
- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin has already asked this question, but I'm gonna state it very, very simply again.Is there anywhere in SPGB rules/conference decisions etc that prevents a party member from criticising the party, whether in private or in a public space? Hi Vin, forgot to answer your enquiry. Not sure about the Miners Gala, still rough 7 months post op. Were you gonna try for a stall or sell literature as an SPGB member?
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi Vin, forgot to answer your enquiry. Not sure about the Miners Gala, still rough 7 months post op. Were you gonna try for a stall or sell literature as an SPGB member?Sorry to hear about your health problems. I was just going to attend and give a hand as I think Steve Clayton is attending. I don't have any Literature etc. I have to say SP that when I saw that my Form A was rejected in the EC minutes I stopped reading any further, which was a big mistake because further down in the minutes two EC members had moved to rescind the decision at the next EC . Had I read this I would not have raised the matter and simply 'sat it out' for a month. I think I will go to Durham. Keep well and if your feeling any better by July 12th let me know, perhaps we can arrange something
Vin, you were right to bring this issue out into this public space. For too many months now your detractors have kept this issue simmering, I am unsure how many times the EC has rejected your Form A. And for what, that you are an untrustworthy, undesirable for criticising the party and that you may do it again in similar circumstances.You know Vin, in similar circumstances I would expect you to criticise the party, as too should others. As a socialist it is (to use TWCs words) a moral duty to openly criticise any unsocialist actions/views taking place among the WSM. If that is uncomfortable for some then tough luck for them, let them join the SWP, SLP etc..Criticism is at the heart of any democracy, without it there is no debate, no involvement, no scrutiny, no learning, no change and ultimately no democracy. So I will continue to ask a simple question.Is there anywhere in SPGB rules/conference decisions etc that prevents a party member from criticising the party, whether in private or in a public space?
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin, you were right to bring this issue out into this public space. For too many months now your detractors have kept this issue simmering, I am unsure how many times the EC has rejected your Form A. And for what, that you are an untrustworthy, undesirable for criticising the party and that you may do it again in similar circumstances.You know Vin, in similar circumstances I would expect you to criticise the party, as too should others. As a socialist it is (to use TWCs words) a moral duty to openly criticise any unsocialist actions/views taking place among the WSM. If that is uncomfortable for some then tough luck for them, let them join the SWP, SLP etc..Criticism is at the heart of any democracy, without it there is no debate, no involvement, no scrutiny, no learning, no change and ultimately no democracy. So I will continue to ask a simple question.Is there anywhere in SPGB rules/conference decisions etc that prevents a party member from criticising the party, whether in private or in a public space?Hark! What is that I hear in the distance? Why, tis the deafening roar of silence.Not even a sarcastic comment from Young Master Smeet or Gnome.I think we've established that the party does allow criticism from members, in public spaces. As a truly democratic, open, socialist organisation it couldn't be otherwise.The next stage is to establish if the rejection of a Form A based on the applicants criticising the SPGB in a public space is a valid reason, given that it is the position of the party to allow criticism?
SP, we have rules that apply to party members.We have rules that are specifically to avoid conflicts of interest. "No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed." We have rules where a member can be charged with action detrimental to the party, that may well be evoked from the nature or content of any criticism of the party. We even have a rule that covers a member who may unfortunately go senile or perhaps just temporarily mentally ill, who is made an honorary member but with certain rights withdrawn. We also have a rule for ex-members re-joining who are excused the knowledge test although reasons for originally resigning are usually asked. Sometimes not. All acceptances for membership must be ratified by the EC and possibly this could be refused. We have a rule that "Any application [for membership] rejected by the Branch shall be forwarded to the EC together with the reasons for the rejection." and the branch may possibly be over-ruled if the reason is not supported by the EC. It now may seem reasonable that we now devise a rule to cover applicants who are refused membership by the EC, offering an appeal to conference/ADM possibly. Perhaps we won't from fear of potential abuse of the procedure…(think about it)What you i think are trying to impose upon us is that we should have rules for NON-members. That would be a historic first for any organisation or party.
Hi AlanI am not trying to impose anything regarding non members on the party.This issue is about Vins behaviour while a member. It's quoted all over this thread, that Vin accused the party of being undemocratic, homophobic, on other sites while in the party.In my question I should have been a little clearer, but I condensed the question as most will know what the issue is about.What we have is Vin criticising the SPGB while a member. He leaves the party. Tries rejoining and finds his critical views about certain deserving issues are brought up as an excuse to disallow his re entry. Yet according to party policy, he did nothing wrong in being critical.Is that valid grounds for blocking his rejoining.You yourself have been very balanced in this matter, as you say Vin has appologised several times, contributed positively to this forum and in other areas and seeks to get stuck in as a member of the party in the North East in helping to reignite the North East Branch.I hope that makes my point a bit clearer.
If a non-member who has been publicly criticising the party applies to join, then we have the right to put a question mark over that application. Also, the right to criticise the party, since you ask, is limited by rule 1, obviously (and, to a certain extent, by rule 6).
Socialist Punk, I don't know why you are pursuing this matter so zealously. Obviously, the party has a right to question an applicant even an ex-member who criticised the party when they were a member. Imagine the case of a member who, as they are perfectly entitled to as confirmed by that 1973 conference resolution, criticised the party for, for instance, not advocating reforms or for thinking that parliament should be used to get to socialism. There is nothing to prevent them expressing this view. Imagine then that they resign and later apply to rejoin. Clearly, they would have to be questioned on this and in fact if they hadn't changed their view could have their application rejected.So, the general position is clear. That's the general principle but only one EC member has said that it should apply in the particular case you are concerned about to bar an ex- member re-joining. It was not the view of the Membership Application Committee, nor of the 2 EC members who voted against. It wasn't even the view of the other 2 present who voted to reject the application. I doubt it's the view of the other 5 EC members who were not present. We'll see. I'm sure it's not the view of most members on this forum or our facebook page who have followed developments since the unfortunate events of over a year ago now.So you are making a mountain out of a molehill and by bringing up what somebody may or may not have said or done in the heat of the moment just before or just after they resigned and which the person concerned regrets you are opening old wounds. Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity.
It is a major problem with eCommunication, you press the ‘return’ and there is no going back and deleting, What you said in the heat of the moment is in cyberspace.As you say Adam this whole thing is out of proportion. I believe a member or ex-member referred in a post on the forum to some homophobic remarks he had heard, and I unwisely repeated it and generalised it to the party. I immediately regretted this un comradely behaviour but at the time there was a lot of conflict going on and, to be fair on myself, many things were said that should not have been said.I hope I have made it clear that I want to move and that I have no personal animosity towards any members.
So you are making a mountain out of a molehill and by bringing up what somebody may or may not have said or done in the heat of the moment just before or just after they resigned and which the person concerned regrets you are opening old wounds. Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity. "Most members, I think, are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones and get on with positive socialist activity."Hi Adam, what you say is most probably true, most are prepared to let by-gones be by-gones unfortunately, most members are "not" on the EC and three members who are, appear not to be as charitably inclined as you, or indeed, many other, Party members!
By the way, firstly these are my views "not" Vin Marattys. In actual fact, when Vin was talking about non democacy, he was, I believe, referring to only one aspect that kept cropping up and not about the Party in toto, nor about individuals. Nor do I believe when mentioning "homophobia", did he call the Party homophobic but a particular episode, when these kind of views were expressed which were not, at the time of the incident, challenged by others present. Which I can assert categorically, would have been the case if I, or any of my acquaintences had been present.So the claim that the applicant for membership, had called the "whole Party" undemocratic and homophobic if factually incorrect. Merely one aspect that occured and one "incident" that happened.now that is clarified, I will step back and leave this matter to unwind, in due course!
ALB wrote:It wasn't even the view of the other 2 present who voted to reject the application.Curiouser and curiouser. What then were "the view(s) of the other two present who voted to reject the application"? For the benefit of all those not present at last Saturday's EC meeting and as the EC minutes do not enlighten us on the matter, perhaps someone could ask those two EC members to elucidate on their reasons.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If a non-member who has been publicly criticising the party applies to join, then we have the right to put a question mark over that application. Also, the right to criticise the party, since you ask, is limited by rule 1, obviously (and, to a certain extent, by rule 6).Hi YMSNot sure if you fully understand that this situation is about a party member criticising the party and not a non member. I don't think it necessary to quote the paragraphs from this thread that state this.I've looked at the party rules 1 and 6 and I don't see the relevance to this case. Could you please explain how these rules apply to (in this case) a party member criticising the party?1. Any person desiring membership shall sign the application form signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting (to which the applicant shall be invited) for consideration. After examination of the applicant, a majority shall decide, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. Upon acceptance by the EC an applicant shall be deemed a member as from the date of enrolment by the Branch. The EC shall every five years issue to each member a combined rules and membership card, showing the name, address, the registered number, date of enrolment and name of Branch. Any application rejected by the Branch shall be forwarded to the EC together with the reasons for the rejection.6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party
SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party." If a member criticises the party in such a manner as would indicate that they do not accept the object and principles of the party, their membership would be rendered invalid. Likewise, if they criticise from the standpoint of another organisation, they should go and join it. This would depend on the facts on the ground. Obviously, criticism while still a member is more protected than when a non-member but we'd still be entitled to take it into account (as it was when I rejoined).
No YMS, in this instance, you are totally and utterly wrong. What you suggest would create an organisation that could not change. However Vin "never" criticised the Party! He criticised a certain event, at a specific moment in time. He felt, as did others, that certain actions at this time were "wrong" and did not reflect the spirit and ethos that the Party is rightly renowned for. Furthermore, I personally would not consider even criticising the "Party", as justifying the claim from you, that this would indicate non acceptance of the D&P, far from it.The history of the Party is full of times when a member or members have disagreed with the Party, which disagreement has of itself, led to change "within the Party". You must know that the Party is not neolithic in nature but is open to "change" but what you posit above, is the antithesis of growth and change. It is stagnation and eventually extinction.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.