Countering the Counterproductive in a Post-Brexit Britain
In times of insecurity and uncertainty, governments and their leaders are able to justify implementing more extreme policies than might otherwise be viewed as unacceptable. The media can become a conduit through which extreme views can be voiced, and these particular narratives play a unique role in influencing populations.
This is the picture we are starting to see in a post-Brexit Britain, in a country where we are witnessing a resurgence of the far-right as the new norm, where many people are seemingly empowered to voice and act according to increasingly inflammatory rhetoric. From the rise of hate crime, racist attacks and severe policy towards refugees in the UK, it appears that this trend may worryingly be only at an early stage.
About a year ago I submitted my Master's dissertation. I wrote about the worrying trend of the singular depiction of Islam by British newspapers in their reporting of terrorism, leading to a process through which Muslims are placed in a binary narrative, supposedly in conflict with so-called ‘British values’. I researched the way that media framed specific terrorist attacks, by comparing front-page British newspapers’ portrayals of Islamist extremist and far right extremist attacks. The resulting picture was one in which language and images forward an increasingly interrogative story, leading to the projection of a singular, and primarily negative, view of Islam. Now a similar situation is happening in the depiction of refugees in Britain, following a divisive referendum, which was characterised by a campaign of hate, dangerous simplification, and inaccurate interpretations of what modern Britain is really like.
British values are increasingly being portrayed in direct conflict to an ‘other’, whether the ‘other’ is an ethnic minority population or refugees. Ultimately, this can result in a situation in which a population becomes securitized, facilitating extraordinary measures to be implemented. Such policy, guided by historical and contextual influences, leads to problematic practices resulting in the alienation of a section of British society, or a process of ‘othering’. The idea that there is an ideal type of British values which every citizen must follow is similar to the idea that liberal values are to be venerated above all else, despite no evidence that there is a ‘one size fits all’ ideology.
That Islam is an ideology associated with negative imagery and narratives is not a new notion. The term Orientalism refers to the historical manufacture of knowledge of the ‘other’ by the West, with the non-Western world, specifically Arab world, exaggerated and distorted as being backwards, barbaric, irrational and uncivilized. The concept, which is notably apt in describing modern Britain, was first explored by Edward Said in 1978 stating that the way we view Islam in the Western world is extremely simplified given its varied nature and the range of countries and people that the religion encompasses. Historically the Arab world has been perceived to require modernisation and as a menace to the West. In past, and to an extent present, media coverage of the Islamic world, reporters may face language barriers, and sometimes a certain lack of knowledge of areas, and can themselves often be shaped by a specific world view making them susceptible to clichéd notions and stereotypes. Therefore, in the historical covering of Islam reductive binary images have been employed. This relationship becomes necessary for the affirmation of the West’s own position of dominance, while historical situations of conflict reinforce the discourse.
Following the end of the Cold War we have seen a kind of ‘threat vacuum’ allowing Islam to conveniently slot into this rivalry with the West. The unresolved Israel-Palestine question has seeped into popular discussions over the state of the Middle East, while the domination of capitalism blocks potential for rival ideologies. Additionally, globalisation facilitates transnational terror networks and communication opportunities, thereby reinforcing hostility. Furthermore, the dualism between Islam and the West is compounded by the universalist missions of Christianity and Islam, with religion often cited regarding the ‘war on terror’ thus simplifying the debate over religion to a conception of good and evil.
Accordingly the process of ‘othering’ results in a demonised group being blamed for societal problems. ‘Britishness’ itself becomes constructed into a unified identity, despite no general consensus over the meaning allowing the potential spectrum of ‘British values’ to become condensed. As a result Western societies have come to view Muslim populations merely through the lens of radicalisation. The ideology becomes linked as a precursor to terrorist action and so the perception is that only Muslims become terrorists, a summation actually verbalised by one commentator in The Sun notably claiming last year that ‘not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims’.
In the UK it is also possible to observe a situation that society becomes fearful of a specific threat, and so people will overlook neglect or failure in other policies while increased attention, investment and effort will be placed on securing against this supposed enemy. Such imbalance is posed as rational and for the greater good to protect ‘British values’. Worryingly, this is one of the very aims of terrorist attacks, to create anxiety and fear and a sense that something could happen anywhere, to anyone, at any time. To an extent, the public is not trained to critically assess these threats, so when the media and government report something in a specific way it can act to amplify this irrational anxiety allowing terrorists a small victory.
In recent years and months, there has been a wealth of responsive policy introductions, including a wave of pre-emptive legislation. Some of these policies have been highlighted as being disproportionately targeted towards encouraging suspicion of British Muslim communities. A general problem is that Western countries tend to justify suppression, surveillance, and more extreme policies, through appealing to the public’s fear.
The Prevent Strategy was one such extraordinary policy, as part of the UK counterterrorism action following 9/11, first developed in 2003 and reviewed in both 2006 and 2013. For many, the Prevent strategy became a type of community policing that forwarded community ‘cohesion’ projects under the guise of intelligence gathering, which put it in contradiction with other government policies of engagement and capacity building with local communities themselves. Additionally, it reinforced the idea of a singular Islamic collectivity, thereby diminishing the potential for interfaith dialogues as it seemed that British identity should be championed above Muslim identity, risking stigmatising those who are perhaps more conservative in their religious views, yet still are a long way from advocating extremism or violence. With Muslim communities being singled out by these projects, there was an unspoken cultural separation reinforcing the idea that Muslim communities were inferior in their input into an increasingly hegemonic discourse of what it means to be British. In brief the policy allowed people to become subject to a monitoring process without actually being guilty of any action, based on the assumption that they are likely to become future terrorists, whereby simply sharing an ideology is considered a ‘PreCrime’.
The recent review by the Home Affairs Select Committee, reports that the Prevent strategy should be more transparent stating that, “the concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic” ”.
The acknowledgement is welcome, yet how likely it is for the Government to take on board such advice is unclear. It is clear that the Prevent strategy has since its inception been met with a blanket of secrecy, as it appears very difficult to obtain clear information of how or whether pledges within the strategy have been met.
The risk of such ‘terror of prevention’ is that it begins to legitimise hate-crimes and Islamophobia, as the underlying government rhetoric of discrimination becomes embedded in social practice, as increased harassment of Muslims by sections of the public, police, government, and the media, becomes an excuse for treating Muslims with contempt. This can also lead to a growing distrust of any culture alien to one’s own, where those moving across a border become viewed in terms of invasion and infiltration, a pattern again seen in current anti-immigration rhetoric and in relation to the refugee crisis where such groups are dehumanised by even the highest levels of government. This destructive cycle only leads to further isolation by encouraging minorities to be more British and affirms their inferior position in determining what Britishness actually is.
The problem with Prevent will always be that it fails to acknowledge that terrorism is not intrinsically linked to Islam. However, while it is important that this narrative of counterterrorism changes, an entire overhaul of general attitudes and the rhetoric of the Government and media is also required, as currently society seems willing to accept a reduction in civil liberties for the purpose of protecting against the supposed threat posed by an ‘other’.
Therefore, as counter-terrorism policies continue to follow this dominant narrative, constructive policies cannot be progressed, and so a redressing of this oversimplified discourse needs to occur. The focus on the security of a majority audience is occurring at the expense of the marginalisation of minorities, something that could even potentially risk perpetuating the grievances that lead to extremism in the first place.
Engaging with communities and acting to confront any far-right voices and policies could be a first step to achieving change and bringing forward alternative and productive counterterrorism policies. We all have a part to play, and it is more important than ever that any such challenge is made clear and that we continue to question the rhetoric that is so often perpetuated in our day-to-day life. For if we act as a community to demonstrate that we will not be so easily influenced or led down an increasingly illiberal path, then only then could the cycle be reversed.
