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

On justifying military intervention in Syria

Sense about a very sensitive issue from Norman Geras at normblog. "The signs are now clear that Washington and other Western powers, including Britain, are considering military action against Syria on account of the regime's apparent use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Would such action be justified? In the debate about this at least three types of issue are centrally involved: (1) whether there is a basis in international law for military intervention; (2) whether it is likely to do any good; and (3) whether it might be merited in any case on retributive grounds.

(1) My own view on whether there is a basis in international law for humanitarian intervention in situations of this kind is that there is. As I have already stated this view at some length, I will be brief on the present occasion. There is not only a right, there is a duty, of humanitarian intervention when a government is committing mass atrocities against a civilian population. This can be established by reference both to customary international law and to the doctrine of A Responsibility to Protect, underwritten by the UN. The question, in particular, of whether a UN resolution mandating intervention is required can be quickly answered - no - for a reason given here: 'The U.N. Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate'. To put the same thing another way: a system of law that would countenance mass atrocity without any remedy simply because the interests of a veto-wielding power at the UN blocks remedial action is morally unacceptable, indeed intolerable; and so where the UN itself becomes delinquent by not upholding some of its own most fundamental principles, the UN not only may, it should, be defied by member states willing to give those principles more respect.

(2) However, integral to the doctrines of humanitarian intervention and R2P alike is the requirement that a prospective military intervention should have a reasonable chance of success. Intervention is not to be contemplated without regard to the likely consequences. In the present case, this is, in my view, the most difficult of the three issues to resolve. Would military intervention against Syria now do any good? That depends, of course, on what its objectives are: whether to influence the overall outcome of the civil war in that country; or merely to weaken the regime's military capabilities; or to deter it from further gas attacks on the Syrian people; etc. I don't propose to offer answers on each different conception of possible objectives. Indeed I don't know that I can. My earlier uncertainties over Syria have not dissipated. But, in any case, one should note that intervention may be justified even if the overall balance of consequences is not beneficial.

(3) For intervention may be undertaken on retributive grounds, to punish a regime that so blatantly flouts the norms of international humanitarian law and the principles of all civilized morality. It may be regarded as morally unthinkable that such a regime should be able to commit gross crimes against humanity with impunity - without being made to suffer any significant penalty. In this situation military intervention is undertaken as a reprisal (scroll to the end) for the crimes committed.

How one weighs the force of (3) against that of (2) in a case where there may be negative consequences I am unsure. But it is these considerations rather than UN authorization or lack of it that should take precedence.

Normblog on train travel

Sound coaching "Returning south yesterday after completing on the sale of our house in Manchester, I arrived at Piccadilly station just in time for the train about to depart for Euston, and so got on the first carriage I saw with an empty seat. It was Virgin Trains' Coach N - the 'noisy coach'. I assumed that the 'noisy' in this designation was permissive rather than mandatory, and settled down quietly to read, while all about me a terrible racket prevailed. One guy was calling across the length of the carriage to a friend of his at the other end; they were bewailing the poor fortunes of Liverpool FC. Opposite me a young person was listening to music that leaked out of her earphones. And in the seat next to mine a man was speaking into his mobile thus: 'Daphne, hi, it's Nick. Please set up a meeting between me, John, Tracy and Attila - for next Thursday. I want to scope out a proposal.' Despite my difficulties in concentrating, I read my book. But not for long. I soon discovered my mistake. Noisiness in Coach N isn't an option, it's an obligation. In no time half the people there were shouting at me to stop being so quiet. 'Who the bloody hell do you think you are? Make a noise, will you.' At first I demurred; but the conductor was soon called and he made it plain to me - loudly - what my duty was. What's more, he said I now owed the other customers an apology.

This I uttered, or rather muttered, but evidently too quietly. A woman in red shouted back at me, 'In Coach N a quiet apology is no apology.' So, raising my voice, I repeated, 'I'm very sorry'. 'Louder,' they all cried. 'SORRY!' I yelled now at the top of my voice. I was evicted from Coach N. My yelled apology, though loud and noisy enough at last, was held by the assembled shouters not to count, since though it met the noise-requirements of the coach, it wasn't any longer in the proper spirit of an apology, since an apology loses its persuasiveness (as genuine) once yelled. Readers, imagine my humiliation. Evicted.

I did the only thing I could in the circumstances and made my way to Coach Q, the 'quiet coach'. Here, to my horror, there was no less noise than in Coach N. One guy was berating another for snoring in the quiet coach and a woman was shouting into her iPhone, 'Hello Nick, yes it's Daphne. Attila can't get there on Thursday; he's making sausages. He asks if it's OK for Cecily to stand in for him - well, sit in.' I became more and more irritated. When Bearded Bob pulled out a guitar and started to give his rendition of 'Never On Sunday', I in my turn demanded an apology - for so much noise in the quiet coach (ha ha ha). No apology was forthcoming. My fellow travellers, if such they can be called, all insisted - decibels flying - that an apology from them was bound to be worthless because, if quiet, it would not be heard, and if noisy, it wouldn't be in the true spirit of an apology.

I reflected on the perils of train travel and from then on kept my own counsel, but noisily enough to avoid getting into further trouble".

Brill. Been there Norm as well and got tee shirt.  Mind you sometimes (when younger) I've been one of the noisy ones.

Pathway to the stars

Hat-tip Normblog - I think we've all been there one way or other recently.  I am also very proud of my clear household pathway which cost me a little bit of work and handfuls of cooking salt. But no one has commented on it either!

Life is forever posing new challenges. You were aware of that, I know. But it doesn't do any harm to be reminded of it.

Yesterday, I'm sitting there, quietly minding my own business, when I hear metal upon stone. Scrape, scrape, clang, scrape. I look out of the window and see my neighbour. He's clearing a path through the snow from his gate to his front door. Now how does that make us look? I confer with WotN. We agree - we can't be shown up, and anyway it will be good to have a clear path. It will be good for us, good for the postman and the milkman, good for other stray wanderers up what will once again be the path to our front door.

So, mid-afternoon, we were both out there, two OAPs, with shovel and garden broom. If he can do it, so can we. After half an hour, though, it became clear that our path was never going to look as good as his. His was wide, ours was narrow. His was freshly paved, ours old and a bit bumpy. If anyone was going to be dishing out prizes, we would come second at best. But then it occurred to us both: we could grit our pathway. And so we did. It doesn't look as good as his, but it sure as hell is grittier.

I keep looking out at it, to take pride in what we've achieved. Every now and again I go out and walk up and down it, to demonstrate to passers-by how secure a footing it provides. They don't even look at me. I'm considering accosting people, and inviting them to try walking up our path. The best footing you'll find in south Manchester.

Norm doesn't do pictures so neither will I on this occasion.

Happy Labour Day – Workin’ Man – Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

A very Happy Labour (Labor) Day to all those across the pond. Hat-tip thingy to Norm.

This is my first ever link to Mr Geras who I heard speaking to a Euston Manifesto meeting a few years back.

I have a RSS feed to his site but he is a very scary blogger for these reasons:-

1. He does so,so many posts – For example 9 in the past 36 hours!!!
2. He is said to be a admirer of Tony Blair despite being a Marxist (but he hates the SWP “not socialists, not workers and not a Party”)
3. He loves cricket and also blogs about it on his site.

nuff said!

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.