IMT Fightback doubles down on victim-blaming
A summary of the controversy thus far
After former Fightback member Jamie’s blog post, which details their experience with the organization’s systematic cover-up of abuse, aroused indignation among rank and file members of the International Marxist Tendency (of which Fightback is the Canadian section), the accused leadership has wasted no time hitting back. They responded with an internal email to their membership, a day after the blog was published.
Fightback leadership’s response contains numerous accounts that directly contradict Jamie’s testimony; on their part, Jamie has posted extensively on Twitter challenging leadership’s assertions.
In the interest of helping IMT comrades hear both sides of the story, and because many comrades don’t follow Twitter, I’ve gathered Jamie’s tweets and put them together here in one place. I have very lightly edited them for flow, and included links to the original.
I’m also obliged to publicly share the leadership’s internal communications. Firstly, because Jamie’s responses can only make sense when put in context; and secondly, because it is my opinion that the leadership’s email demonstrates a complete lack of remorse, self-reflection, or willingness to take responsibility, and instead doubles down on victim-blaming. Potential recruits, as well as the broader labor movement, deserve to know whether an organization is continuing to defend abuse.
Although I am an ex-member, and therefore not bound by the extremely strenuous message discipline that is the norm within IMT, I still put great value in the moral code that, under normal circumstances, one should not divulge internal organizational communications to the outside world. These are not normal circumstances. No matter how important “discipline” in the procedural sense is, the claims of justice always supersedes it.
Fightback leadership denies their role in the cover-up
On June 24, 2022, one day after Jamie’s initial blog post, the following email was sent out by Fightback leadership to its membership. The US section (and, presumably, any other national section of the IMT whose rank and file members have raised an outcry in the wake of Jamie’s revelations) also passed on this message to its membership.
(To provide some context for those who are not well acquainted with the IMT: the Alex and Marco mentioned in the email are Alex Grant, the founder and main leader of the whole Canadian section, and Marco La Grotta, another leader of long standing. “CC” stands for “Central Committee”, and “EC” stands for “Executive Committee”, which is a smaller body in charge of the actual day to day leadership.)
Dear comrades,
Many of you have already seen an open letter from an ex-comrade, Jamie, making very serious accusations against the organization and some comrades, together with a host of political criticisms.
Many of you have asked questions to the members of the EC and requested discussions. We will discuss and answer all of these in due time. This is an initial communication to outline the matter. We will also produce a public statement as soon as possible and we will take other measures to ensure the highest form of transparency and allow all comrades to raise their concerns if they have any.
One thing must be absolutely clear: we have nothing to hide. Fightback and the IMT sees it as our revolutionary duty to implacably fight against any and all forms of oppression and abuse. The struggle against oppression is an integral part of the struggle for socialism. That also goes for any such instances within our own ranks.
We treat matters of sexual abuse and assault in a very serious manner and we have a firm, zero tolerance policy on this question. We have a proud record of dealing with problems of this nature. When accusations have been made, all efforts have been made to interview all sides, establish the facts, and on the basis of these to take all the necessary measures in a swift and decisive manner. Where wrongdoing has been established we have also attempted as much as we could, to help alleviate the effects of these on the victims.
On this basis, we must admit that the picture given in the open letter does not correspond with the facts of how the organization has dealt with this, in this instance and in general.
We will demonstrate that in detail in this letter, but as an example, Jamie's ex-partner was expelled on February 11th, a little over a week following the accusation against him being raised. Comrade Marco from the EC spoke with Jamie soon after this and they agreed with the decision and even thanked us for dealing with this promptly. On the question of “incident 3, the comrade accused was suspended within a matter of months after a control commission investigated the matter. The facts show that the organization took these instances seriously and acted proportionally and decisively according to the facts we were presented with. We now will let the facts speak for themselves.
Incident 1
In the case of “Incident 1” involving “the comrade that recruited me”, Jamie’s letter suggests that it was the EC which brushed away the matter as a case of an “inappropriate joke”. This is not correct. When Jamie first raised a complaint about this comrade in February 2019, it was they who explained that he had made an "inappropriate joke." Therefore, this was not raised at the EC as these sorts of things are normally resolved by an apology, which is exactly what happened, with the chair of the branch involved.
Later, when discussing Incident 2 with Jamie in early February of this year, we became aware of another complaint against the comrade in question. This was discussed formally at the meeting with Jamie on February 10th where they admitted that they had initially reported this as an inappropriate joke. When asked to provide more details about any other allegations against the comrade in question, however, they refused categorically to provide any details and were insistent they did not want this looked into.
We hope comrades appreciate that it is very difficult to intervene when the person raising accusations refuses to provide information or participate in a process that can get to the bottom of it. We cannot sanction any comrade without knowing the facts. Unfortunately, it was only in their open letter by Jamie that these facts have been disclosed to us. We will now take immediate action and investigate the claims that are made in the letter, and do all we can to get to the bottom of this.
Incident 2
In the case of “Incident 2”, a very serious and tragic case of repeated abuse involving the person referred to as “ex-partner”, was raised on February 3rd of this year by Jamie. Jamie explained some of what happened on the phone and a formal meeting was setup with them on February 10th with Marco and Alex present from the EC. Through a process of interviewing the parties involved, it was found that Jamie’s ex-partner had sexually assaulted two comrades. This led to his expulsion by the EC on the following day, February 11th.
Unfortunately however, in Jamie’s letter the facts are, again, incorrect. The letter presents the situation as though he was not expelled but left "on his own terms." As well, contrary to what Jamie said, the accused did not “admit” his guilt. Rather, he said that he was drunk when the event in question happened and didn’t remember it, but if the other people involved said it happened, then he’s inclined to believe it is true. On this basis, he was expelled.
The letter makes it sound like we suspended the “ex-partner” and that he could essentially pay "his way back into the organization." This is outrageous. While we did take decisive action, contrary to capitalist courts dealing out punishment, we try to provide a way for people to heal and potentially come back on a healthy basis. What this meant in “ex-partner”'s case is that he would be allowed to potentially re-apply for membership within 1 to 3 years, with the consultation and agreement of Jamie themselves. This is because we believe in restorative justice, and that people can change. This decision was immediately communicated to Jamie by Marco and they said they agreed with it.
Thus, the facts stand as such: A serious allegation of sexual assault was reported. The EC acted promptly to establish the facts and acted in consequence. Within days the abuser was no longer a member of the organization.
The brunt of Jamie’s criticisms seem to be directed at Alex personally. It paints a picture of Alex, as a representative of the EC, verbally assaulting Jamie in the meeting on February 10th, with the aim of sweeping the case under the carpet. It criticizes Alex and the EC for having the “intent to draw this process out by interviewing my ex-partner again himself”. We think that this criticism is unjustified.
When the EC heard of the accusations against “ex-partner”, on February 3rd, a meeting was set up the following week on February 10th with Jamie. Unfortunately, these discussions were extremely difficult because Jamie was wrapping it all together as an organizational problem in Fightback as a whole and did not want to talk about the specific accusations. At the meeting in question, Alex’s intention was that we separate the two issues and deal with the assault first, expressing sincere regret for what had happened to them. And that later we can discuss more general matters of organization. In attempting to address the accusations raised, this became a point of conflict. This discussion might have been tense at times, but at no time did Alex yell at Jamie. Nevertheless, Alex agrees that he could have dealt with that conversation better, and apologizes for any hurt that Jamie endured throughout the process.
Alex’s main aim with the meeting was trying to formally hear Jamie’s side of the story in order to establish the facts. Unfortunately, Jamie took issue with the fact that Alex insisted that we needed to formally interview the accused to get “his side of things” as Jamie puts it. While Jamie sees this as protecting an abuser, the fact of the matter was that we needed to formally speak with “ex-partner” to be able to decide on appropriate action.
Discussions about sexual abuse are never easy, and we deeply regret any such cases that might have involved our comrades. Naturally, we have the deepest sympathies with the victims. It is important that all accusations are investigated, but it is equally important that this investigation be objective and impartial. In this particular case, Alex did not show an opinion during the proceedings as he didn't want to taint the process and show bias in the middle of an investigation. Potentially this was seen to be a lack of sympathy. But our sympathy is with the abused and we acted immediately.
Incident 3
Incident 3, another very serious case of sexual assault involving the comrade referred to as “the perpetrator” was more complicated. The case was reported to us on December 19th at a meeting with the person mentioned as “my friend." The victim was still processing the events and therefore we did not have all the information about the case at our disposal. As well, the victim was on the fence about whether or not they wanted a formal investigation at that time so we agreed to revisit this in the new year. In hindsight, we should have launched an official investigation into the matter as soon as we heard of this. Having this issue linger, did not help things and only created an impression that we did not take this seriously.
When we did launch an official investigation, the person referred to as “my friend" did not request a control commission. This leads to the question of mediation. The letter says that comrade Alex from the EC tried to coerce the victim into mediation. This is incorrect. Due to our lack of a clear picture of the facts, we as an EC at that time believed that maybe a mediated process would work. Alex, acting on behalf of the EC suggested this to the victim and tried to convince them of this road. There was absolutely no coercion involved here.
But why did we believe mediation was a potential avenue? All things being equal, in an organization with meager resources, we will seek reconciliation, agreement between parties in a dispute, which is why mediation is preferred. But things are not always equal, and in this case, it was initially found that the facts were in dispute. Therefore, after a period of going back and forth between the involved parties we decided to convene a control commission to interview all the parties and come to a conclusion. This was proposed by the EC and decided at the March 26-27 CC meeting.
Until the control commission was convened we could not definitively establish that the assault had taken place. This is a problem in many such cases. Something that often leaves the victims without justice. However, it would be equally unjust to punish an accused person without being able to corroborate the accusations in a reasonable and objective manner. That is why due process is absolutely necessary in all disciplinary matters.
Once the control commission was convened, the facts of the case were quickly established and on April 24, the commission informed the EC of their finding that sexual assault did indeed occur. On this basis, the decision was taken at the following meeting of the EC five days later, on April 29, to suspend “the perpetrator” of all political activity for a year following which he may be allowed to reintegrate the work, after going through a thorough process of therapy and consent training. Considering “the perpetrator”’s acceptance of the results and his willingness to work on himself, we believe that suspension was an appropriate response. Moreover, this was agreed on by the victim and the comrades of the control commission. The decision was approved by the CC on May 15.
In the letter, it is said that “no follow up was made and as far as I’m aware no actions were taken in response” to the general behavior issues raised about “the perpetrator”. As a matter of fact, the general behavior was raised with the comrade in question, and it is part of the things that need to be addressed through the process of therapy and training before he can be reapply to join the organization.
A cover-up?
Towards the end of Jamie’s statement, the EC is accused of attempting a “rape cover-up”. But following the expulsion of “ex-partner”, his branch and the Central Committee was informed of the decision. Jamie themselves agreed to this. Therefore we find it strange that they now present things as though we are hiding this. As for the case of “the perpetrator”, the entire Toronto membership was informed of the suspension, because he’s a fairly well-known member in Toronto.
The reasons why we did not inform the entire membership are simple. Events of this nature plague capitalist society, and unfortunately, our ranks are not immune. But we are no longer a small organization, and we do not believe it is useful for the work of the entire membership to be informed of every single case of disciplinary action. With the size of our group, when it comes to interpersonal conflict, disputes or more serious cases like assault, we think that most cases can be dealt and discussed locally where all the relevant comrades are made aware, without having to spread the news across the entire membership.
We believe that the cases of “the perpetrator” and “ex-partner” demonstrate clearly that we take sexual assault very seriously and act swiftly and decisively upon any cases as they arise and we will do so in the future. Our organization has an absolute zero-tolerance to any form of sexual abuse. This is not merely a moral matter. For us, this is a matter of political principle. Any other approach would undermine comradely relations and weaken the organization and hence our struggle for socialism. Any time this is raised, we do our utmost to deal with this swiftly, in a professional manner, and keep the needs and wishes of the victim as the main priority.
Distortions
It is clear that Jamie has been the unfortunate victim of terrible wrongdoings. For that they have our deepest sympathies. While we cannot undo their trauma, we have tried as much as we could to address the matters that they have raised. Their letter, however, proceeds from this to raise the most serious accusations against the organization as a whole. Accusations, which are entirely unsubstantiated, and only justified by a highly distorted version of events.
It is impossible to go into all the details here of the many, many distorted facts of the letter. We hope that this internal communication can help clarify the process that actually took place. The main matters we have dealt with so far are 1) that “ex-partner” left on his own terms, while he was in fact expelled 2) that there was an attempt to “coerce” a comrade into mediation and 3) that the EC attempted a cover-up.
There are other instances of such distortions, which end up painting a wrong picture of all the actual facts. In terms of “Incident 3”, the letter says that “My friend’s allegations were initially dismissed as “gossip”.” This does not correspond to what happened. Likewise, it mentions that the perpetrator was “protected” by the EC due to “the fact that he comes from a bourgeois family, which allowed him to donate significant sums of money to the organization and provide free space for events”. Again, this cannot be seen as anything else than a huge distortion. Half of EC comrades hardly knew “the perpetrator” personally at all, and no one is above process in the IMT. We’ve explained above that far from a perpetrator being protected, we attempted for a period to ascertain the best way of getting to the bottom of the case. Bringing in the background of the comrade or the fact that branch meetings were held in the home of the comrade in question (which happens here and there regularly, especially in cities where renting rooms is difficult and expensive) is disingenuous.
At the very beginning of the letter, it is said that “I was asked if I agreed with the organization’s stance against ‘call-out culture’” and that “in retrospect I see this question for what it was: the men recruiting me asking for assurance that I would allow violence enacted against me or others to be swept under the rug.” This outrageous statement is used to connect the dots and make it seem as if the organization attempts to actively sweep under the carpet cases of abuse. Again, this distorts the facts. What we do discuss with new recruits is our approach to identity politics in general and our approach to fighting all forms of oppression. But to interpret this as us making sure that violence is swept under the rug is an absurd falsity.
The letter also mentions at the very beginning events which occured at York University in 2018. Most comrades were not members at the time of these events, our main statements about it which you can find here and here. This was a case where vague rumors were being raised about our organization harboring abusers. In response to this we repeatedly asked for details so that we could get to the bottom of the matter. We also suggested an independent investigation but this was also refused. Still to this date, no one has named an abuser related to that event. How can we pursue a crime of which we have no information committed by a perpetrator that we do not know? Our position is and will always be that within the left, the trade unions and the movement more broadly, due processes are needed to investigate cases of abuse, and nonspecific vague allegations cannot be dealt with productively.
Due process is absolutely necessary because history has shown that all sorts of accusations will be thrown at communist organizations in order to destroy them. Whenever accusations are raised this is the best way to seriously deal with any case of abuse, and is also the best guarantee against unscrupulous attacks that will come from those who actively wish to undermine the work of Marxists.
The character of the letter
If we look at the content of the cases, the only conclusion is that our process works. Many socialist organizations have broken their neck on this question, because they accepted a culture of innuendo and rumors, and did not take this question seriously and install due processes, which actually prevents these organizations from protecting their ranks against abusers. We, on the other hand, have made it clear, as the two cases outlined above show, that an investigation will take place and a resolution will be found where the accused, if found to be in the wrong, will face the consequences of their action.
In the letter, numerous distortions finally reaches a crescendo at the end where the letter repeats the malicious slanders of the enemies of the IMT, such as the lie that Ted Grant, one of our main theoreticians in the post war period, should have believed that “homosexuality was a capitalist aberration that would “disappear” under socialism”. It also distorts a quote by Alan Woods, another theoretician of our movement, in order to portray him and thereby the IMT as being opposed to Black or LGBTQ liberation. Nothing could be further from the truth as is evident from the dozens of articles on our website on these topics.
It says that Fightback is run by “intellectually dishonest social conservatives”, even saying that Fightback “opportunistically attempts to recruit young activists mobilized by struggles against racism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia." It implies that the financial contributions of comrades can weigh into how we deal with abuse. There is no basis for any of these scandalous accusations.
A long list of facts, distorted and twisted out of context and infused with baseless rumors coming from reactionary websites is posted on a blog and presented as the truth. When due processes concerning real abuse are distorted and then used to serve political criticism, we must ask: how does this actually help fight abuse in the movement? Not only does it not address abuse, it serves to undermine the struggle against it.
The IMT is at the forefront of all struggles against oppression. For Marxists these struggles are intrinsically linked to the struggle of the working class for socialism. Only by taking upon itself the struggles of all the oppressed masses can the working class succeed. Likewise, it is only in the struggle for socialism that oppression can be overcome.
Sexual abuse is far too common in our society. Millions of women, and men, suffer under its consequences every day. Our organization is not immune from them. But our track record is clear. We have been the organization consistently appealing to due process being applied for dealing with abuse within the movement, and have applied it within our ranks when such upsetting and traumatic events occur. We will continue to do so, as abuse and harassment can only poison the left and damage the fight for socialism. Moreover, the Marxist approach to the fight against oppression is getting more and more popular, and we indeed are succeeding at winning over the youth to it.
We hope this letter can help clarify the issues raised. To reiterate, the organization has nothing to hide. If you have any questions, you can reach out to a CC or EC member. Discussions will be organized as soon as possible within the section in order to allow comrades to ask questions and for clarification.
-The EC
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Jamie’s political and historical arguments are absolutely without merit (I don’t think so for a second). Even if that were true, the most Jamie can be accused of is making certain theoretical exaggerations, in the heat of their anger and hurt at being violently violated by those they trusted enough to love and cherish as comrades. Is that a just cause for verbal retaliation, for putting their motives under the scrutiny of a microscope? What does it say about a leadership who willfully kicks such a survivor, calling them all manner of names with the vehemence of a bully seeking to grind their victim into the dust, precisely when the victim is most vulnerable?
Jamie responds to the accusations that they themselves did not report the abuse sufficiently seriously
On Jun 26, Jamie responded: “The Fightback internal email about my statement says I initially only reported the sexual harassment incident as a ‘joke’. Here is what I sent my chair in 2019 - I suppose the word ‘joke’ is used, but the EC is obviously lying.”1
Jamie’s text to their chair in 2019 (in the wake of “incident 1”) is as follows:
M___ had been acting kind of weird all day on Sunday, and then, when me and ____ were leaving, he made some weird sexual comments about us (____ was staying on the couch at my Airbnb because the hostel was really loud) and [about] how we were going to hook up. Which, like, we weren't? And I kept being like, “dude, fuck off”, but he kept saying weird explicit stuff.
He was pretty drunk so it's not like a huge thing. He was joking that he was going to spread rumours about us to the rest of the organization and stuff. Again, this really isn't like, a big thing at all; I've just had some bad experiences in the past and I get freaked out really easily. This isn't okay. I'm really sorry.
Jamie’s June 26th Tweet explaining their messages above continues: “You can see my chair responding empathetically to these messages, because it was clear I wasn’t just talking about a joke I didn’t like. When I spoke to an EC member on the phone, I remember saying he said things about my body that were very explicit and made me uncomfortable.
[…] Yes, I downplayed my experiences initially, because I was humiliated and felt ashamed about what happened to me. This is incredibly normal, and the fact that they’re using this against me is sick. Yes, I was hesitant in my conversation with Alex to go over the details of being transphobically and sexually harassed, because he had already demanded I describe my boyfriend physically abusing me, without any warning [that this particular topic would be brought up at this conversation], and was already being openly hostile towards me.”
(The evidence for that last assertion that Alex Grant in a sense “ambushed” Jamie with a topic they were not mentally prepared for, can be found at this link here.)
Jamie further explains: “I did not ‘categorically refuse’ to give more information - how could I both refuse to give more information AND be making another complaint? They’re contradicting themselves in the same paragraph. Also you can see me responding enthusiastically in the last screenshot - why would I then refuse? It was Alex who insisted the case was closed and said it should not be reopened, who told me that the comrade in question had a history of bad behaviour they had ‘spoken to him about’. They’re claiming to now be taking ‘immediate action’ to ‘get to the bottom of this’. The comrade in question is speaking at a public event this week.”
Jamie’s last assertion, that the comrade accused of transphobic abuse is, despite everything, still scheduled by leadership to speak at a public event about trans liberation (!), is borne out by the blurb of their Facebook event: (Edit: it has been brought to my attention that the speaker has since been replaced.)2
A branch chair defends Fightback leadership — but ends up confirming Jamie’s side of the story
Top leadership in Fightback are not the only ones to close ranks. The intermediate leadership (a crucial glue for groupthink, without which the top leadership of any given organization would find it much more difficult to propagate an artificial unanimity) also felt compelled to attack Jamie.
What is most interesting in these screenshots is not how the branch chair attacks Jamie. All of the homilies, about how a comrade ought to keep silent and never go public in case they tarnish the organization’s reputation, are rather old hat. What is interesting is that it ends up giving the game away, inadvertently confirming Jamie’s side of the story against the leadership.
Note well: the chair never denies the truthfulness of Jamie’s statements, but focuses on how, even though the leadership is actually guilty of what Jamie accuses them of, Jamie ought not to criticize them publicly.
Summing up the whole situation and the state of the organization’s procedures on dealing with sexual abuse, Jamie writes thus:
If you’re still in Fightback and leadership is telling you “the process works”: there is no process. They do not have one. Allegations are dealt with by the EC on a case by case basis with no documentation, oversight, consistency, checks and balances, procedure — literally nothing. They’ve defended this to me by saying “the ISO had a process and it failed!”3 and “if we needed a process our organization shouldn’t exist”. I guess the implication is that everyone on the EC is magically a good enough person to handle cases well. (Evidently, that’s not true!) Anyone talking to you about “the process” is either bullshitting you entirely or referring to the completely inadequate internal code of conduct at the back of the new member booklet — [which] they forget to send to like half the people who join the org. It’s nothing.”4
Jamie’s former defenders changes their position and defends Fightback leadership
On June 29th, Fightback sent out a follow-up email to its membership, which was also forwarded to the US section membership. It was a letter by Kayla and Emily, two rank-and-file members whose testimony Fightback leadership especially values, presumably because apologetics is more convincing coming from authors who are implied to be detached and unbiased.
To understand their letter, a little context is needed: when Jamie first decided to pursue justice for the abuse they suffered through internal organizational channels, Kayla and Emily were very supportive of them. When their repeated attempts to get a hearing from the existing structures revealed a deep dysfunction in how Fightback deals with abuse, Kayla and Emily agreed with Jamie’s critique that systemic problems existed. To that end, they crafted the following proposal for revamping the abuse investigation process. Around four months ago, however, Kayla and Emily stopped supporting Jamie and became reconciled with Fightback leadership’s approach.
Now on to their letter:
Dear comrades,
We are writing this statement in the hopes that it will address some of the questions and concerns that comrades may have regarding the statement published by ex-comrade Jamie. For those who don't know us, we (Emily D. and Kayla K.) are both branch chairs in Toronto. Neither of us is on the CC or other leadership bodies. Both of us were personally involved in supporting the survivors mentioned in the letter, starting right from the time the first reports were received. Based on what we experienced during the course of these events, we dispute the narrative that has been presented by Jamie, and we can corroborate the circular that was sent out by the EC.
We want to strongly reiterate, as the EC has also done, that the abuse Jamie suffered was real and was serious. No one has denied or disputed that. Both of us care about Jamie and the other survivors deeply, and we are heartbroken and angered by what they went through at the hands of their ex-partner. We truly and genuinely wish them healing from what they went through.
At every meeting in which Jamie spoke to a member of the EC about the abuse they suffered, one of us was present. Kayla was also actively supporting two other survivors (mentioned anonymously, in Incident 2 and Incident 3) as their branch chair. We were supporting the survivors not only as their comrades and friends, but also as social workers - and in Emily's case, a trained victim advocate specifically.
Kayla received the first reports for both “Incident 2" and “Incident 3". She is the individual referred to in Jamie's statement as “my friend" who attended the meeting with Jamie and Alex Grant. It is her opinion that the discussion of abuse was handled appropriately. The meeting became heated only after politics were raised in the discussion by Kayla and Jamie and conflated with concrete instances of abuse. Although this part of the discussion was heated, Alex did not yell. While some of his points may have been phrased inelegantly, Kayla strongly feels that Alex's words have been completely distorted and mischaracterized. We also think it is important to stress here that the ex-comrade referred to as "my ex” was in fact expelled - and quickly. The bar for his re-application to the organization was set extremely high, and nothing about it was automatic or easy to circumvent.
In regards to Incident 3, the conclusions that Jamie has drawn again do not line up with the facts. In hindsight, yes, certain steps probably should have been taken sooner. However, Kayla's assessment of the situation (again, as someone who was involved in this process as the victim's branch chair and friend) is that EC comrades did the best they could with the information they had at each stage, and that the way the process played out was understandable in this context. Kayla was the author of the letter to the EC which Jamie has linked to in their statement. While the other signees gave feedback, the letter was her initiative and she wrote it alone. The letter was written based on certain misunderstandings Kayla had about our reporting process — namely, she was unaware that a control commission could be formed, and she did not realize that issues could be reported to branch officers or other trusted leading comrades, rather than having to go through the CC or EC directly. Within a week of submission, after having these misconceptions cleared up and after a political discussion with members of the EC, Kayla formally withdrew the letter. She mentioned to Jamie that she no longer stood by the letter. Looking back, she realizes she may not have made it completely clear that she had formally withdrawn the letter, and that this may have appeared to be inaction or indifference on the part of the EC. She sincerely apologizes for any confusion or distress that this miscommunication may have caused Jamie.
Some comrades have suggested that the situation(s) would have been handled much better if there were social workers involved in the process. Those comrades may not realize that both of us have been closely involved in this process from the very beginning. We spent a great deal of time supporting this process because we felt it was the right thing to do as friends of the survivors and as comrades who have related training. Despite our best efforts, the involvement of social workers did not fundamentally change the outcome.
All of that being said, neither of us can remain silent while we know the truth of the situation.
The statement written by the EC to the membership in response to Jamie's public post is factual. Both of us vouch for the facts of the EC's statement based on our own experiences throughout this process.
We are writing this statement with heavy hearts. Throughout this process, we have tried to do what is right, but what is right is not always what is easiest. When our friends came to us with their concerns, we did what we still believe was the right thing: we approached the EC with them and told them about the allegations in an effort to keep our friends and the entire organization safe. We are again doing what we believe is right by writing this statement.
The truth is that Jamie and the other survivors experienced horrible abuse at the hands of someone who was supposed to be their comrade, but the claims made in the letter about alleged cover-ups, the behaviour and motives of the EC, etc. are false. We are extremely sad and disappointed that the real abuse at the heart of this situation and the genuine, serious efforts made by both of us and the Executive Committee to deal with that abuse are now being used to fuel what can only be described as a political attack. If anyone has any further questions for us, we invite you to reach out to one or both of us and we will make ourselves available to answer as best we can.
In solidarity,
Emily D. (TO-R1)
Kayla K. (TO-C1)
Jamie, who was present at a joint meeting with Kayla and Alex Grant, having witnessed directly how Grant interacted with Kayla behind the scenes, paints a different picture. According to Jamie’s account, Grant verbally browbeat Kayla so badly that she had to turn her camera off to conceal her sobbing. He was chastising Kayla for writing the proposal in the first place. The overall impression is that Grant and the leadership use psychological pressure on people like Kayla and Emily to change their position.5
Emily and Kayla in their letter don’t claim to have been pressured to change their mind. But they do chronicle truthfully the change in their position. Setting aside the motivation behind such a change, one thing stands out: “The letter [i.e. the proposal on revamping the abuse investigation process] was written based on certain misunderstandings Kayla had about our reporting process - namely, she was unaware that a control commission could be formed, and she did not realize that issues could be reported to branch officers or other trusted leading comrades, rather than having to go through the CC or EC directly.”
In other words, the original letter, which very fairly points out the potential conflicts-of-interest in Fightback’s existing system, is based on a “misunderstanding”: the writers of the original letter did not understand that reporting abuse to such officer positions and “trusted leading comrades” who are precisely most likely to have conflicts-of-interest and be entangled with the existing leadership — reporting abuse to such people is, in fact, an excellent system! Let the foxes guard the henhouse!
Thus far, I have tried to mostly limit myself to presenting Jamie’s side of the story as straightforwardly as possible. But since this is a personal blog, I have some of my own thoughts to share. You may feel free to read no further if you only wanted to catch up on the facts of the story.
Is abuse political?
Even entertaining such a question should be embarrassing for any self-respecting Marxist. Is a widespread social disease that feeds on systems of oppression, based on power dynamics, with deep material roots, a political question? The better question is, how can it not be?
Yet a common refrain from people who present themselves as Marxists is that Jamie crossed some unforgivable line-in-the-sand of revolutionary morality by combining their exposé of abuse with “political attack”. How “scandalous”. Oh, how “twisted”, “baseless”, “distorted” — ah me! how justice sleeps!
But let’s just take a step back for a second. Look at the big picture. And I firmly believe that any IMT member, in any other context outside the organization, would easily spot this in an instant. Everybody knows, everybody has experienced for themselves, that in 99.9% of the cases, elections in the organization occurs by acclamation. Anybody who has attended a single congress knows that the existing leadership proposes the new leadership slate. In 99.9% of the cases, this is unanimously rubber-stamped. The CC then busies itself in the day-to-day running to “recommend” certain people be elected to leadership positions in the lower levels: area committees, branch committees, etc. Even the positions of auditor (responsible for checking the finances) and control commission (which Fightback leadership cites so righteously as an impartial body) are commonly “recommended” as a slate and then rubber stamped en bloc.
In theory, branches elect delegates, delegates elect CC, CC elects EC, then the whole process continues on the international level, from the bottom to the top. In practice, everybody knows that, starting from the highest international executive body, the arrow of delegation in fact runs the opposite way: the top international leadership appoints the sub-leadership, and so on and so forth. A Great Chain of Being. This is tacitly acknowledged even in the language we use in daily organizing: leadership bodies routinely speak of who they want to “develop” (i.e. promote) from the body beneath them.
(And don’t let’s start appealing to formal democracy. Such appeals are beneath the dignity of any Marxist, who must understand that the form of electoral activity is always less determining than the material content underlying it.)
Is it any surprise that, under such a system, whenever there is any real crisis that impacts the position and prestige of higher leadership, the lower officers always end up too afraid to expose and combat wrong-doing on the higher level? It would be more surprising if the opposite was the case. In such a system, conscientious leaders who scrupulously avoid flexing their privilege for ill uses may be applauded as individuals, but the system itself can never for a moment be relied upon.
I should add, tangentially, that despite the bubbling ferment among rank and file members in the various IMT national sections (only thanks to the “breaking of discipline” of people such as Jamie going public outside the proper channels), the pressure to maintain international unanimity, to not rock the boat, remains strong. The very structure of the IMT internationally means that every national section has to be considered responsible for the behavior of every other national section in the organization. Nobody is entitled to wash their hands and say, “well, the Canadian leaders are not handling abuse properly — that’s a Canadian issue; but at least, in our section…”
So we see, even on a purely organizational level, political questions are intimately tied with abuse. As far as Jamie’s programmatic critiques about the IMT’s political analysis of oppression, gender and identity goes — can anyone honestly say with a straight face that such political questions are completely unrelated to a systemic, long-standing, ongoing culture of abuse coverups? Can anyone seriously consider Jamie dragging in these so-called unrelated issues as an impermissible maneuver? The question answers itself.
Comrades in the IMT who’ve known me in the past over the years as a devoted member may be taken aback by my sudden vehemence and use of sharp invective. I’m not very good at hiding my indignation. But no matter how disagreeable my language and sarcasm may be, it is written entirely in good faith, in the sense of being driven by my sincere belief in some inalienable rules of revolutionary morality.
If I can help to provoke a little thinking, a little reflection, on some fundamental issues beyond this or that incident manifesting on the surface, then I can be satisfied that I have played my own small part.
In 2019, the International Socialist Organization, a group based in the USA, dissolved after intense crises when it was revealed that the leadership systematically covered up sexual abuse for years. To their credit, the organization actually managed via internal channels to hold the old leadership accountable and democratically replace the guilty parties with new leadership — something that the IMT is yet to demonstrate it is capable of doing.
(Edit 1: it was only after the ISO’s old guard leadership had been removed that the particular abuse case causing dissolution came out, although the former was directly related to an endemic undemocratic, bullying culture of which the latter was a symptom.)
(Edit 2:
Based on my personal conversations with Jamie.
Fightback is and always has been and barring a political revolution always will be Alex Grant's organisation. He treats it as his personal possession.