Legislating for Otherness: Proscription and

Parliamentary Discourse

Lee Jarvis

School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies

University of East Anglia

l.jarvis@uea.ac.uk

Paper presented at the BISA 40th Anniversary conference 2015, London

Proscription

• Proscription powers:• Render specific terrorist groups illegal

within a particular territory• Criminalise support for and membership

of proscribed groups• Trigger further crimes, e.g. uniforms

• Outlawing ‘enemies of the state’:• Widespread within and beyond liberal

democracies• Has a onsiderable history

Proscription in the UK

• The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation:• ‘…if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism’

• Extended, in 2006, to include glorification offences• Both Houses may debate, but not amend proscription orders

• As of August 2014:• 60 international terrorist organisations• 14 in Northern Ireland

Efficacy and ethics

• Two questions dominate academic debate:• Does proscription work?• Is proscription justified?

• Preoccupation with causal questions:• What does proscription do? • To terrorist groups; to liberal democracy; to minority communities?

• Alternative – constitutive – questions, neglected: • How has proscription come to be seen as an appropriate response to

terrorism?• How do proscription processes constitute identities of self and other?• Our research:• 27 Parliamentary debates – October 2002 – August 2014.

The terrorist threat• Otherness:

• ‘like battling a hydra’ (Heath, 2006)• ‘cowards like to target civilians’ (Hopkins, 2011)• ‘a small number of contorted and evil individuals can

grab international headlines’ (Mercer, 2013)

• Irrational, non-political, and ‘new’:• ‘fundamentalist organisations are, by their nature,

barking mad’, (Simpson, 2005)• ‘the random slaughter of innocent individuals can play no

part in the process of trying to bring about political change’ (Grieve, 2005)

• ‘we all know that the nature of terrorism has changed’ (Smith, 2013)

• A considerable, and continuing, threat:• ‘a perpetual threat in this country’ (Ruffley, 2008)• ‘We will be attacked again’ (Mercer 2005)

Proscribed organisations

• Identity-based designations:• Asbat Al-Ansar: ‘a Sunni Muslim terrorist organisation’ (Filkin, 2002)• Minbar Ansar Deen: ‘a Salafist group based in the UK’ (Atlee, 2013)• ‘Turkiye Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi…is a left-wing organisation’

(Brokenshire, 2014)

• Chronological catalogues of atrocities: • Al-Shabaab: ‘…has also launched terrorist attacks outside areas under its

control, most notably in October 2008 when five co-ordinated suicide attacks were mounted against targets in Somaliland and Puntland, including the Ethiopian embassy, presidential palace and UN Development Programme compound’ (West, 2010)

• Specific threat emphasised:• Al-Shabaab: ‘a very nasty group’ (Hawee, 2010)• Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan: ‘a murderous organisation’ (Green, 2011)• Four groups have: ‘Discernible links with al Qaeda’ (Blunkett 2002)

The UK Self• Liberal, democratic, moderate and multicultural:

• ‘Free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy’ (Blunt, 2010)• ‘We must ensure that we properly respect individual freedoms and liberties

while providing collective security for the country as a whole’ (Brokenshire, 2013)

• ‘I want to say how lucky we are that the relations between different cultures and races in this country are so good’ (Field, 2013)

• A responsible global citizen:• ‘supporting the rest of the international community to tackle terrorism’

(Blears, 2005)

• A responsible legislator:• Proscription decisions are:• ‘tackled with the utmost seriousness and care’

(Blunkett, 2002)• ‘only after the most thorough scrutiny of all the

intelligence’ (Bassam, 2005)

Repetition and dissent

• Genuine dissent is rare, although does exist:• Organisations change: • ‘The Government’s argument…can be summed up this way: once

a terrorist, always a terrorist. This is a nonsense’ (Corbett, 2008)

• Subjectivity of terrorism: • ‘We also recognise that one man’s terrorist activity outside Britain

is another person’s armed resistance’, (Wallace, 2008)

• Right to resistance: • ‘whenever it is argued that the organisations that we are

proscribing seek to overthrow a legitimate government, we should have a thorough discussion about the legitimacy of that government. We must be sure that not all those who are engaged in armed struggle are defined as terrorists’ (McDonnell, 2005)

(Re)producing self and other

• More frequently, critics of proscription simply reproduce self/other distinction:

• ‘British citizens are made the subject of the criminal law and their rights to support political organisations are constrained by what is very largely an Executive action’ (Hogg, 2002)

• ‘When we put names on a list of proscribed organisations, it seems reasonable to ask what evidence we have of the involvement of any of them in currentactions that have threatened the securityof the United Kingdom. To be unable toget an answer to that is deeply worryingin the democratic process’ (Simpson, 2005)

Conclusion

• Proscription matters:• An important, yet

neglected, counter-terrorism technique

• For the (re)production of national and other identities

• For our understanding of the contemporary politics of security (see Neal 2012a, b, c)

Thanks for listening!

Presentation draws on current research and forthcoming article in Review of International Studies with Dr. Tim Legrand, Australian National University (ANU).

Comments and feedback very welcome:

l.jarvis@uea.ac.uk and tim.legrand@anu.edu.au