Dealing With Problematic Behaviour Within Leftist Organisations

[Quail]

This is just something I've been thinking about lately, and wondered if perhaps some discussion on here could shed some light on it. I've been specifically thinking about sexually problematic behaviour but this thread could equally apply to any other kind of harmful or discriminatory behaviour.

It's been quite clear for some time that sexist behaviour is a massive problem within leftist circles, from the scandal in the SWP to the events at the anarchist book fair. There are two main questions I'm interested in here. Firstly, how do we create spaces where abusive behaviour is least likely to happen, and secondly, how do we deal with people whose behaviour crosses the line?

For the first question, there are a few things that can help, depending on the situation. Firstly, an event or organisation can draft a "safer spaces" policy, which essentially outlines what behaviour is okay and what isn't, with the idea that anybody who breaks these guidelines will be asked/made to leave. One of the problems with "safer spaces" policies, at least in this country, is that there is often considerable resistance to implementing them, and there is the matter of how easy they are to enforce. Another strategy, which mostly applies to organisations, is to have a space where women, LGBT people, people of colour, etc., can organise independently, discuss the issues within the organisation privately and work out how to deal with them (for example, a women's caucus might discuss how to improve women's confidence in participating in meetings, talk about grievances such as always taking minutes and feed back to the rest of the organisation, or provide a space where women feel safe enough to bring up abusive behaviour by male comrades).

The second question, I find a little more difficult. Depending on the severity of the behaviour, it might be possible to keep working with someone (for example, if someone uses a slur out of ignorance, is called out and agrees not to use it again), but for serious behavioural issues such as sexual harassment then it's clear that that person continuing to be involved with the organisation puts other people at risk. That the perpetrator should be disassociated from the organisation is a given. But, then what?

Is it our responsibility to put them through some kind of accountability process, where they get counselling or otherwise examine their problematic behaviour (for example, does it happen more when alcohol is involved? do they have their own issues which they are taking out on other people?) and work on it until they're safe to be around? Or do we just ostracise them completely and declare it not our problem? I can see arguments for both; I can understand that most people would not want to be around someone who has sexually harassed or abused someone, but at the same time isn't it irresponsible to allow someone who puts other people at risk with their behaviour to just carry on with their life as though nothing really happened?

Finally, I deliberately haven't mentioned the police as an option because I genuinely don't think that it is. For starters, the whole criminal justice system is hugely problematic, reporting incidents of sexual violence to the police is traumatic and victim-blaming is rife. The chances are, the perpetrator will not go to prison. Which brings me to another point - if the perpetrator does go to prison, they will most likely not unlearn their abusive behaviour so they will still be a danger to other people when they are released. I also would be wary of giving the police an excuse to get information on members of a revolutionary organisation. (Although having said all of that, it is really up to the people affected how they choose to deal with cases of abusive behaviour, including choosing to go to the police.)

Anyway, hopefully there is enough in this post to get some interesting and thoughtful responses. I don't want kneejerk responses about castration, but stuff that we could actually put into practice.

[G4b3n]

It is a considerable problem that has existed as long as the left itself. I think we are a bit reluctant to point fingers at each other when these things exist on such a larger scale and to such a more considerable degree in the real and existing world, much less leftist organizations. Not to say that these things shouldn't be a addressed, it is simply my take on why they fail to become addressed in many instances. I come across manarchists much more often than I would like to, and just all leftists who are guilty of the "racism, sexism, etc are simply byproducts of capitalism therefore we can just ignore them and concentrate on class alone" sort of attitude or the idea that all non-class related issues are "divisive".

Also, I do note think it is desirable for an organization to split up into factions of oppressed, it would be much more productive to address these issues and any others to all comrades so that these problems can be resolved. Though that is to be decided by the members of that organization.

[Quail]

Also, I do think it is desirable for an organization to split up into factions of oppressed, it would be much more productive to address these issues and any others to all comrades so that these problems can be resolved.

I think you misunderstood what I said, or I didn't communicate what I meant clearly enough. Having oppressed groups organising independently doesn't mean that the organisation is split into "factions" - the purpose is to allow those groups of people to discuss things privately where they don't have to deal with people shouted down or dismissed before they can discuss things productively, and then feed back to the rest of the organisation and both make their concerns known and stand together to make sure they are taken seriously. It's a lot easier to raise concerns when you've discussed them beforehand with other people who you know will stand together with you. I also think it is important that people have a space to bring up issues of discrimination in a space where people understand the discrimination you face and the people responsible for the discrimination won't be there.

[helot]

Good thread.

I think part of the problem is that some of us tend to see ourselves as immune from reproducing such behaviour. The amount of times where i come across men who i'd normally consider my comrades dismiss something such as a women's caucus under the guise of "it's not needed" is disturbing. Hopefully what happened in the SWP has knocked some sense into people so this tendency is less prominent.





Is it our responsibility to put them through some kind of accountability process, where they get counselling or otherwise examine their problematic behaviour (for example, does it happen more when alcohol is involved? do they have their own issues which they are taking out on other people?) and work on it until they're safe to be around? Or do we just ostracise them completely and declare it not our problem? I can see arguments for both; I can understand that most people would not want to be around someone who has sexually harassed or abused someone, but at the same time isn't it irresponsible to allow someone who puts other people at risk with their behaviour to just carry on with their life as though nothing really happened?



I do have problems with the whole ostracise and declare it as not our problem. I do think it is part of our responsibility to help combat things such as patriarchy etc in society in general so to wash our hands with it in our own organisations i find is counter productive. Having said that, i don't think i could dismiss the wishes of someone who is being harassed to not want to be in the same organisation as them and i definitely wouldnt want them to leave because the organisation isn't supportive.



Tbh, i don't have solutions. It's really fucking difficult and i fear i've not enough experiences to adequately resolve such issues.




Btw, i don't know what you're referring to by events at the anarchist book fair.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What happened at the anarchist book fair? Is this the one in London??

[Lokomotive293]

I think the most important thing to do is to create awareness. Leftist organizations need to stop thinking that they are the enlightened few and therefore above such problems.

Leftist organizations should create an aura, where everyone feels free to speak (e.g. by having a quota for women in governing bodies, by having a gender-balanced speakers' list, by having a contact person for womens' questions and concerns, etc.), members (male and female) should be educated about the origins and appearances of sexism, clear lines should be defined that cannot be crossed, sexist behavior needs to be called out in all cases and not be left without consequences.

If sexual abuse happens, leftist organizations should understand that they are not therapy centers. The protection of the victim should be the first priority, and if that can only be guaranteed by expelling the person who comitted the abuse from the organization, that has to be done. I also don't like how you completely exclude involving the police as an option. I understand your concerns, but there are certain cases (rape, abuse of minors), where they have to be involved, no matter how bad the criminal justice system is. And if things like victim-blaming happen, make it public and make a political issue out of it.

[Quail]

Btw, i don't know what you're referring to by events at the anarchist book fair.


What happened at the anarchist book fair? Is this the one in London??

Unfortunately this (http://samambreen.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/there-is-no-anarchism-without-feminism/) is the only article I can find about it for some reason, but some female comrades who were there were talking about that and some other stuff at a meeting recently.


The protection of the victim should be the first priority, and if that can only be guaranteed by expelling the person who comitted the abuse from the organization, that has to be done.
This is exactly what I said, but my point was what happens after that? Cutting off all communication with a sexual predator and just leaving them to carry on with their life and potentially hurt other people seems irresponsible.

I don't really have time to say anything else so I will respond properly tomorrow.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

that's so fucked up. I heard some dickhead talking about Assange or something in the entrance, didn't realise all that was going on. :(

[helot]

fucking hell. That makes me ashamed to call myself an anarchist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is exactly what I said, but my point was what happens after that? Cutting off all communication with a sexual predator and just leaving them to carry on with their life and potentially hurt other people seems irresponsible.

I think that's really case by case. On one hand, I think we need to admit our limitations - do we have the resources and ability in "radical" spaces to help a sexual predator work through their shit? To protect people? Or is it (and I'm not saying it always is) simply a pretension - a way of pretending "community" where none exists?

I'm familiar with one instance where, following an "accountability process" in which large numbers of supposed anarchists ignored a survivors wishes, her supporters plastered the town with the abuser's name, address, and photo. Of course, the "anarchists" who wouldn't so much as ask him, "Hey, what about your serially abusing and raping women?" were absolutely horrified, despite their previous (mock) concern for "other women, if we just ostracize him."

Also, sorry for the repeating, but I will probably continue to post this (http://libcom.org/library/betrayal-critical-analysis-rape-culture-anarchist-subcultures) in every thread on the matter.

[Quail]

I'm supposed to be revising, so I apologise for the length and/or rambliness of this post.


It is a considerable problem that has existed as long as the left itself. I think we are a bit reluctant to point fingers at each other when these things exist on such a larger scale and to such a more considerable degree in the real and existing world, much less leftist organizations. Not to say that these things shouldn't be a addressed, it is simply my take on why they fail to become addressed in many instances.
In my view, a movement which allows itself to replicate the structures of oppression that currently exist in society cannot create a society where oppression doesn't exist. Additionally, we don't organise in a vacuum, so the fact that the left is very white, male dominated shows that we are doing something very wrong when we engage in anti-sexist, anti-racist, etc. struggles. We must be either engaging with those struggles in a way which alienates the people who are most affected by them, or failing to engage with them seriously at all.


I come across manarchists much more often than I would like to, and just all leftists who are guilty of the "racism, sexism, etc are simply byproducts of capitalism therefore we can just ignore them and concentrate on class alone" sort of attitude or the idea that all non-class related issues are "divisive".

Unfortunately I've come across a lot of these types too. While it is certainly true that the structures of oppression people face are inextricably linked to capitalism, i.e., they cannot be destroyed within the framework of a capitalist society, a) they will not magically disappear with a communist revolution, and b) there may not be a revolution in our lifetime and oppressed groups are affected by discrimination on a daily basis, therefore it is necessary to struggle against oppression now, alongside capitalism.



I think part of the problem is that some of us tend to see ourselves as immune from reproducing such behaviour.
I think perhaps something that a lot of people don't realise (although I do think it is something that some people are starting to realise) is that a vague commitment against discrimination in the constitution/aims and principles/whatever the organisation calls it is not even close to being enough. I think it's very easy to say, "Our organisation is against sexism/racism/etc, therefore I/we are not sexist/racist," but actually making it a reality is more difficult. In theory, being an anarchist implicitly implies that in principle you are against all forms of oppression, but that doesn't mean that you can't simultaneously uphold those structures of oppression. I think self-criticism is very important, not just in terms of, "How am I sexist/racist and how can I change that?" but also in terms of politics in general. We need a movement which is capable of criticising itself.


The amount of times where i come across men who i'd normally consider my comrades dismiss something such as a women's caucus under the guise of "it's not needed" is disturbing. Hopefully what happened in the SWP has knocked some sense into people so this tendency is less prominent.

I think some of this attitude is down to the idea that fighting discrimination is divisive, and some of it could just be down to men not noticing reasons why it might be necessary, which I suppose is why they need to be educated, perhaps with something more high-impact than holding endless workshops on feminism that practically none of the men ever bother to attend.



I do have problems with the whole ostracise and declare it as not our problem. I do think it is part of our responsibility to help combat things such as patriarchy etc in society in general so to wash our hands with it in our own organisations i find is counter productive. Having said that, i don't think i could dismiss the wishes of someone who is being harassed to not want to be in the same organisation as them and i definitely wouldnt want them to leave because the organisation isn't supportive.
When I say make someone go through an accountability process I don't mean that they are allowed to stay in the organisation while they are doing that (and possibly when it is completed, depending on the wishes of the survivor). I think it is always most important to protect survivors and other people who may be at risk, rather than the perpetrator.



If sexual abuse happens, leftist organizations should understand that they are not therapy centers. The protection of the victim should be the first priority, and if that can only be guaranteed by expelling the person who comitted the abuse from the organization, that has to be done.
As I have said several times, that the person who committed the abuse should be expelled from the organisation is a given. While we are not therapy centres, I do think that we have a responsibility to lay the foundations of a better society. Perhaps a discussion on how people who have actually been abusive can rehabilitate themselves and make reparations as the survivor wishes could also provide a framework for a discussion on how we can prevent further cases of abuse?


I also don't like how you completely exclude involving the police as an option. I understand your concerns, but there are certain cases (rape, abuse of minors), where they have to be involved, no matter how bad the criminal justice system is. And if things like victim-blaming happen, make it public and make a political issue out of it.
I think going to the police should be used as a last resort in serious cases (though, as I said, it is up to the survivor how they want to deal with it). Trying to get someone locked up does nothing to combat the structures that make people do these things in the first place.


I think that's really case by case. On one hand, I think we need to admit our limitations - do we have the resources and ability in "radical" spaces to help a sexual predator work through their shit? To protect people? Or is it (and I'm not saying it always is) simply a pretension - a way of pretending "community" where none exists?
I think it depends on the number of people involved, perhaps the skills of those involved, the services available locally (e.g. mental health and addiction services), etc. The protection of survivors is, I would say, the most important thing, but so is the protection of people who could potentially be hurt in the future. There are resources out there which have been written as a guide which someone who has been accused of abusive behaviour could follow (I was trying to find one to link to here, which was written by someone who went through an accountability process, but I can't find it anywhere). Though there is never a guarantee that someone will follow the process and what has been asked of them, and it isn't something that you can “force” someone to do.


I'm familiar with one instance where, following an "accountability process" in which large numbers of supposed anarchists ignored a survivors wishes, her supporters plastered the town with the abuser's name, address, and photo. Of course, the "anarchists" who wouldn't so much as ask him, "Hey, what about your serially abusing and raping women?" were absolutely horrified, despite their previous (mock) concern for "other women, if we just ostracize him."
I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say here, sorry – did she want her supporters to name and shame the abuser or not? I think it's horrifying that so-called anarchists would refuse to confront someone who is abusive towards women, but I think it is an all too common reality. I guess part of that comes back to it being easy to be a feminist in name, but harder to be a feminist by your actions; it's easy to voice your concern for women, but it's harder to have the conviction to stand up to a comrade, who you may have been friends with.


Also, sorry for the repeating, but I will probably continue to post this (http://libcom.org/library/betrayal-critical-analysis-rape-culture-anarchist-subcultures) in every thread on the matter.
There is one point I'd like to comment on in here. There's a part where it talks about “defensiveness” and how it supports the perpetrator at the expense of the survivor to confront them in a way which doesn't make them feel defensive. I somewhat disagree, depending on the situation. If the aim of the discussion is to set in motion an accountability process where the perpetrator is willing to engage fully to change their behaviour, I think it would be most productive to go about it in a way which doesn't put someone into full-on defensive mode. When people get defensive, they don't listen, and in a situation where someone is being called out for unacceptable behaviour, they really, really need to listen.

I think a way of going about that (as opposed to putting the needs of the perpetrator above the needs of the survivor) is to create a culture within leftist circles where people understand that they're a product of a sexist/racist/etc society and therefore they will get things wrong, maybe badly wrong. People should be expected to be called out, to question themselves and their organisations, to be willing to do whatever it takes to put right whatever they did wrong, even if that involves staying away from a political group, quitting drinking or getting therapy. I don't think we can create a free and equal society if people aren't willing to do those things.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say here, sorry – did she want her supporters to name and shame the abuser or not?
So that I was unclear: Yes, and, in fact, she made the poster herself.

I guess part of that comes back to it being easy to be a feminist in name, but harder to be a feminist by your actions; it's easy to voice your concern for women, but it's harder to have the conviction to stand up to a comrade, who you may have been friends with.
And this x1000.
I think there are also lots of complicating factors here (which I don't mean as apologia for people's fuck-ups). For one, many abusers are wildly manipulative, liars, etc. I think there's a tendency to think, "Oh, I'm not dating this guy, so I have a 'critical distance'." In one case, I was involved in trying to hold somebody accountable for a year before finding out that he had a whole history of fucked up behaviour preceding the stuff I was trying to hold him accountable for: he'd just lied (quite well) by omission. Thus, I found myself in a place where, in trying to hold this guy accountable, I was actually part of helping him dodge accountability for a whole slew of fucked up shit. Of course, cultures of silence, etc. underwrite this. Secondly, there are rarely "perfect" perpetrators - you know, rich white cis-man sociopaths or whatever. When mental health, race, gender, etc. enter the equation, shit gets complicated, and it's amazing how unchecked shit comes up in these situations - how a disabled perpetrator can suddenly mean a conversation about rape can suddenly be turned around on the very real issue of ableism. You get the idea.