disgusting article in "international socialism" on SWP rape scandal

[Sasha]

i'm not even quoting the article, rape victim blaming, whitewashing and trigger warnings throughout: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=915

:cursing:

[CyM]

It is quite unfortunate that because no organized opposition has emerged out of this on a political basis, the likely outcome is that the SWP has burnt hundreds if not thousands of youth, who will simply drop out of politics altogether as a result of this disgusting experience.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I couldn't read the whole thing, reading anything by them is like chewing on sawdust. Thank god they included some information on their fucking paper sales though.

[helot]

Wow so basically they're saying it wasn't to do with rape at all.


"So is everything fine? Of course not. The party has suffered serious damage to its reputation"

Boo-fucking-hoo, cry me a river. The fact that the CC appointed people to the Disputes Committee over this serious allegation against a CC member is dodgy as fuck. The DC was thus completely incapable of reaching an independent conclusion.

[Quail]

I didn't get all the way through before my blood pressure began to rise to dangerous levels. :cursing:

[Aleister Granger]

No. No. Not reading it.

[Popularis]

Stopped reading this after the second sentence.



It has not stopped us acting as a revolutionary organisation

The British SWP is a revolutionary organization? :laugh:

[Popularis]

There is more apparently, in the first damn paragraph:


The trade union conferences saw some of the biggest party fringe meetings ever and near-record sales of Socialist Worker

Near-record sales of the Socialist Worker? Very impressive! Britain is so much closer to Socialism now.




The paper and the party responded very effectively to the death of Margaret Thatcher.
Very. Impressive.

[Sasha]

Good reply by an swp member setting the facts straight; http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/alex-callinicos-charlie-kimber-and-the-rape-investigation/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

ugh. It makes me pretty sad/angry/upset to know that, actually, there are many people on the 'left' who are probably farther from what one might consider a genuine socialist politics than a host of non-revolutionaries.

A party led by a public schoolboy and a bourgeois academic siding with their buddy over a potential rape victim - they call themselves socialists. Makes me maaddddd.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There is more apparently, in the first damn paragraph:


Near-record sales of the Socialist Worker? Very impressive! Britain is so much closer to Socialism now.


Very. Impressive.

I too thought it was amusing that they couldn't make it into the article one paragraph before mentioning newspapers and the selling of said newspapers

[Le Socialiste]

First, and most importantly, we are a revolutionary socialist organisation that has prided itself in its principled opposition to all the different forms of oppression that capitalist society maintains.

Yeah, keep telling yourselves that.

[A.J.]

British trotskyism is generally a quite sinister phenomenon that has attracted some extremely creepy individuals down the years.

Not just the organisation mentioned in the OP but also, from back in the 80s, the so-called 'militant tendency'.

[Le Socialiste]

British trotskyism is generally a quite sinister phenomenon that has attracted some extremely creepy individuals down the years.

Not just the organisation mentioned in the OP but also, from back in the 80s, the so-called 'militant tendency'.

Not to say I agree with your overall point, but there is a disturbing tendency that has played out over the last several decades that somewhat agrees with your post. Whether this is peculiar to Trotskyism as an ideological current remains to be seen (I would argue it isn't), but the historical record hasn't been kind to it. Healy, anyone? And that's not to mention groups like the SEP and others, whose relatively minuscule size and isolation compels them to actively target other Left/Trotskyist organizations at the expense of actually organizing.

This said, Trotskyism does have quite a bit to offer us on a theoretical and practical level. Our task is the same as it has always been, to separate the distortions and degenerative elements from the otherwise sound foundational aspects.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

British trotskyism is generally a quite sinister phenomenon that has attracted some extremely creepy individuals down the years.

Not just the organisation mentioned in the OP but also, from back in the 80s, the so-called 'militant tendency'.

my mum's told me about people in the "millitant tendency" she met in the late 70's and 80's and they sound pretty repugnant. It says something that even a practising Catholic (no matter how liberal) was seriously put off by Millitant's assertion that homosexuality was apparently a product of bourgeois society that would disappear after the revolution. Or something.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So aside from the obvious issues with all of this, what does this say about the party structure itself? The central committee can ignore rape when convenient and all the other party members can do about it is quit or write angry blogs posts? How is that a democratic or revolutionary organization? If they can't handle an internal rape investigation, how the fuck are they going to restructure society?

[A.J.]

my mum's told me about people in the "millitant tendency" she met in the late 70's and 80's and they sound pretty repugnant. It says something that even a practising Catholic (no matter how liberal) was seriously put off by Millitant's assertion that homosexuality was apparently a product of bourgeois society that would disappear after the revolution. Or something.

In times past the Left generally considered homosexuality to be some sort of manifestation of bourgeois decadence. What's interesting, however, is that "the militant" seem to have rigidly held on to such a viewpoint well into the 80s whilst the rest of the left had abandoned it by the 1960s.

Furthermore, 'eurocommunist' CPs in western Europe had begun to actively participate in the emerging Gay rights movement from the 70s onwards.
You could say the euros were trailblazers on the issue(that and environmentalism)

[Sam_b]

Kimber and Callinicos, two of the biggest apologists on the seen. Anyone who remembers Callinicos' so-called article on 'Leninism' won't be surprised by this.

This should be read alongside the stuff that's coming out of the SWP conference bulletins as another wave of expulsions/resignations is going to be on the cards. The faction that disagreed with leaving the party (why?) have woken up and are making demands such as independent enquiries, an official admittance of culpability by the CC etc for trying to cover up stuff - doesn't go far enough and I still think it's pointless fighting for a tainted party, but interesting developments nonetheless. This is alongside hardliners creating a statement calling for the expulsion of these people - something, tragically, that a lot of the usual suspects have signed up to.


If they can't handle an internal rape investigation, how the fuck are they going to restructure society?

I think this misses the point somewhat. Why should an organisation be conducting an internal rape investigation?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

as far as I know the SPEW represents a good chunk of what's left of the millitants these days?

E:

anyway, I've sort-of follwoed the whole rape debacle over and within the SWP and the way they and most of their splinter groups have behaved is fucking despicable

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think this misses the point somewhat. Why should an organisation be conducting an internal rape investigation?

I don't think so, supposedly this organization exists to allow workers to take power from the ruling class and restructure society. Assuming they take power, who else would be investigating rapes?

Obviously these idiots can't properly run a roleplay club/newspaper racket, so I'm not surprised that they fucked up a rape investigation. I'm calling into question their organizational model and whether it lives up to what they claim.

[Sam_b]

Assuming they take power, who else would be investigating rapes?


Key word here being 'assuming'. We all know that we're some way off from seriously considering workers taking power right now. If an organisation has a national secretary that has been raping and sexually assaulting female members, should we be trusting the friends and close associates of said member, who are in the political leadership of the organisation, from setting up the structure of said investigation?


Obviously these idiots can't properly run a roleplay club/newspaper racket, so I'm not surprised that they fucked up a rape investigation

Again I'm not sure if this is entirely the point either. Even if an organisation was efficient on an organisational level, this doesn't stop the fact that a lot of the left is dominated by men who have been there for a looooong time, often have downright backwards views towards the liberation of women, and has throughout history a shameful record of exploitation of vulnerable members. When we have organisations such as Women's Aid, Rape Crisis and so on, shouldn't these sort of matters be referred, for instance?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

mmm, I don't think you're getting my point. I'm asking if this party model is actually as democratic as it claims to be. Given the content of these two articles, I'm saying no. No other points are being made.

e; you're right about bringing in an outside women's group to investigate it though. That would have been a good idea.

[Sam_b]

I'm asking if this party model is actually as democratic as it claims to be

The SWP's party model isn't particularly democratic, no. I say this as a former member who was in the SWP for about six years.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Can they even afford further mass expulsions? They must be dangerously low on members after the 400-odd people left recently?

Alex Callinicos. Has the man ever worked a day in his life? Where does he draw his authority from?

[blake 3:17]

Can they even afford further mass expulsions? They must be dangerously low on members after the 400-odd people left recently?

Alex Callinicos. Has the man ever worked a day in his life? Where does he draw his authority from?


No, he's never worked a day in his life. Comes from big money.

I was trying to figure out the social composition of the different factions when all this was playing out. The most loyal to the organization seemed to be the oldest and most professional, a lot of academics.

My own theory of why they let this happen is over $$$

[Thirsty Crow]

No, he's never worked a day in his life. Comes from big money.

Fuck him tenfold then.

[Le Socialiste]

mmm, I don't think you're getting my point. I'm asking if this party model is actually as democratic as it claims to be. Given the content of these two articles, I'm saying no. No other points are being made.

I think this too simplistic, to be honest. I'm also not sure the present composition of the SWP best resembles the party model many of us want. To be sure, the party model of the SWP isn't as democratic as it claims to be, but this isn't necessarily a condemnation of the party model itself. Centralism, without internal democracy and an active membership, isn't exactly a recipe for a healthy and transparent organization built from the bottom up. The affairs of the party shouldn't stray too far in the direction of mechanistic centralism, wherein the leadership effectively dictates any and all perspectives and the membership follows passively. When you move too far in this direction you get what we have seen in recent months within the SWP (a pervasive sexist atmosphere doesn't help, either).

[synthesis]

The article in the OP kind of reminds me of the sort of rationale that cops use when they're trying to sweep something under the rug. "Well, it might be true and it might not, but first let us remind you of the great work we're doing for you and all the sacrifices we're making and then think about whether or not you still want to press the issue." As it turns out, most people do.

[synthesis]

Also:


Smith was our party’s National Secretary, our leader. Just a few months before he had gone on trial for assaulting a police officer, a prosecution which was presented inside the SWP as a challenge to the entire left. He was only under attack, he had said at his trial, because of his politics. The memory of his trial hung over conference.

Has anyone seen that Wikileaks documentary? ("We Steal Secrets") Aside from the more obvious parallels, this thing really reminds me of how pretty much everyone who worked with Assange noted how he basically subverted the whole organization to concentrate entirely on defending him from the accusations.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was trying to figure out the social composition of the different factions when all this was playing out. The most loyal to the organization seemed to be the oldest and most professional, a lot of academics.

I think that gets to the root of the problem - class, in the end, tends to trump all. The party isn't representative of workers because its dictatorial leadership is not of the working class.


My own theory of why they let this happen is over $$$

Possibly. Or Martin Smith knows where the (proverbial!) bodies are buried, and probably is seen as therefore dangerous outside the SWP.

[The Idler]

Isn't Callinicos working as Professor of European Studies at King's College London?

[Hit The North]

Isn't Callinicos working as Professor of European Studies at King's College London?

Yes, he's been a working academic for decades. Whatever the merits of this, he has done considerably more paid employment than Karl Marx ever managed so some of the tittle-tattle above is completely unnecessary. Yes, he comes from an advantageous family background but then so did Fred Engels, so did Bakunin, so did many others.

Apart from that, I have little else to say. There are some truths spoken above about the SWP but there are also some slurs.

[The Idler]

Yes, he's been a working academic for decades. Whatever the merits of this, he has done considerably more paid employment than Karl Marx ever managed so some of the tittle-tattle above is completely unnecessary. Yes, he comes from an advantageous family background but then so did Fred Engels, so did Bakunin, so did many others.

Apart from that, I have little else to say. There are some truths spoken above about the SWP but there are also some slurs.
Enlighten us.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, he's been a working academic for decades. Whatever the merits of this, he has done considerably more paid employment than Karl Marx ever managed so some of the tittle-tattle above is completely unnecessary. Yes, he comes from an advantageous family background but then so did Fred Engels, so did Bakunin, so did many others.


Of course, Marx and Engels' contributions to political memory will consist of more than 'divisive academic in charge of rape apologia organisation'.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

My own theory of why they let this happen is over $$$
I've heard something in regards to this. Apparently the wealthy backers have allowed the SWP to accumulate a lot of money over the years and Smith was one of the signatories for the bank account and they wanted to avoid as many complications as possible.... Could anyone confirm this for me?


as far as I know the SPEW represents a good chunk of what's left of the millitants these days?
Yeah large numbers of people in the militant tendancy were expelled from or left the Labour Party and they formed the Socialist Party, some members of militant remained within Labour and formed socialist appeal. I have to say that this is the first I've heard of criticisms of militant regarding lgbt issues. I guess I wasn't even alive back then so I don't know all the particulars however literally last week I helped recruit a transgender woman for my branch... not saying that means there wasn't problems in the past but in its contemporary form the Socialist Party isn't the same by any stretch of the matter.

[Hit The North]

I've heard something in regards to this. Apparently the wealthy backers have allowed the SWP to accumulate a lot of money over the years and Smith was one of the signatories for the bank account and they wanted to avoid as many complications as possible.... Could anyone confirm this for me?


Yes, it is true. The wealthy backers are a syndicate of Swiss plutocrats who have ties to the international brotherhood of freemasonry and have been cited as instigators of the interplanetary finance bubble that ruined the economies of several star systems.

It is well known that this sinister cabal of cuckoo-clock makers have allowed Martin Smith to amass a vast fortune that he keeps under the mattress of his bed in a bedroom located in the ninth dimension of his Hampstead mansion.

I heard that after Smith had revealed himself in front on the SWP CC to be a seven-foot lizard from the planet Dikwad, he threatened to destroy Alex Calinicos's hair with just the power of his mind. Can anyone confirm this for me?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I heard that after Smith had revealed himself in front on the SWP CC to be a seven-foot lizard from the planet Dikwad, he threatened to destroy Alex Calinicos's hair with just the power of his mind. Can anyone confirm this for me?
Look, it's ok to just say that I was wrong. The way it was explained to me was that the SWP has, over the years, had a lot of academics/semi-rich people who have left the party a quite hefty sum of money in donations or via their wills if they died (nothing wrong with this). These finances are what have aided the SWP in remaining a visible presence throughout the years and helped their members in campaign work etc (again, nothing wrong with this). I was told that being in the position he was in, Smith had inherited the position of a signatory to help manage these finances. When the rape scandal was in full swing finances played a factor in position the CC took (which would be a problem if this were true).

It made a kind of sense to me because I usually assume that eocnomic factors have a lot to do with peoples actions but I wanted to ask if someone could confirm it rather than assuming that word of mouth from a comrade of mine was a reliable source.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, it is true. The wealthy backers are a syndicate of Swiss plutocrats who have ties to the international brotherhood of freemasonry and have been cited as instigators of the interplanetary finance bubble that ruined the economies of several star systems.

It is well known that this sinister cabal of cuckoo-clock makers have allowed Martin Smith to amass a vast fortune that he keeps under the mattress of his bed in a bedroom located in the ninth dimension of his Hampstead mansion.

I heard that after Smith had revealed himself in front on the SWP CC to be a seven-foot lizard from the planet Dikwad, he threatened to destroy Alex Calinicos's hair with just the power of his mind. Can anyone confirm this for me?

Are you really making a joke of this? Two counts of alleged rape not serious enough for you?

[synthesis]

Are you really making a joke of this? Two counts of alleged rape not serious enough for you?

I'd like to note that when I thanked that post I didn't realize the broader context of it; I thought it was just a little jab at a post he saw as overly conspiratorial, but I forgot he also seemed to be defending the SWP earlier in the thread, or at least was equivocal about the topic of discussion. So, I apologize for that. I didn't realize how out-of-place that post was in this discussion.

[Five Year Plan]

Can somebody please point me in the direction of where in the article the person who made accusations of rape is blamed for anything?

[Devrim]

If they can't handle an internal rape investigation, how the fuck are they going to restructure society? I think this misses the point somewhat. Why should an organisation be conducting an internal rape investigation?

I think that this takes exactly the wrong point from what happened. An organisation has to have some procedure to investigate complaints against its members. If you are going to expel people, and I think that most people on this site believe that in a principled organisation he would have been expelled, then you have to have a mechanism to do this. Therefore you need some sort of disputes committee or whatever. The problem with what the SWP did was not that they decided to have an internal investigation, but that it was done so terribly wrongly.

There has been a lot of criticism in the bourgeois media about the SWP not being the appropriate organisation for conducting this sort of investigation, and how the woman should have gone to the police. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have been picked up by many on the left too.

Whether the woman involved decided to go to the police was her own decision. It is not a decision that can be made for her by an organisation. Even if she had decided to go to the police, and Smith had been found guilty by a court of law, the SWP would still have had to invoked some method to expel him. If she had gone to the police, and Smith had been found not guilty (many guilty people get off on rape charges), the party would have still had to investigate the mistake and could still have expelled him*.

The task of a body such as a disputes committee is not to dole out justice, but to protect the organisation. It is charged with (amongst other things) expelling people whose activities are not compatible with membership of the organisation. In this case though it completely failed to protect the organisation, and chose instead to protect one individual amongst its leadership.

Devrim

*A parallel could be drawn with John Terry who was found not guilty of using racist language in a court of law where it had to be proven 'beyond any reasonable doubt', but was then found guilty of "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" which "included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Ferdinand" by the FA, where it only had to be proven to be reasonably probable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you really making a joke of this? Two counts of alleged rape not serious enough for you?I think the comrade was mocking the rather a-political (2nd hand speculation) motivation not the rape allegation - a little defensivly. I don't think that approach is very productive or does the seriousness of the scandle any justice (EDIT: the other comrade said it was just what they had been told; I missed that when I wrote this, but I was trying to make a more general point).

Personally I feel like it's more likely that it was a CYA gamble by the leadership (which is probably more likely and no less troubeling) than some graft. From the outside I'd speculate (based on the latrer reactions of some of the leadership) that they feared that if these allegations were proven or came to light it would cause a blow-up and loose them credibility so they tried to handle it "quietly" only to have it blow-up even more and much worse because then it was actually the leadership participating and excusing the injustice. But it's neither here nor there, this is just speculation and should be taken with a large grain of salt. I don't think the idea that there was some graft or financial motive is consistant at all if only for the reason that the minimization and attempt to sweep this under the rug continued after Smith resigned from the group.

What needs no speculation (and is politically useful) are the statments made after the fact (the manuvers by the leadership against the "secret factions" which seem to have been only attempting to organize according to party protocol) and imo the harmful way that ideological justifications were used to try and excuse the actions of the leadership. I'm biased because while I disagree with some of the arguments made by Callinicos and others about their characterization of "feminism" and "autonomism" and "Leninism" and the internet, I generally agree with the larger framework of their politics. So I feel bitter about they way they've tried to use politics to justify some pretty shameful moves (both the manuvering itself and the ideological justifications) in my view.

[Devrim]

my mum's told me about people in the "millitant tendency" she met in the late 70's and 80's and they sound pretty repugnant. It says something that even a practising Catholic (no matter how liberal) was seriously put off by Millitant's assertion that homosexuality was apparently a product of bourgeois society that would disappear after the revolution. Or something.
Yeah large numbers of people in the militant tendancy were expelled from or left the Labour Party and they formed the Socialist Party, some members of militant remained within Labour and formed socialist appeal. I have to say that this is the first I've heard of criticisms of militant regarding lgbt issues. I guess I wasn't even alive back then so I don't know all the particulars however literally last week I helped recruit a transgender woman for my branch... not saying that means there wasn't problems in the past but in its contemporary form the Socialist Party isn't the same by any stretch of the matter.

Yes, I can remember this. A lot of organisations used to hold pretty shocking positions on homosexuality. The RCP in the US is a good example of this. There is a good two part article detailing their policy on libcom here (http://libcom.org/blog/red-evangelicals-genesis-03092013) and here (http://libcom.org/blog/red-closet-rcp-gay-members-06102013). The Militant used to have a similar position until very late in the day.

Of course outside of the Anglophone world their are many more organisations that still hold this position today. I can think of examples in Turkey very easily.

Devrim

[Realzowi]

Has anybody got proof, in the form of an article in Militant, that Militant saw homosexuality as the product of capitalism in decline? Because I read a lot about it, but never have seen proof in the form of an article. The only thing I know for sure is that Militant refused to support all the fashionable New Left movements.
Also, both successors of the Militant Tendency, the CWI and IMT, whatever the past position, now support LGBT rights.

[Devrim]

Has anybody got proof, in the form of an article in Militant, that Militant saw homosexuality as the product of capitalism in decline?

I don't have. I remember it being their position back in the day, but I haven't got an article to prove it. Nor can I be bother to try to look for one. It is not that important to me. I'd also imagine that it would be quite difficult. There wasn't an internet in those days, so any contemporary articles would have had to be put up more recently. Very few organisations have transferred their entire archives to digital form, and thus you can only find selected pieces from that period. If I were the CWI today, it isn't the first thing I'd rush to put up.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Are you really making a joke of this? Two counts of alleged rape not serious enough for you?

I'm making a joke of the idea that the SWP is bank-rolled by wealthy backers. The fact that you missed this shouldn't put you off posing as a sanctimonious moral guardian though. Oh, look! it didn't.

But the reason I made a joke is because there are people here who will believe the most preposterous slurs against the SWP - that it is "steeped in sexism" or an organisation of "rape apologists" (yeah, that was you, so you must know that Smith did it, although I don't know how), or backed by the mob or whatever else people want to throw around. People are entitled to their opinion but, of course, most people's opinion of this case is based on sheer ignorance and gut-reaction. It is obvious that most of the contributors in this thread are not only appalled at the way the SWP mishandled the investigation of Martin Smith but actually believe that Smith must be guilty (because he was accused) and that the CC ignored his obvious guilt. But they know as much about the issue as I do myself (as you do) - which is fuck all.


I'd like to note that when I thanked that post I didn't realize the broader context of it; I thought it was just a little jab at a post he saw as overly conspiratorial, but I forgot he also seemed to be defending the SWP earlier in the thread, or at least was equivocal about the topic of discussion. So, I apologize for that. I didn't realize how out-of-place that post was in this discussion.

Hey, comrade, if you feel so bad about it, retract your thanks, it's easy to do and I promise not to cry. But FYI, I don't defend and have never defended the sheer incompetence of the way the rape investigation was handled and the piss-poor political rationalisations that the SWP leadership employed to justify their obvious croneyism.

As for the topic of this discussion, what is the topic? What is allegedly disgusting about the article? Presumably that the leadership want to carry on regardless? It may be disappointing to some people that the SWP is not ready to pronounce its own demise, but "disgusting" seems somewhat of an over-reaction.

[Devrim]

But the reason I made a joke is because there are people here who will believe the most preposterous slurs against the SWP - that it is "steeped in sexism" or an organisation of "rape apologists" (yeah, that was you, so you must know that Smith did it, although I don't know how), or backed by the mob or whatever else people want to throw around. People are entitled to their opinion but, of course, most people's opinion of this case is based on sheer ignorance and gut-reaction. It is obvious that most of the contributors in this thread are not only appalled at the way the SWP mishandled the investigation of Martin Smith but actually believe that Smith must be guilty (because he was accused) and that the CC ignored his obvious guilt. But they know as much about the issue as I do myself (as you do) - which is fuck all.

I know very little about the details of this case. I do think that Smith is probably guilty. There are numerous things we could base this on, not least the fact that an overwhelming majority of victims of rapes are not making it up ( I believe that the figure in most Western countries is about two percent which is approximately half of that for other crimes. Another reason that I think that it was probably true was that for years before there were rumours going around about Smith assaulting women. I happened to hear these despite the fact that I am not particularly interested in the on goings in the SWP, and the fact that I lived in another continent at the time. I think that people in the UK who were interested in the SWP let alone members would have been more likely than myself to have heard them.

As I said, I don't know that Smith did it. I strongly suspect he did though.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I know very little about the details of this case. I do think that Smith is probably guilty. There are numerous things we could base this on, not least the fact that an overwhelming majority of victims of rapes are not making it up ( I believe that the figure in most Western countries is about two percent which is approximately half of that for other crimes. Another reason that I think that it was probably true was that for years before there were rumours going around about Smith assaulting women. I happened to hear these despite the fact that I am not particularly interested in the on goings in the SWP, and the fact that I lived in another continent at the time. I think that people in the UK who were interested in the SWP let alone members would have been more likely than myself to have heard them.

As I said, I don't know that Smith did it. I strongly suspect he did though.

Devrim


"Strongly suspecting" isn't "absolute knowledge" and you can't really prove someone did something by using statistics, just show that it's likely. I don't know the details of the case, but if people are automatically expelled because we assume that any rape allegation is true, then that also risks undermining the organization because anyone can get canned by slandering them. Even if rape allegations are rarely abused now (1/50 according to the statistics you gave) making that rule would turn it into something that COULD be abused.

Ideally, the best fix would be to have really transparent investigations, but this has its own drawbacks in sexual assault cases too.

[Devrim]

"Strongly suspecting" isn't "absolute knowledge" and you can't really prove someone did something by using statistics, just show that it's likely. I don't know the details of the case, but if people are automatically expelled because we assume that any rape allegation is true, then that also risks undermining the organization because anyone can get canned by slandering them. Even if rape allegations are rarely abused now (1/50 according to the statistics you gave) making that rule would turn it into something that COULD be abused.

Ideally, the best fix would be to have really transparent investigations, but this has its own drawbacks in sexual assault cases too.

Yes, you are right. An organisation that has an incident like this must have an investigation. I actually made the point earlier in the thread.

The fact that the have been rumours about these sort of accusations about him for years is quite telling though.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm making a joke of the idea that the SWP is bank-rolled by wealthy backers. The fact that you missed this shouldn't put you off posing as a sanctimonious moral guardian though. Oh, look! it didn't.

But the reason I made a joke is because there are people here who will believe the most preposterous slurs against the SWP - that it is "steeped in sexism" or an organisation of "rape apologists" (yeah, that was you, so you must know that Smith did it, although I don't know how), or backed by the mob or whatever else people want to throw around. People are entitled to their opinion but, of course, most people's opinion of this case is based on sheer ignorance and gut-reaction. It is obvious that most of the contributors in this thread are not only appalled at the way the SWP mishandled the investigation of Martin Smith but actually believe that Smith must be guilty (because he was accused) and that the CC ignored his obvious guilt. But they know as much about the issue as I do myself (as you do) - which is fuck all.

I've said nothing about Delta's alleged guilt or lack thereof; when I talk about sexism and rape apologia, i'm talking about an organisation that handles an accusation of rape in the way the SWP did.

Surely any decent leftist, not just god-like moral guardians like myself, would be horrified at a supposed 'leftist' organisation that handles a rape claim by asking the alleged victim how much they tend to drink?

So, really, whether Martin Smith is guilty of rape is actually not the main issue in determining an opinion of the SWP. The way they've handled the entire case shows that their attitude to sexism, to rape, is not one that any woman, nor feminist in general, can support. How could any woman feel safe in the SWP anymore? Kimber and Callinicos are two bourgeois academics who seem to value preserving the party as is (i.e. with them at the top) over taking seriously an allegation of sexual assault. That is absolutely un-acceptable.

Of course, if Smith is found guilty of rape, that will just add insult to this whole injurious debacle, but even if not, the nail in the coffin of the SWPs pretences to stand for the oppressed in society has been hammered already.



Hey, comrade, if you feel so bad about it, retract your thanks, it's easy to do and I promise not to cry. But FYI, I don't defend and have never defended the sheer incompetence of the way the rape investigation was handled and the piss-poor political rationalisations that the SWP leadership employed to justify their obvious croneyism.

You think it was incompetent? I would say it was the opposite. It seemed to me to be a concerted effort to cover-up the true nature of the allegations.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"Strongly suspecting" isn't "absolute knowledge" and you can't really prove someone did something by using statistics, just show that it's likely. I don't know the details of the case, but if people are automatically expelled because we assume that any rape allegation is true, then that also risks undermining the organization because anyone can get canned by slandering them. Even if rape allegations are rarely abused now (1/50 according to the statistics you gave) making that rule would turn it into something that COULD be abused.

Ideally, the best fix would be to have really transparent investigations, but this has its own drawbacks in sexual assault cases too.

Given prevalent discourses around rape and sexual assault, including basically ubiquitous victim-blaming, insinuations that the survivor is a liar, character assassination, etc. the idea of rape allegations being "abused" is pretty much a deluded fantasy of MRAs and other bottom-feeders.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Given prevalent discourses around rape and sexual assault, including basically ubiquitous victim-blaming, insinuations that the survivor is a liar, character assassination, etc. the idea that rape allegations being "abused" is pretty much a deluded fantasy of MRAs and other bottom-feeders.

Any allegation of any misconduct can theoretically be abused if guilt is assumed. If someone says that murder allegations could be false, are they "murderers rights activists"? As another, perhaps more pertinent, example, if someone says that allegations of racism or sexism are abused, are they "white's rights activists" or "men's rights activists"? As someone who has been falsely accused of bigotry and as someone who knows people who have, I see that as problematic. Yet the discourses as far as bigotry are concerned are no less problematic than they are with rape. Saying that rape allegations could be false is wholly different from assassinating the character of a particular accuser.

Should we just assume the guilt of anyone ever accused of rape?

Also I noticed your attempt to implicitly disparage my character, as if I was an MRA or some other sexist nut just because I don't want to assume guilt. That's not fair at all. You are assuming a rationale behind what I'm arguing that has no basis in what I actually believe.

[Quail]

The problem with the way people talk about rape is that people talk about false allegations as if they're way more common than they are. If someone is accused of rape, there is a good chance they are in fact guilty (although no, it shouldn't be assumed) and to try to argue otherwise is just dishonest. I don't hear people ranting about false accusations when it comes to murder or violent assault. It seems that accusations of sexual assault are uniquely seen as more likely to be false.

[synthesis]

Hey, comrade, if you feel so bad about it, retract your thanks, it's easy to do and I promise not to cry. But FYI, I don't defend and have never defended the sheer incompetence of the way the rape investigation was handled and the piss-poor political rationalisations that the SWP leadership employed to justify their obvious croneyism.

I guess I'd rather write a post explaining myself and leave your post 'thanked' than just quietly remove it and hope nobody notices. Maybe that's overly dramatic or something, I don't know. It just felt like the right thing to do at the time.

I don't feel bad about it, by the way. It just seemed like a totally different context when I reread this post:


Yes, [Callinicos has] been a working academic for decades. Whatever the merits of this, he has done considerably more paid employment than Karl Marx ever managed so some of the tittle-tattle above is completely unnecessary. Yes, he comes from an advantageous family background but then so did Fred Engels, so did Bakunin, so did many others.

Apart from that, I have little else to say. There are some truths spoken above about the SWP but there are also some slurs.

You really don't think that can be interpreted as defending Callinicos and/or the SWP? Obviously I don't think you're defending the way they've handled this episode, and I actually think it's good to have a different perspective in this discussion - someone who doesn't necessarily think it reflects a systemic problem with the SWP - even if I completely disagree with it. Again, my only point was that the context of the joke post was initially lost on me.

[Five Year Plan]

I don't here people ranting about false accusations when it comes to murder or violent assault. It seems that accusations of sexual assault are uniquely seen as more likely to be false.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the forum you help to administer. It is filled with clear cases where accusations of murder and other crimes were used by the state as a means to ensnare revolutionaries and other activists. One of them is Mumia Abu-Jamal. Revolutionaries stand against assumptions that favor expansion of bourgeois state power.

The point the comrades here are making is that, while rape allegations are the least likely among accusations of criminal conduct to be made up, all accusations of criminal conduct, including rape, should be investigated before we act on the conclusion that a person is guilty, even if it is reasonable for us to believe in our minds that a person is almost certainly guilty of the crime. Otherwise, false allegations can be used to settle political scores, and all allegations will become so suspect that people may start to assume innocence on the part of the accused. That would actually do far more harm to victims of rape (and other crimes) than not acting immediately on assumptions of guilt.

The OP in this thread mentioned that the article is filled with victim-blaming. Can somebody please point out where the article places guilt on the person who made the rape allegations against Delta?

[Quail]

Then you haven't been paying attention to the forum you help to administer. It is filled with clear cases where accusations of murder and other crimes were used by the state as a means to ensnare revolutionaries and other activists. One of them is Mumia Abu-Jamal. Revolutionaries stand against assumptions that favor expansion of bourgeois state power.

I think the state using false accusations of murder against revolutionaries and other activists is a completely different kettle of fish than an average woman making a false accusation of rape.

[synthesis]

To be fair - and this obviously doesn't justify anything - when there is a violent assault or a murder, the evidence of violence is generally much more clear-cut and therefore harder for a reactionary individual or organization to deny. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but most people know that part of why it's so difficult for a victim of rape to come forward is that it's often relatively difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex non-consensual. Nobody really stops to wonder why anyone would put themselves through all the additional trauma of being blamed and called a liar, but sadly, the seed of doubt is still there.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem with the way people talk about rape is that people talk about false allegations as if they're way more common than they are. If someone is accused of rape, there is a good chance they are in fact guilty (although no, it shouldn't be assumed) and to try to argue otherwise is just dishonest. I don't here people ranting about false accusations when it comes to murder or violent assault. It seems that accusations of sexual assault are uniquely seen as more likely to be false.I think there is pleanty of evidence that rapes are under-reported and dismissed and the reportees shamed and disuaded from pressing charges by police, school administrations. That's what makes this case so fucked because it's not simply a shocking isolated incident of what one member may have done, but that it was appartently minimized and dismissed which at the very least indicates an accomodation to larger social problems/attitudes that leftists should be particualrly aware of and activly trying to make sure not to reproduce.

There is one complication to this which people like Angela Davis have written about which is where (white) women's oppression meets the oppression of black males and the myth of black men wanting to rape white women all the time. This may be the exception that proves the rule. We could also probably add true stranger-rape as another exception to this where if a college student is raped by another student it will be covered up, but if some serial attacker rapes someone on the same campus it will be sensationalized and prosecuted.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

All this just makes me feel more and more that political parties of any stripe are just private clubs that look after their own (leadership / senior figures) before serving any greater good (their actual cause or loley members who join to support that cause).
Admittedly this is just an opinion but it feels to me like the orientation / tendency of any party in the spectrum is irrelevant; when a group is threatened by allegations of wrong-doing, they close ranks like any corporation / religious institution / government department would do or has done in the past.

[Realzowi]

I don't have. I remember it being their position back in the day, but I haven't got an article to prove it. Nor can I be bother to try to look for one. It is not that important to me. I'd also imagine that it would be quite difficult. There wasn't an internet in those days, so any contemporary articles would have had to be put up more recently. Very few organisations have transferred their entire archives to digital form, and thus you can only find selected pieces from that period. If I were the CWI today, it isn't the first thing I'd rush to put up.

Devrim

I am sorry, feel like interrupting this thread a bit, but just want to state this...

If nobody has evidence in the form of an article or pamphlet, then I regard this is an some kind of urban myth. Some veteran members I asked about it told me that Militant always has been against the discrimination of homosexuals, but did not regard it as the main struggle, the new vanguard, etc. They denied that Militant had a stalinist position.
Of course it is possible that individual members has such a position, which reflects the influence of society on the organisation (not justifying it in any sense), but there is no evidence yet of Militant having a stalinist position.

[Red Commissar]

I think there is pleanty of evidence that rapes are under-reported and dismissed and the reportees shamed and disuaded from pressing charges by police, school administrations. That's what makes this case so fucked because it's not simply a shocking isolated incident of what one member may have done, but that it was appartently minimized and dismissed which at the very least indicates an accomodation to larger social problems/attitudes that leftists should be particualrly aware of and activly trying to make sure not to reproduce.


The media doesn't particularly help in this case either. I don't know if what's been going on in the SWP has been closely followed by British media at large beyond some articles here and there, but in the US I know a lot of these types were emboldened after the Duke Lacrosse team rape allegations being found false, much in the same way racists did with the Zimmerman case (though I'd argue that one was less clear cut). I saw it come up too with the rape allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn after the trial there failed to get any momentum.

This is part of a larger issue with media coverage of crime, which isn't a fair much less accurate representation of crimes committed in the country (like people getting fixated on say people getting off "easy" due to insanity defenses when in fact this doesn't happen much and is rarely successful, yet the media makes it seem it does happen a lot). If anything, like you said, sexual crimes are underreported precisely because of a fear from the victim that they will be ridiculed and their life put under scrutiny for no reason at all.

I can't mention much about this case as I haven't been following it. But it's given me a very negative impression of the SWP leadership from when it's been brought up here.

[Five Year Plan]

I think the state using false accusations of murder against revolutionaries and other activists is a completely different kettle of fish than an average woman making a false accusation of rape.

Of course they are different, but in a way that challenges the essence of my point? I don't think so.

[blake 3:17]

@aufheben - don't you dare make a comparison make a comparison between fucking Martin Smith and Brother Mumia.

I imagine the dumb ass will be watching his back for some time, and rightly so. Comrade Delta? WTF? What kind of revolutionary would participate in goofiness like that? Call it straight and don't be messin with girls a third your age.

[Five Year Plan]

@aufheben - don't you dare make a comparison make a comparison between fucking Martin Smith and Brother Mumia.

I imagine the dumb ass will be watching his back for some time, and rightly so. Comrade Delta? WTF? What kind of revolutionary would participate in goofiness like that? Call it straight and don't be messin with girls a third your age.

You're not going to gut-check me with more-revolutionary-than-thou posturing, comrade. The "comparison," if you want to call it that, was based on the fact that both people were accused of committing crimes and were therefore entitled to due process before authorities acted on the basis of whether those allegations were true. It was not that both were of the same moral fiber, or that both were guilty or innocent, or that both deserved the same support from revolutionaries. Why let substantive discussion get in the way of affirming your radical credentials, though?

[Devrim]

If nobody has evidence in the form of an article or pamphlet, then I regard this is an some kind of urban myth. Some veteran members I asked about it told me that Militant always has been against the discrimination of homosexuals, but did not regard it as the main struggle, the new vanguard, etc. They denied that Militant had a stalinist position.
Of course it is possible that individual members has such a position, which reflects the influence of society on the organisation (not justifying it in any sense), but there is no evidence yet of Militant having a stalinist position.

You are of course free to believe what you like. The idea that people would have articles from the Militant from the 1970s and 80s is absolutely absurd. I don't have copies of articles that I personally wrote published by organisations I was in from that period. Why on earth would I keep old copies of the Militant's publications.

This is the position that they held, however. I can remember reading articles by them on the issue. Also I would just like to stress that I don't in any way regard gays as the 'new vanguard' or the 'main struggle' or anything like that. That is not the position they had though. Also I don't see why you associate this position with Stalinists. True, generally they held onto it longer than others, but many other groups held it.

In my personal opinion, the left tends to be pretty dishonest about embarrassing things in its past, the militant, and it's descendants particularly so. There is of course a way to check it. Ask them to show you a copy of an article on this question from the 70s or early 80s (I think they switched it mid to late 80s). Most people don't keep a collection of other groups publications from 40 years ago. The CWI, however, will have an archive, and if they are telling the truth should be quite happy to find an old article in it and show you it.

Devrim

[freecommunist]

Devrim is totally right on this issue, searching google will provide you with some information and I know there is a article I think written by Workers Power back in the early 90's on the web somewhere.
I also attended a number of militant's youth camps in the early 90's, while a member of WP as we saw the big changes that were coming in Militant of the time and figured we could recruit from it.



Professor Stephen Brooke, in his book “Sexual Politics: Sexuality, Family Planning, and the British Left from the 1880s to the Present Day”, writes:

… the Trotskyite Militant Tendency … proved, at best, dilatory and sometimes unreliable allies to the cause of gay rights and, at worst, violent opponents. As late as 1983, for example, members of Militant Tendency kicked and spat upon gay Young Socialists when the latter dared to raise the issue of gay and lesbian rights.

Ian Donovan comments:

And on the subject of homophobia, I am old enough to remember the vicious ‘queer’ and ‘lezzie’ baiting that was once the lot of activists [of] other left tendencies that fought for gay rights at Labour Party Young Socialists events in the 1970s and 80s, when Militant dominated that movement. In truth, Militant were among the last ‘left’ Neanderthals to be forced to recognise the justice of gay rights.

[Quail]

Of course they are different, but in a way that challenges the essence of my point? I don't think so.
Yes, they are, and I don't know how you can't see that. It's who is making the accusation that makes them so different. The state making accusations to repress political activists that disagree with them vs. a woman making an accusation of rape, in a climate where rape victims are routinely dismissed and blamed and it's not uncommon for people to talk about women "crying rape" after sex they regret?

[Five Year Plan]

Yes, they are, and I don't know how you can't see that. It's who is making the accusation that makes them so different. The state making accusations to repress political activists that disagree with them vs. a woman making an accusation of rape, in a climate where rape victims are routinely dismissed and blamed and it's not uncommon for people to talk about women "crying rape" after sex they regret?

I didn't dispute that they were different. I disputed that they were different in a way that might challenge the substance of my point. My point was that permitting authorities to act on the basis of assumptions of guilt would significantly enlarge the power and authority of the bourgeois state, which it would certainly abuse. This is why the difference you mention, who makes the accusation of criminal behavior, is irrelevant. Regardless of who makes the criminal complaint, it's the bourgeois state that does the prosecuting.

If rape accusations permitted the state to act on an assumption of guilt, how long do you think it would take for enemies of the state to be targeted with spurious rape allegations by people doing their bidding? And what do you think this would do to the allegations of rape that are actually, overwhelmingly true? How could you think this would be a good thing for victims of rape?

We all agree that rape allegations are the least likely to be made up, and that they have historically been downplayed by the bourgeois legal system. Where you lose me is in trying to remedy this by curtailing due process and permitting authorities to act on the assumption of guilt. That kind of proposal is, I am afraid, a case of the medicine worsening the disease rather than healing it. The almost naive faith it places in the bourgeois state not to abuse this expansion of their power is surprising to hear on a forum of revolutionary leftists.

[Quail]

I didn't dispute that they were different. I disputed that they were different in a way that might challenge the substance of my point. My point was that permitting authorities to act on the basis of assumptions of guilt would significantly enlarge the power and authority of the bourgeois state, which it would certainly abuse. This is why the difference you mention, who makes the accusation of criminal behavior, is irrelevant. Regardless of who makes the criminal complaint, it's the bourgeois state that does the prosecuting.

If rape accusations permitted the state to act on an assumption of guilt, how long do you think it would take for enemies of the state to be targeted with spurious rape allegations by people doing their bidding? And what do you think this would do to the allegations of rape that are actually, overwhelmingly true? How could you think this would be a good thing for victims of rape?

We all agree that rape allegations are the least likely to be made up, and that they have historically been downplayed by the bourgeois legal system. Where you lose me is in trying to remedy this by curtailing due process and permitting authorities to act on the assumption of guilt. That kind of proposal is, I am afraid, a case of the medicine worsening the disease rather than healing it. The almost naive faith it places in the bourgeois state not to abuse this expansion of their power is surprising to hear on a forum of revolutionary leftists.
Where have I made any of these arguments?

If someone is accused of rape, there is a good chance they are in fact guilty (although no, it shouldn't be assumed)
Of course allegations of rape should be investigated properly - but what happened in the SWP was not a proper investigation, and I doubt it would have been any better had the woman gone to the police. If political organisations disagree with using the criminal justice system they should have an alternative procedure in place which doesn't victimise the accuser and protect the accused.

[Five Year Plan]

Where have I made any of these arguments?

Okay. I had obviously misinterpreted what you had written. My apologies.


Of course allegations of rape should be investigated properly - but what happened in the SWP was not a proper investigation, and I doubt it would have been any better had the woman gone to the police. If political organisations disagree with using the criminal justice system they should have an alternative procedure in place which doesn't victimise the accuser and protect the accused.

I don't know much about the case or how it was handled apart from the most general of information. How do you think the SWP mishandled the investigation? And what changes to the procedure would you have made to prevent those abuses from happening if you had been in the organization?

[Devrim]

I don't know much about the case or how it was handled apart from the most general of information. How do you think the SWP mishandled the investigation? And what changes to the procedure would you have made to prevent those abuses from happening if you had been in the organization?

I don't think that the SWP 'mishhandled' this. That implies that they made mistakes. I think they set out to clear a member of their leadership, and got the result from the investigation that they wanted.

Devrim

[Five Year Plan]

I don't think that the SWP 'mishhandled' this. That implies that they made mistakes. I think they set out to clear a member of their leadership, and got the result from the investigation that they wanted.

Devrim

I chose the word 'mishandled' to indicate error from the perspective of a critic of the procedures they employed, not from the perspective of the SWP. Do you care to take a stab at the questions I asked Quail? I do understand it's far easier to quibble over word choice, but I do think the questions are far more deserving of our attention.

[Devrim]

I chose the word 'mishandled' to indicate error from the perspective of a critic of the procedures they employed, not from the perspective of the SWP. Do you care to take a stab at the questions I asked Quail? I do understand it's far easier to quibble over word choice, but I do think the questions are far more deserving of our attention.

I haven't followed all of the details, but one would imagine that not putting the accused's mates on the investigating body would have perhaps been a good start.

Devrim

[Five Year Plan]

I haven't followed all of the details, but one would imagine that not putting the accused's mates on the investigating body would have perhaps been a good start.

Devrim

Were these people selected to investigate because they were friends with the accused, or was it incidental to the criteria for their selection? If it was deliberate, the SWP is in a sorry state. If it was incidental, what procedure would you propose to handle a situation where an investigative team empaneled according to agreed upon criteria happens to include people who are friends with the accused?

[freecommunist]

The SWP is in a sorry state and I notice their is a new faction called 'Rebuilding the Party Faction'. The quicker it dies as a organisation the better, but aufheben have you thought about looking the stuff up on Google, as there thousands of documents that relate to all the issues you have raised.

[Devrim]

Were these people selected to investigate because they were friends with the accused, or was it incidental to the criteria for their selection? If it was deliberate, the SWP is in a sorry state. If it was incidental, what procedure would you propose to handle a situation where an investigative team empaneled according to agreed upon criteria happens to include people who are friends with the accused?

As has been mentioned they are lots of discussions on the internet discussing what they did 'wrong'. I am not really interested in going through it point by point.

Just to deal with this point though as I understand it even in a bourgeois court you would not be allowed to sit on a jury in a case concerning friends, business associates or relatives. Surely his mates should have excused themselves by saying that they weren't disinterested parties. To me this seems blindingly obvious. The fact that they didn't is an indictment upon themselves just as much as Smith, and the fact they the rest of the organisations allowed them to sit on this committee is an indictment on the whole organisation.

Devrim

[Quail]

I chose the word 'mishandled' to indicate error from the perspective of a critic of the procedures they employed, not from the perspective of the SWP. Do you care to take a stab at the questions I asked Quail? I do understand it's far easier to quibble over word choice, but I do think the questions are far more deserving of our attention.
I don't really have time to respond to this properly now so I'll have to get back to you.

[Five Year Plan]

As has been mentioned they are lots of discussions on the internet discussing what they did 'wrong'. I am not really interested in going through it point by point.

Just to deal with this point though as I understand it even in a bourgeois court you would not be allowed to sit on a jury in a case concerning friends, business associates or relatives. Surely his mates should have excused themselves by saying that they weren't disinterested parties. To me this seems blindingly obvious. The fact that they didn't is an indictment upon themselves just as much as Smith, and the fact they the rest of the organisations allowed them to sit on this committee is an indictment on the whole organisation.

Devrim

Thanks for letting me know. Since I am new here, I haven't seen the discussions on this forum. I would be curious if anybody has recommendations for a good summary that boils down the misdeeds of the SWP in the situation. I am particularly interested in hearing the accuser's perspective on how her complaint was handled.

As to your other remarks, you are right that it looks shady to have accusations against a high-ranking person in an organization investigated by his fellow high-ranking friends, but having the leadership handle complaints is probably just a matter of policy. If I had to guess, I would surmise that the idea is for pressure from the base of the organization to act as a check on any incentive the leaders might have in showing favoritism and covering up. From what I am hearing on this thread, that system broke down completely. This is not surprising in light of how bureaucratized IS groups usually are.

What I am interested in arriving at, then, is moving beyond abstract condemnations of sexism, which I am sure we all agree on, and into a more concrete discussion of what could have been done differently. Forbid people from sitting on committees investigating potential wrongdoing of close personal associates? Okay, that sounds reasonable. But what to do if the accused is in a leadership role, and as a result of that is predictably more closely known to other people in the group's leadership roles, when it is leadership bodies that will handle internal investigations leading potentially to disciplinary action? Set up an independent committee for the investigation formed out of the organization's rank-and-file members? Who selects them? What is to prevent that committee from containing people close to the accuser or accused in a way that might bias proceedings? Who makes the determination of whether a person might or might not be biased?

These are difficult questions, but ones worth asking and discussing, even if they do require us to go beyond back-patting ourselves for condemning sexism from the comfy armchairs of our air-conditioned living rooms.