Normfest memorial

This is a little late but after this event last month I "Ken Biked" to a "real-world celebration of Norm and his blogging".

Norman Geras, Marxist professor, Cricket fan, supporter of the invasion in Iraq and author of "Normblog" died of cancer last month aged 70.

This event was organised by fellow Euston Manifesto-ite Paul Evans at the Yorkshire Grey Pub in central London.

I was late but the event was still busy and it was striking to see so many people with a wide range of views gathering in appreciation of one incredibly honest, lucid and intelligent blogger.

Check out the tributes at Normfest.

Norman Geras: 1943-2013

The blogging world is a lesser place tonight. Prolific political blogger, Norman Geras, Manchester University Politics Professor has died.

I once heard him speak at a Euston Manifesto conference during which he described the SWP (Socialist Workers Party) as not socialists because they don't believe in democracy, not workers since they are middle class and not a party but a cult.  I never spoke to him, but I have long admired his numerous clever and insightful posts on "Normblog".

He has been described since his death as "Marxist Blairite" which is pretty weird but probably on balance true.  But his intelligent, questioning nature, fundamental decency and hatred of oppression shone through. I did not agree with everything he said but there is no denying his intellect and the power of his arguments.

"I am very sad to announce that Norm died in Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge in the early hours of this morning. Writing this blog, and communicating with all his readers, has brought him an enormous amount of pleasure in the last ten years. I know that since writing here about his illness earlier in the year he received a lot of support from many of you, and that has meant a great deal to him, and to us, his family. The blog and all its archives will remain online.

Jenny Geras (Norm's daughter), 18 October 2013

Update: Check out normfest

Euston Manifesto Conference - Multiculturalism and Democracy

The second speaker in last week’s conference was Shalom Lapping (Kings College London). Shalom started off making a point that in this country, multiculturalism does not usually refer to Scots, Irish or the Welsh unlike in Canada, instead it’s used to refer to immigration and religion. There are two main attacks on multiculturalism. On the Right, it is seen as a failure of (Muslim) immigrants to integrate themselves into the host society which results in a breakdown of social cohesion. This results in separatism and ends in jihad. e.g. Melanie Phillips (Daily Hate). While on the left “communalism” politics breaks down social cohesion e.g. faith based schools. While some on the extreme left support it as some sort of “weapon in the anti-imperialistic struggle” to overcome western values.

Shalom believes that there has been confusion about cultural views and political values. Religion may cause cultural separation but if you look at examples across the world this doesn’t necessary mean violence or terrorism. For example, the Amish in USA are very radical cultural separatists yet are usually thought to be a benign and positive force. As are orthodox Jews etc. So any “problem” about “Islamism” is not necessary religious. Also, in the USA 53% of immigrants are from Latin America. None of the (many) debates about this immigration is concerned with political extremism. While in the UK many recent immigrants have been Muslims but in the future it is likely to be Catholic or Orthodox East Europeans. Radical “Islamism” in this country is also usually supported by “first generation” Muslims born in this country (July 7 murders) who are by definition not immigrants. Therefore it is not a problem of immigration as such. Radical Islamism is a political problem, it is an extremist totalitarian movement that not only does not want to live alongside other but wants to force itself on societies. That is the crucial difference.

Shalom says “Don’t confuse the arguments” Cultural difference is not a concession to immigrants it is a “fundamental part of democracy". Opposing the Muslim brotherhood is not racism or “Islamophobia”. We must respect and celebrate cultural differences. Islamic terrorists like all terrorists, take advantage of economic poverty and deprivation. To tackle terrorism you must pursue progressive democratic economic policies. Get rid of the poverty and you will get rid of the terrorists.

(grayee) I hope that I haven’t too much mangled Shalom’s arguments. I thought it was a magnificent defence of multiculturalism and democracy. Some of his arguments I felt went a bit too far such as supporting the Amish constitutional right to withdraw their kids from secondary school education. However, I am convinced that home grown terrorism in this country is rooted in political extremism and it is the extremism and its causes that must be tackled.

Next post will be on big bad Fred Halliday "Solidarities Simple and Complex"

Euston Manifesto Conference – Deficits of International Law

The first speaker at the conference was Norman Geras (University of Manchester). As mentioned in my previous post I was late and missed the beginning. His subject was not arguing over the pro’s and con’s of any particular military intervention (such as Iraq war), rather he was concerned with defects in international law which in his view, do not prevent genocide taking place. Current International law should not only be about punishing human rights violators (however imperfectly - the various current war crime tribunals), rather its should be about preventing or stopping the abuse taking place in the first place.

He argues there is an existing international duty to intervene in cases of “genocide”. He explained that under existing international law there is a big problem, since the international community requires the same standard of proof for intervention as for prosecution. What this means is that after a massacre, such as what happened in Rwanda, there will be physical proof, “beyond reasonable doubt”, that illegal “genocide” has taken place (loads and loads of dead bodies). However, the same standard of proof is needed to even contemplate action to prevent genocide which is actually taking place (Darfur?). What this means in practice is that under international law individual countries or the UN will not have clear legal authority to intervene until the bodies can be stacked up and counted. Which is of course nonsense? This will not usually happen since it is often impossible to gather evidnce to a standard “beyond reasonable doubt” in such circumstances. I think he suggested that intervention action should be allowable on a “balance of probability” basis. What we would want as internationalists is the ability to support intervention (preferably but not exclusively by non western powers organised by the UN) in developing countries to tackle genocide not just try to prosecute the ring leaders at a later date. Makes sense to me.

He recognised that there are problems. Should the “duty to intervene” be supported by sanctions against countries who refuse to play their part? However, he did end on a positive note. Despite the repeated failure of the international community to stop genocide since 1945 there had been genuine steps forward. Much more however needs to be done.

Solidarity and Rights: Euston Manifesto One Year On

On Wednesday (afternoon and evening) I went to the first “Euston Manifesto” conference held at the SOAS, University of London. It was sold out. I arrived a bit late and the lecture theatre was packed with people, many were sittings on the isles or standing at the sides. There was a notably good mix of people (age, sex and race). I really enjoyed the conference even though some of it made my head hurt. I accept that many will be unclear about what the Euston Manifesto stands for – this is the preamble from the website

“We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.”

They are "For democracy, No apology for tyranny, Human rights for all, Equality, Development for freedom, Opposing anti-Americanism, For a two-state solution Against racism, United against terror, A new internationalism, A critical openness, Freedom of ideas, Open source and A precious heritage"

There are nearly 3000 signatures to the Euston Manifesto. A left wing mate who heard I was attending this conference suggested that I had become a “liberal tankie” (discuss)

There were five main speakers. I will try to make relevant comments (my own personal interpretations of course) on each of the speakers during the next week or so.