From alienation to participation - an evening of discussion and interchange.

The economic or social model that is discussed day after day by the opinion-makers is not the central interest for the new generations; rather, they wish that institutions and leaders were not just one more encumbrance in this already complicated world. They are looking for a new alternative, because to them today’s models seem worn out and they are unwilling to follow ideas or leaderships that do not coincide with their new sensibility. Guest speakers include: Tomás Hirsch of the Humanist Party of Chile who was the presidential candidate in the recent Chilean elections for a coalition of over 50 left-wing parties and grass-roots social organisations.

The coalition called “Juntos Podemos Mas” (“Together We Can Do More”) achieved 5.4% of the vote (over 500,000 votes) and managed to create a strong reference and alternative to the neo-liberal platform that prevails in Chile since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. During the campaign Tomás made an extraordinary impact on the youth with all organisations in the coalition noting a marked increase in participation.

Josie Appleton is convenor of the Manifesto Club, a new humanist political association (www.manifestoclub.com). The Manifesto Club is a group of individuals seeking to formulate a progressive, human-centred politics for the twenty-first century. The club is concerned about the loss of faith in the history-making potential of people, and believes that old political models no longer offer ways forward. It is calling on like-minded individuals and associations to collaborate in formulating a positive alternative. Over the next few months it will be holding online and live debates, culminating in a manifesto.
(Contact: info@manifestoclub.com)

An open meeting Wednesday 29th March 2006

Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn, London WC1 — 7pm to 10pm

Download the pdf here

contact: jon@centreofcultures.org.uk

New Humanism and the Cartoons of Mohammed.

We must begin by condemning the violence of the establishment manifest in this issue for surely it is the establishment and its representatives who choose what and where to publish, the establishment which opens and closes doors according to its own particular interests.

And it is a pre-existing situation of power, as the imposition of an intention, that is central because neither the “ordinary” citizens of Denmark nor “ordinary” Muslims have choice or influence in these issues.

There are a variety of different interests that can the taken as the starting point to explore (and justify) the various points of view expressed but blaming the provocations of a rightwing press or the violence of fundamentalists takes us nowhere. We need to search for ways to develop meaningful dialogue not confrontation. We need to search for ways to end the violence which is rooted in the daily life of all regions of the world not inflame it.

As humanists our starting point is always the Human being. And where is the human being in all the kafuffle over the Cartoons? In simple terms, nowhere to be seen.

We hear all sorts of high minded (but abstract) words about “human rights” about “freedom of speech”, “democracy” and many more. But the simple fact is that without human beings at their centre these words are empty and meaningless.

The activities surrounding the publication of the Cartoons serve only to confirm the individualism and individualistic point of view which is so prevalent today. Many years ago it was discovered that the earth was not the centre of the universe and that the sun does not rotate around it. It seems as human beings we still have to make a similar leap with respect to our own existence and understand our destiny as a particular case of a much wider destiny.

Human rights and freedoms do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in a world. A world of other people who also have rights. The question is how do we approach the management of those rights? Where do “my” rights end and the rights of “others” begin?

For humanists this is easy because it is not an abstract philosophical matter. It is an existential matter. And one that begins and ends with understanding how we like to be treated and using that as a guide for developing a way of treating others.

It is developing this point of view and its related style of life that leads us away from violent confrontation towards compassion and solidarity. Violence will continue to colour all social activity as long as we do not in this way realize a fully human society.

The Centre of Cultures, London

Multi-culturalism and Mr Tebbit.

Norman Tebbit has again demonstrated his arrogance, intellectual limitations and short-sightedness in his recent attack on unreformed Islam and his proposed ‘cricket test’ which he naively believes may have stopped the London bombings if his earlier words had been heeded.

When we talk about the vital situation in which we are immersed today we must accept that we live in a moment of rupture in the beliefs and cultural assumptions that formed us. We live in a world where no one knows today what’s going to happen tomorrow, but some people (for example Mr Tebbit) assume that civilization and its cultural correlates will continue in a direction of predictable growth within a long-established economic, social and cultural model.

We need to improve our democracy. We call for an open and public inquiry and the resignation of those responsible, the Home Secretary and the Chief of the Metropolitan Police.

Yesterday’s leaked revelations are enough to show clearly that a closed and long drawn-out inquiry is not what is required in front of the shameful murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by officers of the Metropolitan Police Force.

Questions need to be answered publicly and quickly and those responsible, if found wanting, need to publicly accept their failures and resign.

How are the politicians thinking of ending the violence?

We should remind ourselves that the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes arose out of a response to a terrorist attack on the public transport system in London. An attack we utterly condemn. But how are the politicians thinking of ending the violence?