Disconnected Citizenship?
The Impacts of Anti-terrorism Policy on Citizenship in the
UK
Lee Jarvis (Swansea University) & Michael Lister (Oxford Brookes University)
This is the submitted, pre-print, version of a paper subsequently published under Jarvis, Lee
and Lister, Michael (2013) ‘Disconnected Citizenship: The Impacts of Anti-terrorism Policy
on Citizenship in the UK’, In Political Studies, Vol 61/Issue 3, pp.656-675. The full,
published version of the article is available at URL:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00993.x/abstract
Disconnected Citizenship?
The Impacts of Anti-terrorism Policy on Citizenship in the
UK
Lee Jarvis (Swansea University) & Michael Lister (Oxford Brookes University)
This article draws on primary focus group data from the UK to offer three contributions to recent debate on the
impact of anti-terrorism measures on citizenship. Firstly, it presents a qualitatively rich account of citizens’ own
perspectives on this relationship to complement existing, largely conceptual, understandings. Secondly, it
explores the significance of ethnic identity in public attitudes, in order to complement recent research on
religion and Muslim communities more specifically. Finally it traces the implications of anti-terrorism
initiatives upon multiple dimensions of citizenship including participation, identity and duties, as much as
rights. The article argues that citizens from a range of ethnic minority backgrounds and thus, not only Muslims,
believe anti-terrorism measures have directly curtailed and diminished their citizenship. This is in contrast to
white participants, who, whilst not untroubled about the impact of these measures, generally viewed this as a
concern distanced from their everyday lives. This difference suggests that anti-terrorism measures may be
contributing to a condition of disconnected citizenship in the UK. Some individuals enjoy greater confidence in
their rights, appear relatively unaffected in terms of their participation and identity, and are content to take up
particular duties. For others, in contrast, the perception of diminished rights and targeting by the state
contributes to a limiting of political engagement and declining sense of belonging.
Keywords: anti-terrorism; citizenship; rights; participation; identity
The ten years since the 9/11 attacks have been marked by the introduction of a spread of new
anti-terrorism powers across the globe (for overviews see Cole, 2003; Haubrich, 2003; Banks
et al, 2008; Walker, 2009; Jackson et al, 2011, pp. 222-48). In the UK alone, four major new
Acts have been passed uprating prior legislation in this area,i while 2011 witnessed
publication of the third version of the UK government’s CONTEST strategy for combating
terrorism. These initiatives, which brought into being a (now repealed) power of detention
without charge for foreign nationals, increased pre-charge detention periods, a control orders
regime, and a swathe of new community resilience initiatives, have been widely critiqued on
two levels. The first concerns their impact on fundamental citizenship rights and the second,
their consequences upon particular minority populations deemed ‘suspect’ or risky (for
example, Said, 2004; Sivanandan, 2006; Gearty, 2007; Choudhury & Fenwick, 2011). These
critiques, moreover, have contributed to urgent normative debates on the existence or
otherwise of a balance between liberty and security in the context of ostensibly new threats
(compare Waldron, 2003; Meisels, 2008; Neocleous, 2007).
Less well understood to date, however, is the impact of this new anti-terrorism
architecture on citizenship as a lived, enacted experience, or its impact upon citizens’ views
of citizenship and associated norms and practices. Our argument in this article is that a full
understanding of the consequences of anti-terrorism policies upon public life necessitates
reflection on precisely such questions. For, as Isin (2008, p.17) points out, citizenship is a
subjective and performative concept as much as a formal legal status. It is a practice, put
otherwise, that is determined, in large part, by its habituations and enactments which cannot
be read off from legal frameworks alone; however dramatic transformations therein might be.
In order to explore these questions, this article reports on a recent empirical study
examining British citizens’ attitudes to, and conceptions of, security, citizenship and antiterrorism policy. The discussion begins by outlining the relevant policy context, before
reviewing existing scholarship on the anti-terrorism/citizenship nexus. We argue that
although there is much to commend in this work, its broadly conceptual emphasis could be
usefully supplemented in two ways. The first is via further engagement with citizens’ own
perspectives on these measures and their impacts; the second, through further comparative
study to contextualise the wealth of recent research on Muslim communities. A second
section then introduces the project on which this article draws, before turning to an analysis
of our findings in an effort to fill these lacunae. As detailed below, the research employed
focus groups with individuals of different ethnic identities and geographic residence
throughout the UK. Our findings suggest that for some – generally (but not exclusively)
white individuals – the impact of anti-terrorism measures on citizenship is limited. Others –
primarily, but not exclusively ethnic minority participants – noted a significant erosion or
attenuation of citizenship. This, we conclude, poses potentially negative consequences for all
citizens in the longer-term.
The research presented in this article therefore seeks to contribute to existing literature
in three ways. It does so, first, by adding an empirical, qualitative depth to legal/theoretical
accounts of the consequences of contemporary anti-terrorism measures. This, we suggest,
offers a richer and more detailed understanding of how such measures impact upon citizens,
and upon citizenship as a practice. Second, it adds sophistication to explorations of the
connections between anti-terrorism policy and citizenship more specifically. By exploring
conversations around issues of rights, participation, identity and duties that took place in our
focus groups, it aims to offer an account of this relationship that extends beyond the dominant
focus on rights or liberties in recent debate. And, third, it adds breadth to this literature by
exploring the impact of anti-terrorism measures on British publics beyond Muslim
individuals and groups.
Citizenship in a time of terror
Existing literature on citizenship and contemporary anti-terrorism policy almost wholly
emphasises the latter’s negative impact on the former. In this section, we begin our discussion
with a brief review of the UK policy context before sketching four particularly prominent
lines of critique.
The UK Policy Context
As noted above, recent years have witnessed a dramatic expansion of the UK’s domestic antiterrorism architecture, with the four new Acts of Parliament themselves following an earlier
major redrafting of anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the Terrorism Act (2000). At a
policy level, the overarching framework for this transformation has been the Home Office’s
CONTEST strategy. Introduced in 2003, developed in its current formulation in 2006, and
revised in 2009 and 2011, the strategy combines four alliterative ‘workstreams’: Pursue,
Prevent, Protect and Prepare (Home Office, 2011). As a bridge between intelligence,
homeland security and conciliatory approaches to counter-terrorism (Jackson et al, 2011, pp.
224-229), CONTEST aims to, ‘...reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from
terrorism’ (Home Office, 2011, p. 9) via, amongst other things, a strengthening of detection
and prosecution powers, an increased emphasis on community resilience to ‘violent
extremism’, a reduction of critical national infrastructure vulnerability, and an improvement
in post-attack recovery capabilities.
Of the four workstreams, it is Prevent that has attracted the most controversy to date.
Originally titled Preventing Violent Extremism, this strand of CONTEST constitutes a
locally-oriented, community-focused ‘hearts and minds’ based anti-terrorism approach
(Lowndes & Thorp, 2010, p. 123; Thomas & Sanderson, 2011, p.230). One that is targeted at,
‘...increasing the resilience and addressing the grievances of communities, and...identifying
vulnerable individuals, as well as challenging and disrupting ideologies sympathetic to
violent extremism’ (Thomas, 2010, p. 444). £6 million was initially allocated under this
initiative (Stevens, 2009, p. 517); reserved for local authorities with populations comprising
at least 5 percent of Muslims (Lowndes & Thorp, 2010, p. 124). This allocation was
expanded in 2008 to a three-year £45 million fund for all local authorities with 4,000 or more
Muslims (Thomas, 2010, p. 443).
Criticisms of Prevent to date have targeted its rationale and implementation alike.
Thomas (2009, 2010), for example, has critiqued its exclusive emphasis on Muslim
communities; an emphasis that contradicts broader governmental priorities of community
cohesion based on inter-ethnic contact. Lowndes and Thorp (2010) point to an internal
tension between community capacity building and risk reduction (also Thomas, 2010); a
tension that required active negotiation ‘on the ground’ in the initiative’s regional
implementation. While Stevens (2009; 2011), finally, has questioned Prevent’s underlying
assumption that specific religious ideas function as stimulants of violent extremism; a critique
wrapped within a broader concern over the legitimacy and utility of state intervention in
matters of religion. At a political level, the new coalition government itself labelled previous
incarnations of Prevent, ‘flawed’ (Home Office, 2011, p. 6). As a consequence, following a
2011 review, this workstream’s focus has shifted. Explicit now is an effort to separate
Prevent’s integration and anti-extremism functions, and an emphasis on the significance of
non-violent extremism: both in its own right and as a precursor to terrorist activities (Home
Office, 2011, pp. 61-62).
The UK, of course, has been far from unique in dramatically revisiting its antiterrorism architecture since 9/11. For some, indeed, developments such as the above are less
draconian than equivalent policy initiatives of other states (Thomas, 2010, p.444). Yet,
wherever we position the UK in comparative context (see, for example, Roach, 2007), it
certainly constitutes one example of a post-9/11 evolution toward an increasingly
uncompromising suite of anti-terrorism initiatives (Jackson et al, 2011, pp.229-241). In the
remainder of this section, we therefore introduce four key criticisms of the impacts of this
upon citizenship within the UK and beyond.
Diminishment of Citizenship Rights
Much of the academic literature exploring anti-terrorism and citizenship argues that
legislation and policy measures introduced under the ‘war on terror’ have brought about a
diminishment of citizenship, such that basic rights have become more precarious and,
perhaps, conditional.ii Haque, for example, reviewing post-9/11 developments, argues that
basic rights are being eroded, producing ‘weak citizenship’ (2002, p. 175). Cole (2003, p. 3),
similarly, argues that anti-terrorism measures in the United States, ‘…compromise our most
basic principles – commitment to equal treatment, political freedoms, individualised justice
and the rule of law’. Huq & Muller (2008) point to a diminishment of due process within the
US, and the impact of this upon citizenship rights, while Guild et al (2007), surveying
European anti-terrorism policies, note the removal of rights for those suspected of terrorism
offences and the wider implications of recent enhancements in surveillance and data storage
measures. In the UK context, likewise, Gillespie & O’Loughlin (2009), through an
assessment of attitudes to security and media representations, argue that citizenship has
become, ‘increasingly, fragile and precarious’ (p. 89). As they insightfully note, however,
changes to the experience of citizenship are likely to be both complex and contingent,
where,‘[T]he precariousness of citizenship is articulated in different terms depending on
whether one is talking from a position of relative power and privilege or from a position of
relative marginalisation and financial insecurity’ (p. 101).
‘Suspect Communities’
Although the above scholarship identifies a general decline in citizenship as a result of antiterrorism measures, some recent literature has focused on the particular difficulties
experienced by Muslim individuals and groups. The term ‘suspect community’ – first coined
by Paddy Hillyard (1993) to describe the experience of Irish communities under the UK’s
Prevention of Terrorism Act – has been appropriated by some in this context. Thus, where
Hillyard (1993, p. 273) had earlier argued:
A suspect community has been constructed against a backdrop of anti-Irish racism.
The community has suffered widespread violation of their human rights and civil
liberties. As a consequence, the United Kingdom’s reputation throughout the world in
upholding human rights and civil liberties has been constantly compromised.
Said has more recently noted, ‘A decade later, substitute “Irish” for “Muslim” and this could
easily be read as a description of the impact and operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001’ (2004, p. 3). In making this argument, Said
identifies the differential experience of Muslim populations under recent British antiterrorism measures, emphasising the disproportionate increase in uses of stop and search
powers upon Asian individuals.iii
The consequences of this apparent unevenness have been explored within a number of
recent contributions (see Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009; Choudhury and Fenwick, 2011).
Fekete (2004; 2006) and Sivanandan (2006), for instance, identify the emergence of a new
racism against Muslims within the UK. Gillespie (2007, p. 285), moreover, contends that,
‘many [ethnic minorities] feel their UK citizenship and the promise of multiculturalism is
fundamentally called into question by current security policy’. Poynting and Mason (2006, p.
367) go further still, arguing that contemporary developments amount to a form of state hate
crime. While Spalek, finally, in conjunction with Imtoual (Spalek & Imtoual, 2007) and
Lambert (Spalek & Lambert, 2008), has argued that these developments subject British
Muslims, in particular, to divided pressures and loyalties. Thus, where the British state
increasingly casts informing on ‘radicals’ or ‘extremists’ as a citizenship obligation, the same
communities are simultaneously more subject to the reach of contemporary anti-terrorism
measures, with feelings of alienation frequently a product of this tension (Spalek & Imtoual,
2007). In other words, not only do British Muslims disproportionately experience the
coercive arm of the state; their citizenship obligations are also frequently defined around
surveillance of their ‘own’ communities. As a result, their status as citizens is brought into
question due to their suspected holding of, or proximity to, particular political beliefs or
opinions.iv
In contrast to the oft-cited ‘balancing’ metaphor, then, this literature suggests that
citizens (and particularly ethnic minority and/or Muslim citizens) may be gaining little, if
any, security from their (potentially) compromised rights. In one of the few examples of
qualitative empirical research here, Marie Gillespie noted of the findings of the ESRC-funded
Shifting Securities project (which spoke primarily to British Muslims):
Most interviewees feel that they have become more insecure in recent years and most
are more afraid of the consequences of security policy than of terrorism. These
include “casual” everyday racism, state surveillance, arrest and detention, creeping
militarism and threats to civil rights and traditions of democracy and the rule of law…
A large proportion of racialised minorities base their fears on personal experience of
stop and search, identity checks and temporary detention. (Gillespie, 2007, p. 284)
‘Docile Patriots’?
Aspects of the literature noted above also argue that the treatment of minorities poses
implications for the rest of the population. Sivanandan (2006, p. 6) for example, argues that
these measures mean, ‘the very foundations of democracy are being eroded by an overbearing
executive’ (see also Cole 2003). Others, pursuing Foucauldian themes, have pointed to the
importance of identity politics within the War on Terror, wherein particular deviant identities
are sought out and subject to new forms of disciplinary power (Puar & Rai, 2002; Rygiel,
2006). As Puar and Rai (2002) note, the designation of deviant identities has implications not
only for those deemed undesirable or unintegrated, but also for those who display unwanted
character traits. Pursuing this, they argue that contemporary practices of othering produce
‘docile patriots’. Thus, ‘[the figure of the terrorist] provides the occasion to demand and instil
a certain discipline on the population. This discipline aims to produce patriotic, docile
subjects through practices, discourses, images, narratives, fears, and pleasures’ (Puar & Rai,
2002, p. 130). An important argument advanced by these authors is that it is problematic to
believe Muslims alone are affected by such measures; the effects of contemporary policy
(intended and otherwise) ripple more widely. Indeed, a range of studies have developed these
themes, pointing to the broader implications for governance of the struggle against terrorism,
employing lenses including biopolitics (Amoore, 2006) and risk management (Aradau & van
Munster, 2008).
Citizens as Tools of Anti-terrorism Policy
The above point links, finally, to arguments that rather than being solely passive elements in
the struggle against terrorism – things to be secured and protected – citizens have
increasingly, ‘…been enlisted as the weapons of choice’ (Rygiel, 2006, p. 145) in this policy
area. Authors exploring this theme have pointed to the diverse ways in which contemporary
western polities seek to activate the citizenry for security governance (Vaughan Williams,
2008; Jarvis & Lister, 2010). With political elites increasingly willing to proclaim ignorance
of actual or potential security threats (and here, Donald Rumsfeld’s (2002) known unknowns
and unknown unknowns are, perhaps, paradigmatic), it appears now incumbent on citizens to
supplement or ‘fill’ this unknowability by collecting and transmitting information on
suspected terrorists. This is particularly pronounced, as noted above, within Muslim
populations, but the invocation goes wider. It has, arguably, become a civic obligation to
contribute to, and participate in, the monitoring of others. Through a range of initiatives (such
as Prevent, but also government awareness and preparedness campaigns), citizens are
increasingly called on to contribute to the security of themselves and others. In so doing, they
may therefore become simultaneously the subjects, objects and tools of anti-terrorism: the
threatened, the threat, and the policy response (Jarvis & Lister, 2010, see also Biesecker,
2007; Koskela, 2010).
Speaking with Citizens
The above literatures make a number of urgent points, identifying a range of potentially
significant transformations within the practice and protection of contemporary citizenship. As
Gillespie & O’Loughlin (2009) argue, however, what is absent in much of this debate is any
sustained engagement with these dynamics as experienced and/or articulated by ‘ordinary’
citizens themselves: ‘The citizen’s voice and perspective have been missing from
contemporary debates about security policy and its impact upon multiculturalism: how
citizenship is felt, talked about, thought, enacted and disrupted’ (Gillespie & O’Loughlin,
2009, p. 109). In this sense, the wealth of recent discussion on ‘new paradigms of
governance’ either instituted or reproduced within the war on terror should be combined,
Gillespie (2007, p. 278) suggests, with alternative, ‘… “bottom up”, socially based, culturally
informed, constructionist approaches to the everyday politics of security’. For, as Johnson &
Gearty (2007, p. 143) note in reporting on the British Social Attitudes data, amidst all the
sound and fury around anti-terrorism policy and civil liberties, it is people that have,
ultimately, been omitted: ‘In this discussion there has been one very obvious dimension
lacking: the views of the public’.
A related, although distinct argument is made by authors who point out that scholars
should not simply assume anti-terrorism measures ‘wash over’ citizens. Huysmans &
Guillaume (forthcoming), for example, argue there is a need not only to examine the
operation of particular security regimes, but also to investigate their negotiation and
contestation within everyday life (also Lowndes & Thorp, 2010). In other words, analysts
should not simply ‘read off’ or assume a priori diminishments of citizenship through changes
in legislative or policy frameworks. Instead, it is crucial to explore how citizens themselves
interpret and respond to these changes and their implications. As Nyers (2010, p. 96) argues,
‘to understand citizenship it is not sufficient to despair over citizenship’s exclusions; equally
important is to investigate the claims about rights, membership and belonging made by
excluded populations’. Indeed, if we take seriously the notion that citizenship is not simply a
legal status, but incorporates an important performative, lived, aspect, then considering how
citizens themselves perceive and understand the effects of anti-terrorism architectures on
their lives - as citizens - becomes a pressing issue for research in this field.
It should be noted that some scholars have sought to investigate the attitudes of some
citizens on issues such as these. One significant element of this research focuses on Muslim
communities and the particular challenges they face in this context (see, for example, Gest,
2010; Choudhury & Fenwick, 2011; Thomas & Sanderson, 2011). Another examines,
through survey research, what people think about anti-terrorism measures and security
practices (for example, Huddy et al, 2002; Davis & Silver, 2004; Johnson & Gearty, 2007;
Joslyn & Haider-Markel, 2007). This article seeks to complement the first of these by
contextualising the attitudes of Muslims or South Asians within those of other demographics.
In so doing, it asks whether such attitudes and views are distinctive, or whether individuals
with other identities, particularly other minority identities, share similar perspectives. It
contributes to the second by exploring these issues qualitatively, thereby offering, we argue, a
richer account of people’s understandings of anti-terrorism policy. Such an understanding
enables a mapping not only of attitudes to anti-terrorism measures, but also of how citizens
think about and consider the impact of such measures upon themselves and those around
them.
In what follows, our empirical findings are presented to address these issues, and in so
doing to shed light on the following questions. Do people within the UK feel their citizenship
has been compromised by anti-terrorism legislation? Are there different responses to this
question based on ethnic or other forms of identification? Is it possible to posit a uniform
effect of anti-terrorism powers across all facets of citizenship, whether positively or
negatively, or, are some aspects of citizenship particularly sharply affected?
Research Design
The research from which this article derives traced public attitudes on the above themes,
employing a focus group methodology organised around two primary variables: ethnicity
(Black, White or Asian) and geographical residence (Metropolitan or Non-metropolitan).
This comparative design facilitates an analysis of differences in perceptions and experiences
amongst UK populations. In so doing, it permits reflection on the uniqueness, or otherwise, of
Muslim or Asian voices on which much recent relevant scholarship has focused. The
selection of two variables produced six distinct population groups for analysis. Conducting
two focus groups for each resulted in a research design of twelve groups, with two further
‘wild card’ groups introduced to explore excluded or pertinent opinions that became apparent
throughout the research (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999). Fourteen groups were therefore
conducted in total throughout 2010, comprising 81 individuals in London, Birmingham (as
Metropolitan sites), Oldham, Swansea, Llanelli and Oxfordshire (as non-Metropolitan sites).
Participants were selected using a purposive sampling strategy, and recruited through a
combination of enumeration, snowballing and organisation sampling techniques (see Ritchie,
Lewis & Elam, 2003).
The selection of a focus group approach offered considerable methodological
advantages over competing research strategies. These include the ability to analyse group
dynamics that evolve within vernacular conversations, a capacity to study the flexibility of
articulated perspectives, an opportunity for exploring shared sources of knowledge within
different communities (and differences across them), and offering scope for, ‘providing
insights into the sources of complex behaviours and motivations’ (Morgan, 1996, p. 139, see
also Morgan, 1997; Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999). The groups employed a series of
deliberately open-ended questions to maximise the extent to which individuals’ own attitudes
came to the fore (Morgan, 1996, p. 137). Participants were asked to discuss how they felt
anti-terrorism measures impacted upon themselves, their communities, and the UK more
widely.v On completion, the transcripts were subjected to descriptive content analysis to
identify the key themes emerging from this data (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002, pp. 313-314).
Figure One summarises this entire data set in the form of a framework chart (see Ritchie,
Spencer & O’Connor, 2003).
Insert Figure One Here
The decision to categorise ethnicity in terms of black, white and Asian (in reference to South
Asian populations) was a complex one and open to contestation, not least because, as
Modood (2009, p. 193) argues, ‘there is no satisfactory way of conceptualising...visible
minorities’. Furthermore, this is clearly not exhaustive of ethnic diversities within the UK;
nor is it intended to be. As an effort to compare the attitudes of particular demographic
groups, the categorisation was both contingent upon and appropriate to our research foci.
Much of the research in this area focuses, either entirely or primarily, on Muslim
individuals, groups and communities (see Said, 2004). Where non-Muslim voices are
included, moreover, they often are so in terms of a blanket ‘non-Muslim’ category (see
Choudhury & Fenwick, 2011). As noted above, this research finds that Muslims
disproportionately experience the ‘sharp end’ of anti-terrorism measures. Yet whilst a
consideration of non-Muslims may permit a degree of contextualisation of Muslim attitudes,
it lacks finer grain to begin to distinguish whether there are differences between non-Muslim
communities. Chief among these is whether non-Muslim ethnic minorities (who might also
experience prejudice and racism) possess similar attitudes, and the extent to which discomfort
with anti-terrorism measures is shared by the majority, white, population. Of particular
interest was whether black communities historically also subject to discrimination and
targeting through controversial policing strategies (not least the ‘Sus’ laws of the 1970s and
1980s, see Gilroy, 1982) feel similarly targeted by the current raft of anti-terrorism measures.
Thus, whilst we primarily orientate our research design around ethnicity rather than religion,
where individuals within focus groups self-identified as Muslim, or raised their religious
identity as relevant to their views, this is indicated in the analysis below.vi
Citizenship and Anti-terrorism in the UK: Citizens’ Views
Four key themes emerged in our focus group discussions that structure our analysis. These
relate to the impact of anti-terrorism initiatives on: first, freedoms and rights; second, an
individual’s ability and desire to participate in the public sphere; third, obligations and duties;
and, fourth, an individual’s relation to British identity. Whilst much existing research notes
the impact of anti-terrorism policies on rights, it is important to recognise that citizenship is
not exhausted by considerations of rights. Nor, indeed, is it solely about participation or
identity. Citizenship is, importantly, an interaction of these different dimensions (Delanty,
2000). To assess what impact anti-terrorism measures have had upon individuals’
conceptions of citizenship, it is important, therefore, to explore pertinent connections between
the above themes in the lives of citizens.
Anti-terrorism & Rights
In the first instance, there was a general concern, amongst many participants, that antiterrorism measures were eroding rights, freedoms and liberties. These concerns took a
number of forms. For white participants, scepticism was typically expressed either in abstract
terms, or orientated around the potential mis-use of anti-terrorism powers. As one participant
put it, ‘some of these [anti-terrorism measures] go against the whole point of living in a
democracy… [they] remove that freedom of individuals, and it restricts the democracy we
live in’ (White Non-Metropolitan 1, Female). A number of other individuals made reference
to this erosion of ‘basic’ or ‘fundamental’ rights, but amongst white participants there was
very little sense that this impacted upon their own citizenship directly. This view that rights
had been compromised, but only in the abstract, is neatly captured in the following exchange
on recent anti-terrorism measures:
A: I almost feel like my liberty is threatened by most of them
B: Yes, but I don’t think your liberty is really going to be threatened, because you...
you haven’t done anything wrong. (White Metropolitan 1, Female & Male)
Other white participants were considerably less sceptical about anti-terrorism measures and
did not perceive a significant diminishment of rights as their product. Indeed, some were
happy to endorse quite drastic reductions of liberties:
A: Never mind all the red tape and all the messing about, if you come here and you
incite any hatred, regardless of who it’s against or what it’s against…
B: You lose any rights
A: You lose your rights, yeah. (White Metropolitan 2, Male & Female)
This view was related to the sense of distance from such changes felt by most white
participants in our groups. It is easier, perhaps, to countenance restrictions on fundamental
rights if one feels confident this is unlikely to be directly experienced.
A different sense in which a restriction of liberties was viewed as unproblematic was
expressed within one of our Asian groups comprising self-identifying non-Muslim
participants. Here one participant discussing Abu Hamza, (echoing Tony Blair’s (2001)
account of security as the first freedom), stated, ‘what about my life being under threat from
people that he has excited, people that he has encouraged effectively to wage war against this
country? So absolutely, I think those are the basic, fundamental laws that need to come’
(Asian Metropolitan 2, Female; see also Meisels, 2008, pp. 68-75).
The above example is noteworthy as an exception to the frequently sharp differences
between ethnic groups in our research. Whilst white groups were either content with
contemporary restrictions on liberties, or only abstractly concerned, ethnic minority
participants frequently expressed strong fears that their citizenship rights were being eroded,
often in a direct, visceral manner. We encountered, amongst black and Asian participants
alike, a strong sense that seemingly visible ethnic minorities are singled out by anti-terrorism
measures; the erosion of rights, therefore, a limited, rather than universal experience. As one
participant put it, ‘Since when is [a] Polish guy going to […] have some sort of pre-trial
detention without charge. You know, it’s not going to happen, is it? So, it’s only going to
happen if you’re Muslim. All of these [anti-terrorism measures] are designed to control
Muslims.’ (Asian Metropolitan 3, Male, Muslim). Another participant enunciating similar
feelings of systematic oppression stated:
I’m quite wary about an attack on my freedom or individual liberty, in the sense that I
might walk down the street one minute, a black van might just come and I am taken
away, whisked away by MI5 or MI6 […] I have to sort of fear what I say because of
the possible repercussions. (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim)
Crucially, similar perceptions were also articulated by black participants in our groups, with
previous experiences of racism a significant filter through which anti-terrorism measures
were read. One individual articulated a view, encountered elsewhere, that anti-terrorism
measures were not (contra the view of the above participants) aimed solely at Muslims, but
were targeted at ethnic minorities more broadly:
So yes, we are, sort of, having the after effects of... because the fact people are still
stopped and searched, it increases the racism. It increases the fact that... I may not be
Muslim, but people, sort of, like, think that... somehow I’ve got something to do with
it. So it makes our lives, as individuals, even more difficult. (Black Non-Metropolitan
1, Female)
This may well be a case of anti-terrorism measures being dragged into a broader perception
of discrimination. However, that participants should make this link, we argue, renders it
significant. This view, where encountered, did not see recent anti-terrorism initiatives as the
sole, or even the primary source of racial discrimination. Rather, these were perceived as
contributing to the targeting and singling out of minorities; exacerbating experiences of
unequal treatment. As one participant argued, ‘government drives the way security
categorises people’ (Asian, Non-Metropolitan 2, Female, Muslim).
To summarise, although participants from different ethnicities articulated concerns
about the impact of anti-terrorism measures on citizenship rights, the sources of those
concerns differed markedly. For white participants, where these existed, they were viewed
primarily in the abstract. For Asian and black participants, however, a more direct sense of
unease, even fear, emerges, rooted in the impression of deliberate targeting by such measures.
Thus, whilst such measures are framed universally, our research found a widespread sense
amongst ethnic minorities that in practice it was their rights which were subject to curtailment
(see Waldron, 2003).
Participation
In terms of participation, the above differentiation between ethnic communities grows more
pronounced. For white participants, there was, for many, a very limited impact upon their
participation as citizens, with anti-terrorism measures seen as something quite distant from
their lives: ‘All this is happening on a level that does not touch us’ (White Metropolitan 2,
Male). However, in some instances, where white participants had come into direct contact
with security practices (for example, at airports), two distinct effects on their participatory
behaviour were mentioned. Some simply accepted the experience as, ‘something you’ve got
to get used to’ (White Metropolitan 2, Male). Others, however, objected to contemporary
security measures, (such as being questioned by the police whilst taking photographs), on
grounds of principle. One participant, for example, had contacted the Metropolitan Police to
complain about an anti-terrorism advert; another mentioned contacting their MP to protest.
Often, in these situations, the sentiment expressed was of irritation and agency: ‘I can’t say I
felt threatened, I was annoyed, I was angry’ (White Metropolitan 1, Female).
This experience of anger rather than insecurity contrasts sharply with experiences of
ethnic minorities in terms of participation. With very few exceptions, we encountered a
strong sense that anti-terrorism measures had dampened and reduced political engagement. A
number of participants stated that feeling simultaneously surveilled and stigmatised meant
they avoided expressing their political identities and behaviours as they would wish. At least
in part, this was because of the potential consequences of so doing:
I mean, I would love to change things, which is probably why I have a passion for
politics. But right now currently I would rather keep my mouth shut and not say
anything that can be seen… like I tell my friends as well, don’t say anything that
can… go against you. Because a lot of your phone calls, without you knowing is
monitored by the MI5 anyway […] especially when you start saying things out of
anger and emotion that can be about the system that we use to govern our ways of
living, is turned against. So, if you say anything bad about it, it is literally monitored.
(Asian Metropolitan 1, Female, Muslim)
This was a view we encountered repeatedly and paints a worrying picture that anti-terrorism
measures may well have stymied or depressed political engagement. In the words of one
participant, ‘Everyone is against us and we are just at home, just afraid of everyone […] We
can’t say anything, can’t do anything’ (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim). Where this
view was contested, it was frequently so by fears that feelings of alienation could become
self-perpetuating. As one Asian participant put it, ‘If you label yourself as someone who is an
outsider, then that will end up happening to you’ (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim).
Others, however, argued that participation within formal political life offered no genuine
escape from contemporary climates of suspicion, whereby:
[E]ven when, you know, you come out against terrorism, you’re not doing it because
you’re opposed to terrorism but you did it to safeguard your own position. So you’re
stuck in this catch 22 and even if you condemn it you’re still, you know, viewed with
suspicion. (Asian Non-Metropolitan 2, Female, Muslim)
Some of the black participants with whom we spoke pointed also to the depoliticising effects
of anti-terrorism measures, noting a similar sense of targeting and alienation. Frequently,
previous or existing experiences of racism acted as a prism through which this dynamic was
filtered. Where racism had been experienced, some black participants argued that antiterrorism measures perpetuate segregation and a lack of broader community engagement:
But as long as the government keeps... or, you know, all these other organisations
keep, sort of, pushing in a particular point […] you feel discriminated, you feel
undermined, you feel less of an individual...You are a citizen, technically, because of
your status, but in terms of your participation, it just won’t work. (Black NonMetropolitan 1, Female)
As the above suggests, as with rights a profound difference emerged here between ethnic
minority and white participants. For the former, anti-terrorism measures, with some
exceptions, seem to produce a deadening, alienating effect which dampens and hampers
political participation. Individuals articulating these concerns felt unable to express
themselves as they would choose, be that for fear of immediate consequences, or of (further)
social stigmatisation. In some cases, this passivity is born of a tired, resigned, acceptance of
one’s inability to contest and counter: ‘I almost expect it nowadays […] whatever I do it’s
always going to come back to the way I dress and the way I look, so there’s no point in
fighting it, I’ll just go along with it’ (Asian Non-Metropolitan 2, Female, Muslim). For white
participants, in contrast, where anti-terrorism initiatives (infrequently) affected participation
this seemed to produce either a content acceptance or a desire to challenge. Notably absent,
importantly, was the sense prevalent amongst ethnic minorities, that enacting one’s political
subjectivity was stymied either by fear of the consequences, personal inabilities or a
structural futility.
Identity
Given the above findings in terms of rights and participation, one might expect these to
impact upon (and, indeed, be impacted on by) issues of identity. Amongst white participants,
though, there was little concern with identity in relation to anti-terrorism measures. We did
encounter a generalised disquiet over the fragmentation of British identity, but this was only
occasionally explicitly connected to anti-terrorism measures. When it was, participants
expressed empathy with others; recognising the negative consequences of profiling upon
integration and community cohesion. One individual, for example, argued that anti-terrorism
measures and security practices seemed to involve a closing off or, ‘securing [of] myself
from the world’. She continued: ‘[T]hese kind of anti-terrorism measures make me feel […]
this closed borders thing and I think that it breeds that sense of insecurity. It breeds this
disconnected citizenship’ (White Non-Metropolitan 1, Female). Others were more forthright
in their assertion that anti-terrorism measures had ‘an extreme tinge of xenophobia’ (White
Metropolitan 1, Male) and were likely to ‘breed suspicion’ toward minorities who would
‘probably feel quite alienated’ (White Metropolitan 1, Male).
Such sentiments, occasionally expressed amongst white participants, were dominant
within ethnic minority groups. We encountered near unanimity that anti-terrorism measures
were complicating social cohesion:
I think people do feel alienated, and I think these kind of laws do, sort of, make
people feel really suffocated and really alienated, and that’s why there’s problems
with community cohesion, and that’s why people are likely to resist the dominant
culture, rather than integrate. (Asian Metropolitan 3, Female)
Others went further still, arguing that such measures have reversed processes of integration,
making them feel less British. As one participant (a second generation migrant from Pakistan)
put it:
It doesn’t make me feel part of Britain as much as I did. The last ten years... I used to
feel like that I’m half and half, okay, because of my colour, my religion and my
background. I am not white, English, okay, I know where I come from, I know my
roots, but I’m here now. My father worked here, lived here, everything that I own,
everything that’s important to me is here now, so I should be allowed to be accepted
in this country. But after that last ten years of things like that happening, the way I’m
looked at, I don’t feel as part of the British society, as accepted. (Asian NonMetropolitan 2, Female, Muslim)
Beyond the problems this creates for cohesion, identity and citizenship (although see Thomas
& Sanderson, 2011), a concern was frequently articulated that such alienation pushes people
toward extremism. In other words, not only do anti-terrorism measures have negative
externalities; they may well be contributing to the kind of extremism they purport to tackle.
Speaking about feeling targeted, one individual stated, ‘there is a bias that just sows the seeds
of further isolationism and further marginalisation and pushes the people out to the fringes’
(Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim). Part of the source of this isolation is the feeling that it
is one’s own state or government driving these dynamics:
I think theoretically people that are meant to be protecting you, protecting your
freedom, making sure that we are secure and safe, are in some sense turning against
you […] It’s like the government, they’re meant to be there to protect you to make
sure are safe, that your neighbourhood is safe, to make sure that you’re not
intimidated by somebody, and they make laws. But at the same time it’s kind of the
same government that is making you feel intimidated (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male,
Muslim)
Other ethnic minorities, as in the above account of rights and duties, approached the issue of
identity and belonging through the prism of prior experiences of racism. And, again, in
similar vein, anti-terrorism measures were seen to contribute to problems of racism and thus
to make cohesion and common identification more problematic. Within this was a view that
skin colour serves as an important determinant of Britishness, particularly when it comes to
security and anti-terrorism measures:
[F]or people … who were born here, are they going to be treated as foreign nationals,
because when you’re stopped and searched you’re not asked if you’re British or not.
The only thing is the colour of your skin, so will they ask you where you're born, and
being born in England and having British citizenship, does that exclude him? …I
doubt that very much. (Black Non-Metropolitan 2, Female)
Although this perspective extends beyond anti-terrorism measures, many of our participants
articulated the view that the pall of terrorist suspicion has made it more difficult for them to
identify, and be identified by others, as British.
Duties
There were two senses in which the issue of duties or obligations arose in terms of antiterrorism measures. One was where individuals have become increasingly entreated to
contribute to security governance (for example, by providing information on suspect
activities, persons or packages). The second was in terms of the obligations for minorities to
integrate into pre-existing communities.vii
In terms of the first aspect, again we encountered something of an ethnic division.
White respondents were, generally, positive toward the notion of reporting suspicious
behaviour. This duty, though, was frequently viewed as one limited to specific locations,
notably transport hubs; people objected to ‘snooping’ on neighbours, for example. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, given the degree to which ethnic minorities believed themselves targeted by
anti-terrorism measures, the enthusiasm for fulfilling such a role was far more muted amongst
these populations. One individual began by noting that ‘Muslims themselves need to take on
the responsibility of engaging [with anti-terrorism initiatives]’. However, he continued by
noting this was unlikely to happen on the state’s terms: ‘[N]o mosque is going to say, yes we
have so many extremists in our area. No mosque is going to do that either because of the
repercussions they’d face from the radicals or either because of the reputation [they would
acquire]’ (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim). Thus, it seems that even where individuals
did recognise a duty to participate in security governance, perceived practical obstacles (such
as competing loyalties, and concerns about the consequences of so doing) made this unlikely.
A more prevalent perspective amongst ethnic minority participants was a sense that
such demands exacerbated the suspicion they were already experiencing in a further act of
political ‘finger pointing’ (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim). From other minority groups
came an even stronger denunciation of these invocations, especially amongst those feeling
targeted by the state: ‘Why should you help a government that doesn’t want to help you?’
(Black Non-Metropolitan 1, Female). This comment raises an interesting point concerning
the balance between liberties and duties. This is frequently invoked in terms of the need to
recognise that citizen rights imply an observance of certain responsibilities. Yet, as the above
respondent succinctly points out, citizens may perceive another balance such that where
states attenuate rights, citizens may well feel a diminishment in the duties they owe.
Whilst one might argue that the duty to foster community cohesion is not strictly an
anti-terrorism issue, the frequency with which it was raised in our groups indicates it is again
appropriate to explore it as such. Many participants from ethnic minorities articulated a keen
sense that their communities might do more to enhance social integration. This is, in other
words, a duty or obligation that is felt: ‘It’s maybe for us to try our best, I guess, to put our
point across’ (Asian Metropolitan 3, Male). Others argued that Muslims and other minorities
needed to alter their mode of engagement in order to better communicate their interests:
‘[T]hey need to do it in a different way […] [Not] banging it up in East London and
spreading all these leaflets […] It’s about being smart’ (Asian Metropolitan 1, Female,
Muslim). Another recognised that, ‘I also accept as a Muslim that we haven’t helped
ourselves, in that we haven’t been as vigilant and visible’, while also pointing out that
‘integration itself is reciprocal’ (Asian Metropolitan 1, Male, Muslim). Still other
participants, finally, expressed a desire that their right to belong be recognised by others:
I would really like to belong somewhere, you know, like my house or my town or my
country and be accepted and that sort of thing. I don’t feel... I’ve been here for 40
years. I wasn’t born here but I was very small when I came here, and I’m still a
foreigner, I’m still an alien and my children are going to be treated like that as well.
[…] I don’t have the security of belonging, you know, like I look at white people and
hardly anybody totally accepts me. Nobody thinks of me as British. I’m a Paki
middle-aged woman. That’s how they see me, Paki. They don’t know I’ve got a
British passport and I’ve had it for such a long time, for 37, 38 years or something.
That still does not make me British. (Asian Non-Metropolitan 2, Female)
This suggests that whilst there may exist considerable issues around social cohesion, many
ethnic minorities feel a responsibility to integrate, wanting to be viewed as British by others:
‘I think Muslims in this country like being seen as British. They don’t want to just be seen as
Pakistanis or Sikhs or whatever, they want to be accepted as a part of the society, but they’re
not. They’re always classified as Muslims’ (Asian Metropolitan 3, Female, Muslim; also
Thomas & Sanderson 2011). Many of our participants spoke, though, about the barriers to
this in the contemporary political climate. These are multifarious, but in terms of the present
discussion, it was often felt that in contributing to a stigmatisation of Muslims and ethnic
minorities more widely, anti-terrorism measures exacerbated the difficulties of successful
integration.
Conclusion: Disconnected Citizenship?
This article presented three contributions to contemporary debates on the impact of antiterrorism measures on citizenship. Firstly, it offered a qualitative depth to existing accounts
of this relationship through reporting the perceptions of citizens themselves. Secondly, it
explored the significance of ethnic as well as religious identities in this context. As we have
shown, it is neither uniformly, nor solely, Asians or Muslims who perceive negative effects
here. Rather, a number of black participants in our research pointed also to the deleterious
consequences of recent anti-terrorism measures on their own sense of citizenship; understood
in terms of participation, identity, obligation and rights. Thirdly, by examining citizenship in
this broad and interactive sense, this article sought also to extend existing analyses of the
(perceived) attenuation of rights under anti-terrorism initiatives. Whilst much attention has,
appropriately enough, focussed on how anti-terrorism measures alter fundamental rights, it is
important to consider the wider implications of these initiatives: of how changes to rights
impact upon, and interact with, effects on citizen participation, identity and obligations. As
we have argued, citizenship extends beyond the possession of rights alone, and a broader
view is crucial to understanding how this experience is negotiated in everyday life (Delanty,
2000). As demonstrated above, the diminishment of formal rights is, for some, perhaps even a
secondary concern in relation to the perceived curtailment of these other facets of citizenship.
The picture of citizenship which emerges from our findings is profoundly troubling,
we argue, for two reasons. The first is that citizens of distinct ethnic and geographical
demographics perceive a diminishment of citizenship that stems from anti-terrorism
measures. Many ethnic minority participants in our research, both black and Asian, believed
that their own rights and scope for public participation, as well their sense of national identity
and obligations, had been eroded by anti-terrorism policies; a sense they are becoming, in the
words of one individual, ‘second class citizens’ (Asian Metropolitan 3, Female). The picture
is one where the perception of diminished rights and targeting by the state contributes to a
diminished political engagement and a declining sense of belonging. This declining sense of
belonging and dampened political engagement, moreover, impacts on perceptions of duties
and the content of rights, producing a vicious circle of declining citizenship. This process,
however, appears an uneven one, in which prior experiential lenses are significant, and where
some individuals are keen to resist, in the words of one participant, a ‘them and us’
scenario.viii
This points to a second troubling aspect of our findings. In our research, we
encountered contrasting - or ‘disconnected’ - experiences of citizenship in this context
amongst white participants and those of other ethnic groups. For the former, the impact of
anti-terrorism measures was viewed, frequently, as either limited or operating at a distance.
Many of our black and Asian participants, in contrast, reported a profound loss of rights, a
reduced identification with the UK, an inability to participate politically, and a scepticism
around meeting citizenship obligations. Whilst not all theories and conceptions of citizenship
assert principles of universalism (and citizenship has always involved boundary-drawing),
differential treatment has generally been advocated for non-citizens (between, that is, citizens
and non citizens), or, if ‘within’ (for example, in multicultural conceptions) to advance
particular freedoms and opportunities. The view that anti-terrorism powers may be creating or contributing to - an experience of differential citizenship, with varied perceptions of, and
attachments to, this category’s core dimensions departs markedly from the emancipatory
ambitions of such conceptions. It also, we argue, has the potential to weaken and fracture
British citizenship more broadly.
References
Amoore, L. (2006) ‘Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror’, Political
Geography, 25 (3), 336-351.
Aradau, C. and van Munster, R. (2008) ‘Taming the Future: The Dispositif of Risk in the War
on Terror’, in L. Amoore and M. de Goede (eds.), Risk and the War on Terror. London:
Routledge, pp. 23–40.
Banks, W., De Nevers, R., and Wallerstein, M. (2008) Combating Terrorism: Strategies and
Approaches. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Biesecker, B. (2007) ‘No time for mourning: the rhetorical production of the melancholic
citizen-subject in the war on terror’, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 40 (1), 147–169.
Blair, A. (2001) Speech to Labour Party Conference, 02/11/01 [online]. Available from:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/speeches/labour/labour-party-conference-leadersspeeches/34853/labour-party-conference-2001.thtml [accessed 13 June 2011].
Choudhury, T. and Fenwick, H. (2011) The impact of counter-terrorism
measures on Muslim communities. Equality and Human Rights Commission
Research report 72. Available from:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/counterterrorism_research_report_72.pdf [accessed 20 October 2011].
Cole, D. (2003) ‘The New McCarthyism: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism’,
Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38 (1), 1-30.
Davis, D. and Silver, B. (2004) ‘Civil Liberties Vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context
of the Terrorist Attacks on America’, American Journal of Political Science, 48 (1), 28-46.
Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship In A Global Age: Society, Culture, Politics. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Etzioni, A. (1995) The Sprit of Community: Rights Responsibilities and the Communitarian
Agenda. London: Fontana Press.
Fekete, L. (2004) ‘Anti-Muslim Racism and the European Security State’, Race and Class,
46 (1), 3-29.
Fekete, L. (2006) ‘Europe: ‘speech crime’ and deportation’, Race and Class, 47 (3), 82-92.
Gearty, C. (2007) ‘Terrorism and Human Rights’, Government and Opposition, 42 (3), 34062.
Gest, J. (2010) Apart: Alienated and Engaged Muslims in the West. London: C Hurst & Co.
Gillespie, M. (2007) ‘Security, media and multicultural citizenship: A collaborative
ethnography’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 10 (3), 275-293.
Gillespie, M. and O’Loughlin, B. (2009) ‘Multilingual news cultures and cosmopolitan
citizenship’, in Noxolo, P. and Huysmans, J. (eds.) Community, Citizenship and the War on
Terror: Security and Insecurity. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 89-112.
Gilroy, P. (1982) ‘Police and Thieves’ in Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (eds) The
Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain. London: Routledge, pp. 141-180.
Guild, E., Bigo, D., Carrera, S. and Walker, R. B. J. (2007) ‘The Changing landscape of
European liberty and security: mid-term report on the results of the CHALLENGE project’.
Centre for European Studies, Brussels. Available from:
http://www.libertysecurity.org/article1357.html [accessed 13 June 2011].
Haque, M. S. (2002) ‘Government Responses to Terrorism: Critical Views of Their Impacts
on People and Public Administration’, Public Administration Review, 62 (s1), 170–180.
Haubrich, D. (2003) ‘September 11, Anti-Terror Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France
and Germany Compared’, Government and Opposition, 38 (1), 3-28.
Hillyard, P. (1993) Suspect community: people’s experiences of the prevention of terrorism
acts in Britain. London: Pluto.
Home Office (2011) CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism.
London: Home Office.
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Capelos, T. and Provost, C. (2002) ‘The Consequences of Terrorism:
Disentangling The Effects of Personal and National Threat’, Political Psychology, 23 (3),
485-509.
Huq, A. Z., and Muller, C. (2008) ‘The War on Crime as Precursor to the War on Terror’,
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36 (4), 215-229.
Huysmans, J. and Guillaume, X. (eds.) (forthcoming) Citizenship and Security: The
Constitution of Political Being, London: Routledge.
Isin, E. (2008) ‘Theorizing acts of citizenship’, in E. Isin and G.M. Nielsen (eds.), Acts of
citizenship. London: Zed Books, pp. 15–43.
Jackson, R., Jarvis, L. Gunning, J. & Breen Smyth, M. (2011) Terrorism: A Critical
Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Jarvis, L. and Lister, M. (2010) ‘Stakeholder Security: The New Western Way of Counter
Terrorism?’, Contemporary Politics, 16 (2), 173-188.
Johnson, M. and Gearty, C. (2007) ‘Civil liberties and the challenge of terrorism’ in A. Park,
J. Curtice, K. Thomson, M. Phillips and M. Johnson (eds.), British social attitudes: the 23rd
report: perspectives on a changing society. London: SAGE, pp.143-182.
Joslyn, M. and Haider-Markel, D. (2007) ‘Sociotropic Concerns and Support for CounterTerrorism Policies’, Social Science Quarterly, 88(2), 306-319.
Kitzinger, J. and Barbour, R. (1999) ‘Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus
groups’ in R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds), Developing Focus Group Research. London:
Sage, pp 1-20.
Koskela, H. (2010) ‘Did You Spot an Alien?: Voluntary Vigilance, Borderwork and the
Texas Virtual Border Watch Programme’, Space and Polity, 14(2), 103-121.
Lowndes, V. and Thorp, L. (2010) ‘‘Preventing violent extremism’ - why local context
matters’, in R Eatwell and M Goodwin (eds) The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain.
London: Routledge, pp. 124-141.
Meisels, T. (2008) The Trouble with Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Modood, T. (2009) ‘Muslims and the Politics of Difference’ in R. Gale and P. Hopkins (eds)
Muslims in Britain: Race, Place and the Spatiality of Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, pp 193-209.
Morgan, D. (1996) ‘Focus Groups’, Annual Review of Sociology, 22 (1), 129-152.
Morgan, D. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. London: Sage
Neocleous, M. (2007) ‘Security, Liberty and the Myth of Balance: Towards a Critique of
Contemporary Security Politics’, Contemporary Political Theory, 6 (2), 131-149.
Nyers, P. (2010) ‘Missing Citizenship’, International Political Sociology, 4 (1), 95-98.
Pantazis, C. and Pemberton, S. (2009) ‘From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Suspect Community
Examining the Impacts of Recent UK Counter-Terrorist Legislation’, British Journal of
Criminology, 49 (5), 646-666.
Poynting, S. and Mason, V. (2006) ‘“Tolerance, freedom, justice and peace”: Britain,
Australia and anti-Muslim racism since 11th September’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 27
(4), 365-391.
Puar, J. K. and Rai, A. (2002) ‘Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the
Production of Docile Patriots’, Social Text, 20 (3), 117-148.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (2002) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research’, in
A. Humberman & M. Miles (eds), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. London: SAGE,
pp. 305-330.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Elam, G. (2003) ‘Designing and Selecting Samples’ in J. Ritchie
and J. Lewis (eds) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and
Researchers. London: SAGE, pp 77-108.
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L. and O’Connor, W. (2003) ‘Carrying Out Qualitative Analysis’ in J.
Ritchie and J. Lewis (eds), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
Students and Researchers. London: SAGE, pp 219-262.
Roach, K. (2007) ‘A Comparison of Australian and Canadian Anti-Terrorism Laws’, UNSW
Law Journal, 30 (1), 53-85
Rumsfeld, D. (2002) ‘DoD News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers’. Available
from: http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3793 [accessed 18
May 2011].
Rygiel, K. (2006) ‘Protecting and Proving Identity: The Biopolitics of Waging War through
Citizenship in the Post 9/11 Era’, in K. Hunt and K. Rygiel (eds.), (En)Gendering the War on
Terror: War Stories and Camouflaged Politics. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 145-168.
Said, T. (2004) ‘The Impact of Anti Terrorism powers on the British Muslim population’.
Liberty. Available from: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/impact-ofanti-terror-measures-on-british-muslims-june-2004.pdf [accessed 13 June 2011].
Sivanandan, A. (2006) ‘Race, terror and civil society’, Race and Class, 47 (3), 1-8.
Somers, M. (2008) Genealogies of Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spalek, B. and Imtoual, A. (2007) ‘“Hard” Approaches to Community Engagement in the UK
and Australia: Muslim communities and counter-terror responses’, Journal of Muslim
Minority Affairs, 27 (2), 185-202.
Spalek, B. and Lambert, R. (2008) ‘Muslim communities, counter-terrorism and counterradicalisation: A critically reflective approach to engagement’, International Journal of Law,
Crime and Justice, 36 (4), 257-270.
Stevens, D. (2009) ‘In Extremis: a Self-defeating Element in the ‘Preventing Violent
Extremism’ Strategy’, The Political Quarterly, 80 (4), 517-525.
Stevens, D. (2011) ‘Reasons to be Fearful, One, Two, Three: The ‘Preventing Violent
Extremism’ Agenda’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13 (2), 165188.
Taylor, C. (1994) ‘The Politics of Recognition’ in A. Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism,
Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 25-74.
Thomas, P. (2009) ‘Between Two Stools? The Government’s ‘Preventing Violent
Extremism’ Agenda’, The Political Quarterly, 80 (2), 282-291.
Thomas, P. (2010) ‘Failed and Friendless: The UK’s ‘Preventing Violent Extremism’
Programme’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12 (3), 442-458.
Thomas, P. and Sanderson, P. (2011) ‘Unwilling Citizens? Muslim Young People and
National Identity’, Sociology, 45 (6), 1028-1044.
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2008) ‘Borderwork beyond Inside/Outside? Frontex, the
Citizen–Detective and the War on Terror’, Space and Polity, 12 (1), 63-79.
Waldron, J. (2003) ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of Political
Philosophy, 11(2), 191-210.
Walker, C. (2009) Blackstone’s Guide to The Anti-Terrorism Legislation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Young, I. M. (1995) ‘Polity and Group Difference’ in R. Beiner (ed), Theorising Citizenship.
Albany NY: State University of New York Press, pp.175-208.
Notes
The authors acknowledge and thank the ESRC for funding the research on which this article draws (RES 00022-3765). We are also deeply grateful to all those who participated within, or contributed to the organisation of,
the focus groups for this project. Thanks also to those who attended the Anti-Terrorism, Citizenship and
Security in the UK workshop at Swansea University (July 2010) for their feedback on an earlier version of this
material. Finally, we thank the Editors and five anonymous reviewers for their useful suggestions on improving
this article.
i
These are, in chronological order: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; Prevention of Terrorism Act
2005; Terrorism Act 2006; and Counter Terrorism Act 2008.
ii
Although not an explicit emphasis of this research, these changes may, indeed, be reflective of broader
transformations in citizenship explored by scholars in distinct contexts, see, for example, Somers (2008) and
Wacquant (2009).
iii
The apparent appositeness of Hillyard’s work for the contemporary experiences of Asian and/or Muslim
populations is useful, also, as a note of caution against assumptions of novelty in the context of contemporary
terrorism, anti-terrorism powers, and the impacts of either on citizenship.
iv
See also Fekete (2006) on the increasing pursuit of European Muslims for ‘speech crimes’.
v
Participants were given summaries of the main features of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act (2001),
the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Terrorism Act (2006) & the Counter-Terrorism Act (2008).
vi
The project's initial research design incorporated a parallel questionnaire to ascertain religious affiliation and
ethnic self-identification. However, participants within a range of our groups noted their hostility to
questionnaires of this sort, viewing these as a mechanism for stereotyping and discrimination. As the issue of
anti-terrorism was already controversial, this data gathering technique was subsequently removed. This limited
some of the data collected, but was normatively desirable to reduce the unease felt by participants within the
research.
vii
Some multicultural variants of citizenship might deny such a responsibility exists (Young, 1995; Taylor,
1994), but others are happier to assert such a duty (Etzioni, 1995).
viii
Where geographical residence did acquire significance in some aspects of our study - notably in perceptions
of the utility of contemporary anti-terrorism powers - its pertinence for the present discussion was limited, hence
our emphasis here on ethnic identifications.