The end of tolerance: new discourses of racism, migration and the state in Britain, 1997-2008

This submission - one self-authored book and six refereed journal articles - constitutes a study of new racialised policy and media discourses that have emerged between 1997 and 2008 around the themes of community cohesion, managed migration and Britishness. It is argued that these discourses mark a new era in British 'race relations', breaking with an earlier consensus that had been forged in the late 1960s. As part of this discursive shift, an older notion of 'integration' as social, economic and political inclusion, to be effected by anti-discrimination legislation, multicultural tolerance and political representation, gave way to a new notion of'integration' defined as the adoption of 'British values', to be effected by oaths of allegiance, citizenship tests and various other techniques for reshaping the cultures and values of minority communities, particularly Muslims. Alongside this redefinition of integration was a shift in the central axis of 'race relations' from white-black to western-Muslim, and from a view of minority cultural identity as a stabilising force to one in which it was seen as threatening and needing clear limits placed on it. As well as resulting in new forms of racism against Muslims and asylum seekers, this shift has also gone hand in hand with new apparatuses of policing directed at these groups. Following a theoretical approach drawn from the work of A. Sivanandan, this political and social transition is analysed in the context of linked changes in global political economy and the resulting neoliberal transformation of the state, in particular through the politics of New Labour. Critical discourse analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation are the methods used to describe and analyse these new discourses of racism, migration and the state, and their interaction with the experiences of various racialised groups

UK: racial violence and the night-time economy

This article examines fifty-five racist attacks over a six-month period in the UK’s night-time economy, showing the risks faced by members of the public and workers at taxi firms, takeaways, convenience stores and service stations. It argues that flexible and highly casualised labour conditions exacerbate the risk of racial violence

Britain: racial violence and the politics of hate

Drawing on empirical research into racist attacks in three cities in England, this article reveals a changing geography of racial violence (in terms of new areas and targets), and sets this in the context of the socially destructive impact of neoliberalism as well as government policies to manage the UK’s changing demographic make-up. With racial violence officially defined as a form of ‘hate crime’, it is divorced from any wider political context or racialised climate and reduced to a matter of individual pathology. The changing parameters of racism and the state’s responses present a challenge which the Left and anti-racists have been slow to meet

Torture and the UK’s “war on asylum”: medical power and the culture of disbelief

When the now ‘iconic’ images of shackled, humiliated and dehumanised detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison complex in Iraq were broadcast globally, in the mid-2000s, the relationship between medical power and torture in the “war on terror” was also thrust sharply into focus. Graphic images of coalition troops photographing and posing in front of hooded, naked prisoners forced into a “human pyramid”, and of people made to wear animal collars, indicated a regime in which degradation had a defining role. The photograph of a soldier gloating over the corpse of a man who had died as a result of torture was just one picture of a network of interrogation camps in which detention by coalition forces could be fatal. Yet if there were any expectations that the presence of medical personnel may have checked this violence, these were shattered by the fact that clinicians – in some cases at least – were integral to its practice. «It is now beyond doubt that Armed Forces physicians, psychologists, and medics were active and passive partners in the systematic neglect and abuse of war on terror prisoners», wrote Steven Miles in 2009 (Miles 2009, X). And as he continued, this involved providing interrogators «with medical information to use in setting the nature and degree of physical and psychological abuse during interrogations». It involved monitoring «interrogations to devise ways to break prisoners down or to keep them alive». It involved pathologists holding back death certificates and autopsy reports in order to minimise the number of fatalities or cover up torture-related deaths as deaths by natural causes (Ibid). Procedures including «cramped confinement, dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding» were among the practices that were «at times (…) legally sanctioned due to medical supervision» in the context of the “war on terror”, according to Hoffman (2011, 1535). He continued to suggest that doctors are not just important to «modern torture methods», they are «irreplaceable». In this context, the “war on terror” is no aberration. As the revolutionary psychoanalyst and philosopher Frantz Fanon documented in 1959, for example, certain medical practitioners had an integral role in the military occupation of Algeria, and «There are, for instance, psychiatrists … known to numerous prisoners», he suggested, «who have given electric shock treatments to the accused and have questioned them during the waking phase, which is characterized by a certain confusion, a relaxation of resistance, a disappearance of the person's defences.» (Fanon 1959/1965, 138). Indeed, in his analysis of the Algerian revolution, he discussed how resistance to and struggles over the meanings of medical power were integral to the revolution itself. However, while the role of medical power in the practice of torture has been subjected to sustained critique in the context of the “war on terror”, what follows examines the relationship between medical power and torture in the context of what has been depicted – metaphorically – as another (although to some extents related) “war”: the “war” on asylum. According to the UNHCR (2017, 3), between 5 and 35 per cent of those asylum seekers who have been granted refugee status have survived torture. And focusing on the UK as a case study, this chapter examines the institutional and legal structures prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, particularly as they apply to those subject to immigration control in this context. But further, it also examines the ideological and political conditions within which claims by those seeking asylum that they have been subjected to torture prior to arrival can be (and have been) ignored, downplayed and denied. It examines how medical expertise has frequently been undermined in the asylum process when this expertise is utilised to add weight to asylum seekers’ claims to have experienced torture. It examines how there have been attempts to narrow the definition of torture in ways which exclude people from the protections to which torture survivors are entitled. But it also explores the ways in which segments of the medical profession have been complicit in riding roughshod over existing safeguards to prevent further harm to those who have experienced torture, thus potentially compounding its effects. In particular, it examines claims that in certain contexts clinicians have administered dangerous “care” in order to ensure the removal of people from the UK, despite them claiming that they – or their family members – face serious harm and persecution on arrival as a result of this. In a historical discussion of medical involvement in torture, Giovanni Maio (2001, 1609) has noted that from its earliest incarnations one of the features of torture has been its use as an «oppressive instrument used in the preservation of power». Furthermore, whilst methods of torture have certainly «developed», and continue to do so, he argues, this «function» of torture is «especially relevant today». This chapter argues that the (mis)treatment of those in the UK who say they have been tortured, preserves and is bound up with a particular manifestation of state power: the aims, rationale and dictates of immigration control. Its claims are perhaps much more mundane than the forms of direct medical complicity in torture alluded to above. But they are nonetheless important. For it is argued that the acts of omission and commission documented in this chapter expose the tensions between the rights of certain “categories” of migrants to be afforded adequate clinical care on the one hand, and the goals and aims of immigration control itself on the other. This poses profound questions about the functions of clinical care and the ethical duties, responsibilities and obligations of clinicians, it is suggested. But as this chapter also crucially explores, this is a form of power that many within the medical profession have historically challenged, and continue to do so

Crypto and empire: the contradictions of counter-surveillance advocacy

Since Edward Snowden’s revelations of US and UK surveillance programs, privacy advocates, progressive security engineers, and policy makers have been seeking to win majority support for countering surveillance. The problem is framed as the replacement of targeted surveillance with mass surveillance programs, and the solutions put forward are predominantly technical and involve the use of encryption – or ‘crypto’ – as a defense mechanism. The counter-surveillance movement is timely and deserves widespread support. However, as this article will argue and illustrate, raising the specter of an Orwellian system of mass surveillance, shifting the discussion to the technical domain, and couching that shift in economic terms undermine a political reading that would attend to the racial, gendered, classed, and colonial aspects of the surveillance programs. Our question is as follows: how can this specific discursive framing of counter-surveillance be re-politicized and broadened to enable a wider societal debate informed by the experiences of those subjected to targeted surveillance and associated state violence

School de-segregation and the Politics of ‘Forced Integration’

Using the programme for creating the controversial school academies, local governments in the UK have attempted to force an integration of schools with majority white and ethnic minority pupil cohorts via new mergers. This has largely been as a response to analysts’ fears about self-segregation and insufficient community cohesion, following riots in northern towns in 2001 and the spectre of radicalisation among young Muslims following 9/11 and 7/7. An examination of school mergers in Burnley, Blackburn, Leeds and Oldham reveals how they have amplified racial attacks on Muslim pupils and their feelings of insecurity, while also fuelling a backlash against what is perceived by some members of the white working class as a form of social engineering that endangers white privilege