Answer the questions (1)
Prologue:
Why do we pursue the Communist Party of Ireland for answers?
At the outset, Guerrilla Communists set out its raison d’etre: dedicated to turning the Communist Party of Ireland into a communist party – a democratic, vibrant, united and confident political alternative.
Our position has not changed and sadly, neither has the Communist Party of Ireland.
We provided a comprehensive overview of the CPI, with documented evidence along with critical assessments gained from experience of being members of the Party. And, we asked a lot of questions related to very specific instances of breaches of Party rules, procedures and its constitution.
To date, none of these questions have been answered. As the questions remain, so does our determination to hold the Party accountable.
If there is injustice and/or irregular behaviours within the Party, how can it ever hope to convince people that it would deliver justice if it gained power. If a communist party refuses to correct errors or mistakes or consequences of deliberate ploys, how can anyone expect that it would behave differently if it gained power or influence?
After all, and as unlikely as that sounds, it is the ultimate aim of communist parties (or, should be) to gain power and/or influence.
How can a communist party think that it can escape the unavoidable media investigations or backlash it will suffer if it refuses to correct its own errors?
History shows that despite having such a wonderful philosophy as socialism on our side, we have found it almost impossible to convince people of its glaringly obvious merits. But, continuing failure to achieve this task is not good enough for the CPI. It wants to tackle this problem (with no idea how to solve it) while saddled with a load of issues that can justifiably, and most assuredly will be used against it.
Why would a communist party deliberately burden itself with additional obstacles to its own development? By refusing to correct errors, the CPI is doing just that. The argument then becomes not about socialism but about how it can justify its current or past behaviour. If its behaviour can be presented as unacceptable, even questionable, then all is lost.
If it was just the fate of the Party that is at stake, we would let it suffer whatever befell it. The problem is that its existence, as a flawed entity, is an impediment to any possible development towards socialism.
Guerrilla Communists will continue to pursue the CPI until it rectifies the injustices it has heaped on its own members and repudiates the irregular activities within its ranks that has brought it into such disrepute or, relinquishes its claim to be a communist party.
Answer the questions (1)
Readers of our site often comment on the content and on our style of approach. One comment we received from a person we believe to be a member of the CPI complained that our claims against the CPI or Socialist Voice are not specific enough and that they are more subjective than objective. While we do not agree, we nonetheless will respond with a quite specific piece, that hopefully, will be specific enough to elicit a response from the CPI itself.
For now, we are prepared leave all other accusations against the CPI to one side and allow it to respond to one particular set of events to the exclusion of all other accusations:
- Did the CPI conduct an investigation into alleged bullying without providing the accused members with any terms of reference – having declined to use ICTU guidelines – while acknowledging that the CPI did not have any such guidelines of its own? (Having stated that the ICTU or any other set of guidelines would not be used, the CPI then stated that it would employ the ICTU “definitions” of bullying and harassment).
- Did the CPI then conflate the definitions of the terms “bullying” and “harassment” and then convict a member of “harassment” when the charge against him was one of alleged bullying? *
- Did the CPI then demand that the member desist from such activity (“harassment”) despite the fact that the member had not even been accused of such a charge – that is, knowingly imposing sanctions that it was impossible for the member to comply with?
- Did the CPI then expel the member on the basis that he had not complied with those sanctions?
- Did the CPI then deny the member the possibility of appealing either the sanctions or the expulsion?
- Did the CPI repeatedly refuse to provide the accused with a copy of its own inquiry report?
- Did the CPI decline to respond to numerous attempts by the accused to have the verdict overturned and to engage the services of an independent mediator in order to deal with the allegation in a professional and fair manner?
Indeed, we are prepared to bring this back to just two related questions:
- Which one or more of the grounds (listed below) did the claimant complain of?
- Which of these grounds did the National Executive Committee judge the accused to have engaged in, to justify its judgement of harassment against the accused?
If the CPI does not answer the questions above or fails to refute the essence of the claims made, then it is also clear that the Party was – and remains – reckless in protecting its political and moral basis, laying itself open to justified attack from any quarter – all to satisfy an unnecessary, avoidable and utterly destructive expediency.
The CPI can never escape its self-built Alcatraz until it comes to terms with the reality that the good old days when it could behave any way it liked with impunity are gone. Unable and unwilling to directly or effectively challenge any entity, the CPI’s impotence now extends to being unable to challenge or defend even itself.
We now offer the CPI another opportunity to defend itself by answering the questions tabled above. We will publish any response we receive from the CPI. Alternatively, the Party could respond through its website or in Socialist Voice.
Sooner or later, the CPI will answer these questions – or it will repeal its harassment verdict. This is its only option.
*ICTU Guidelines on Prevention of Bullying and Harassment
Harassment is any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the nine discriminatory grounds, which has the purpose of or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.
The nine grounds are:
1) The gender ground; a man a woman or a transgender person, (specific protection is provided for pregnant employees or in relation to maternity leave).
2) The civil status ground; single, married, separated, divorced or widowed in a civil partnership.
3) The family status ground; refers to being pregnant, a parent of a person under 18 years, or the resident primary carer or a parent of a person with a disability.
4) The sexual orientation ground; gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual.
5) The religion ground; covers different religions beliefs, background outlook or none.
6) The age ground; this applies to all ages above the minimum age (16) at which a person is statutory obliged to attend school.
7) The disability ground; this is broadly defined, including people with physical intellectual learning cognitive or emotional disabilities, and a range of medical conditions.
8) The race ground; people of different race, skin colour, nationality, or ethnic origin.
9) The travel or community ground; for people who are commonly called travellers who are identified both by travellers and others as people with a shared history, culture and traditions identified historically as a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland.
For harassment to apply in any case, then the claimant must be able to demonstrate unfavourable treatment on one of the above nine grounds.