Tag Archives: law

Law on Trial: The Islamophobic University

This post was contributed by Kinnari Bhatt

Law on TrialThe School of Law kicked off its Law on Trial 2015 series of public lectures with a thought-provoking session exploring different ways in which free speech is being appropriated for Islamophobic ends.

Sarah Keenan and Nadine El-Enany, lecturers in the School of Law introduced the panellists – who combined perspectives from academia, the student voice and an advocacy organisation – Birkbeck, University de Lyon-2, NUS Black Students’ Officer and the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

The panellists were:

  • Malia Bouattia, NUS Black Students’ Officer
  • Souhail Chichah, lecturer at University de Lyon-2
  • Arzu Merali, researcher and co-founder of the Islamic Human Rights Commission
  • Nadine El-Enany, lecturer in law, Birkbeck law school

Three main issues stood out:

1) The UK counter terrorist measures – Effecting freedom of speech in the classroom

The 2015 UK Counter Terrorism and Security Act form a key part of the government’s counter radicalisation and terror measures. Section 29 imposes a legal duty on universities to monitor student activities, with the specific operationalisation measures to be elaborated in September.

Nadine discussed how these measures run the risk of breaking down the relationship of student-teacher trust, intervening in academic freedom and compromising the autonomy of the university by making it instrumental in the racialisation of Islam.

2) The targeting and creation of an Islamophobic identity – Deploying ‘post-colonial’ narratives

Superbly interesting were insights into how colonial language of ‘them and us’ is deployed in today’s liberal discourse on Islam. The jettisoning of Muslims (echoing Fanon’s colonial ‘compartmentalisation’) into ‘good’ ones who assimilate leaving no traces of Islam vs the ‘bad’ ones who choose to identify as Muslim. More of this in the next paragraph.

3) The hypocritical effects of the #Charlie Hebdo hashtag

Western dominant narrative portrayed the Charlie Hebdo attacks as part of a war on freedom and therefore, western democracy. The panel discussed how the #Je Suis Charlie became both a strategy to identify with the victims and a symbol of solidarity in the fight against ‘those’ that wish to destroy the liberal carte blanche to publish.

The panel explored how its support by predominantly white people, however well meaning, has deeply contradictory effects which need to be queried. For example, within the # we witness the silent co-option of free speech (an immensely valuable tool in its ability to check all forms of unbridled oppressive power) by primarily white individuals as a tool to defend a specific brand of hypocritical and limitless free speech.

This brand permits the publication of cartoons offensive to minorities and goes to great lengths to identify the attackers as Muslim killers (rather than people affiliated with a certain dangerous ideology) thus perpetuating racial divisions, a distinct ‘othering’ of Islamic identity which works to recreate and strengthen hierarchies of power and oppression. As Nadine pointed out, why did the media not categorise white supremacist Anders Breivik a ‘bad Christian’ (even though he portrayed himself as 100% Christian)? Interesting.

Day one of Birkbeck Law on Trial succinctly brought home a fantastic example of how the colonial logic of historical dominance under the ruse of a ‘civilising mission’ endures, now, under a rhetoric of security, protection and possibly, free speech.

The slow creation of an Islamophobic identity marks a new ‘dynamics of difference’, demarcating and racialising difference in an attempt to either assimilate or racialize the other. Colonialism has found a new laboratory.

Find out more

Share

JENGbA – Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association

Presentation at Birkbeck on Wednesday 9 May 2012; 7 – 9pm.

Debbie Johnson, a student on Birkbeck’s MA Gender, Sexuality and Culture:

The Joint Enterprise Law is hailed as the answer to ‘gang crime’ in Britain.  However, an alarming number of teenagers are currently serving life sentences for being ‘guilty by association,’ or simply being ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time.’  This includes being imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, could not have foreseen, had no intention of committing or even in numerous cases – tried to prevent happening.

JENGbA campaigners Gloria Morrison, Patricia Brown and Karen Horlock spoke at Birkbeck last Wednesday evening about the implications of the Joint Enterprise Law (JE) and why we should be concerned about its current application.

The evening began with a short film detailing the history of JE.  It is a law over 300 years old for the prevention of illegal duels holding equally culpable all in attendance, not only the combatants but also the medics or any witnesses – they would all be ‘guilty by association.’  It is this law which has re-emerged as Britain’s answer to ‘gang crime.’  However, its current application is targeting large numbers of working class families in Britain particularly those from Black, Asian and Ethnic minority groups.  JENGbA are campaigning for the reform of the Joint Enterprise Law.

Karen Horlock spoke first relating how the JE law had devastated her family.  Her son is serving a life sentence for a crime he did not commit and despite having witnesses to testify that he was not present at the crime, he was imprisoned because he knew some of the people involved and by JE law is ‘guilty by association.’  Karen questioned why her son – a 30 year old married man – has been imprisoned under an archaic law supposedly used to prevent teenaged gang crime.  Karen further explained the impossibility of the appeal process; it is inadmissible to use evidence used during the trial, you are required to find fresh evidence ‘how do you find DNA evidence to prove you weren’t there?’ said Karen to the stunned audience.

‘It encourages lazy policing,’ said JENGbA campaigner Sharon Spencer sat in the audience, the police no longer need to find evidence, you are guilty simply by knowing the person who is involved, ‘people have been imprisoned for a phone call.’

Patricia Brown then spoke about her son.  While walking home from school with a friend, they were attacked by a much older boy, Patricia’s son managed to break free, he was 15 years old at the time and ran home scared.  Later it was discovered that his friend had stabbed the older boy.  Patricia’s son was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, was not present at and – as also required by JE law – had no forethought or knowledge of.  Patricia was visibly distressed, speaking just above a whisper, she like Karen is still grappling with the enormity, and pain of what has happened to her son.

Campaign Coordinator Gloria Morrison then gave what proved to be a rousing finale to the evening.  Gloria outlined JENGbA’s aim to not only campaign for the reform of The Joint Enterprise Law but for solidarity with all miscarriages of justice.  Gloria cited many examples of social injustice against working class people including the deaths in police custody of Christopher Alder and Anthony Grainger.  She invited everyone present to JENGbA’s fundraiser on Tuesday 26 June 2012 and also an upcoming presentation on Monday 21 May 2012 to include John Carlos who performed the iconic black power salute at the 1968 Olympic Games, Doreen Lawrence the mother of murdered Stephen Lawrence and Janet Alder the sister of murdered Christopher Alder.

Liz Feteke – Director of Institute of Race Relations:

Room incredibly packed – must be seventy people.
Very diverse audience, age-wise, gender-wise, race-wise a real representative cross section of the population.  People in the audience shaking their heads when they hear the sentences of the people convicted under JE.
 
Karen Horlock explains how JE works and what happened to her son, also the lack of evidence in JE cases, and the long term impact on the health and well being of her family.
 
Patricia then spoke of her son’s case and the media handling of a high profile case.
 
More people coming in as Gloria does her ‘state of the nation’ address on JE.
 
Questions are very challenging. One lady in the audience reveals that her godson has been sentenced for 18 months for a crime he did not commit, and he has gone off the rails now. A lot of focus on the media

Anna Foldvari, Birkbeck MA student:

We heard the voice of the voiceless. Thanks to JENGbA we heard how frequently in the name of justice and order, injustice occurs in the UK. The fact about the destruction of the lives of hundreds and thousands of ordinary and innocent people and their families cannot be hidden anymore. The horrid experiences of families and innocently imprisoned people cannot be denied anymore because JENGbA and the amazing people behind it raise their voice. They are here and they are campaigning against an outdated, politically charged law which application is so very often motivated by racism and middle-class anxieties. And because change is desperately needed, responsible citizens cannot turn their head away and cannot sit with their hands folded.”

You can follow JENGbA on Twitter @JENGbA
Find JENGba on Facebook
Follow their blog.

 

 

 

 

Share

Ideology Now – part 2

This post was contributed by Nina Power, from the Department of Philosophy at Roehampton University.

What do we mean by “ideology” today? Is it possible to identify forms of contemporary ideology, or is the very discourse of ideology itself an ideological remnant of an earlier period? In the latter instance, we might talk about ideologies, plural, indicating perhaps a clash of grand narratives, communism v capitalism in the context of the Cold War perhaps being the most historically obvious: here “ideology” comes to stand in for something like a rigid set of beliefs about the way the world ought to work, which usually incorporates some kind of folded-in theory of human nature (capitalism’s idea that people are ‘naturally selfish’, for example, and that ‘markets’ are the best way of managing this ‘fact’). This understanding of ideology is frequently argued to be over, and we are imagined to now be living in an uncertain post-ideological period, where competing fragmentary ideas jostle amongst each other for perhaps temporary precedence.

Against this familiar story, we could return to the image Louis Althusser picks up from Pascal – the idea that belief is not something that pre-exists action, but something that follows from it: not believe and you will be a good Christian, but rather kneel in prayer enough times and then you will believe. Here ideology is conceived as a material practice, reinforced by repetition and a context in which that repetition has a framework to support it. Spinoza poses the problem in a slightly different way in his theory of knowledge: here ideology is something like a way of understanding the world that ‘works’ but is false – not an illusion exactly, which is sometimes where discussions of ideology end up, but a way of structuring what happens in such a way as to make it seem superficially plausible (thinking that the legal system is ‘fair’ for example, because you agree with its verdict most of the time, while not stopping to ask larger questions about who benefits, the plausibility and nature of the laws themselves, or the likely outcomes for those accused of ‘breaking’ them).

In my paper on the ideology of law and order I picked up a slightly different idea: that ideology is perhaps rather not thinking about something really, really hard, in such a way that it doesn’t come into vision at all, except for if and when it directly affects you. Here it seems to me that the law is precisely this kind of gigantic purloined letter, indirectly conditioning what we do (or really what we don’t do), but not being visible for the most part (the same of course goes for its agents, the police and its buildings, prisons). So while we might know on one level that the police are rarely, if ever, held accountable for the people who die in their custody, for example, the idea that this might be because of a combination of police violence and corruption, racism and legal unaccountability is pushed behind the idea of individuals – the rotten apple police officer, the hint of suspicion that the victim was most likely up to no good, and so on. Otherwise the whole edifice – state ‘protection’, ‘justice’ ‘equality before the law’ – starts to look shaky…it seems to me that the law and its enforcement is most definitely hidden in plain sight, and just as following the economic crash, all the mystified terms of economic skill were revealed to be little more than a pile of Ponzi schemes with some computers attached, the law, used ever-increasingly against those who are protesting against the effects of the austerity measures imposed as a result of the crash, and always used against those the police deem to be ‘pre-criminal’ in one way or another is a form of contemporary ideology we would do well to pay much closer attention to…

Share