'Civil Liberties are for Everyone' - worth a comment or two

A really good comment piece appeared in the Guardian today - Natasha Walter's 'Civil Liberties are for everyone' http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/natasha_walter/2007/12/its_more_than_40_years.html. Walter makes the incredibly important point that the most forceful demonstrations of the erosion of civil rights and liberties by recent developments in the power of the state are often to be found in cases involving individuals whose 'plight' in terms of rights and liberties is unlikely to generate much public sympathy. She provides the example of self-styled 'lyrical terrorist' Samina Malik and the acquitted 'Ricin plot' terror suspect Mustapha Taleb. But in a thoughtfully written and insightful passage about the deprivation of liberty and 'Kafkaesque' systems within which certain individuals who are not 'like us' can find themselves, Walter also rightly highlights that it is not simply those whose reputations are tarnished by association with terrorism or other serious criminal activity whose rights and liberties are subjected to such systemic debasement: it is also the experience of the thousands of asylum seekers who continue to be subjected to arbitrary detention in Britain. Walters writes:


"Although the government says it only detains children or victims of torture under exceptional circumstances, today I could take you to meet children who have been locked up for weeks, and women who bear the marks of torture on their bodies and in their minds - with no idea when they will be released or deported - sitting in fear in these detention centres. Such people are silenced. They are pushed to the margins of all our debates, and when we talk about "our" civil liberties and our human rights these people, who are not "us", hardly seem to figure."


Although conditions apparently vary between centres, (See for example, ICAR 2007: 11-12. http://www.icar.org.uk/bob_html/04_iac_briefings/Detention_of_asylum_seekers_in_the_UK_June_2007.pdf) many horrific aspects of the detention of asylum seekers are regularly highlighted by well plugged in advocate groups such as Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) http://www.biduk.org/, as well as in a growing number of highly critical reports on conditions of detention which have been issued by by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Ann Owers. (See for instance the report on an unannounced inspection of Harmondsworth, July 2006 http://inspectorates.homeoffice/.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspect_reports/irc-inspections.html/Harmondsworth1.pdf?view=Binary)

Asylum seekers continue to be detained in significant numbers, largely in purpose built immigration detention centres, but also in conventional prisons. According to the Home Office's most recent figures (29th September 2007), the number of asylum seekers held in detention centres solely under Immigration Act powers (i.e. who have never been tried and convicted for any crime) is 1625, amongst whom there are 55 children. (See http://www.homeoffice./gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/asylumq307.pdf). These figures exclude 'persons detained in prison establishments under sole immigration powers', which have inexplicably 'been unavailable since March 2006'.

With Walters, I certainly agree that 'Civil liberties must be for everyone, or we will find one day that they are for nobody.' Whether as subject to the measures of the ever restrictive UK asylum system, or to the expanding anti-terrorism regime, the incarceration of certain groups as homo sacer (to adopt Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben's definition of the concept): somehow stripped of their social beingness and relegated to a status beyond the normal operation of the law in a 'state of exception', provides a common condition through which to classify these groups that illustrates Walters point well. However, I also think it is also rather indicative of the nature of the dominant political discourses surrounding both 'asylum' and 'terrorism' that a journlistic argument constructed via a joint reference to both of these categories should seemingly read so logically and common sensically. Of course Walter's shift from anti-terrorism to a concern with the control measures to which asylum seekers are subjected does pivot around her analysis of Mustapha Taleb:

'If few people have bothered to listen to his frustration with the maze in which he finds himself, I think that's because we are reluctant to extend to alien immigrants - even though he had legal status here as a refugee - the same right to justice we believe is due to us.'

However, this embodied articulation of an 'immigrant-terrorist suspect other' also serves as a central point at which far more generalised and otherwise distinct categories, 'asylum' and 'terrorism', are knitted together, with reference to a concern for the denial of rights/civil liberties. There is certainly evidence that a significant proportion of the respondents to Walter's piece accept the association. For example the poster Markmyword49 responds:

'It's not just asylum seekers and "terrorists" that are detained without trial for months. So are what can be described as "normal" people charged with criminal offences. I worry much more about holding those people without trial than asylum seekers and terrorists.'

Even when a sentiment is expressed in opposition to the control measures and/or negative political rhetoric surrounding asylum, it is significant to note that the close association between 'asylum' and 'terrorism' still does not seem to be questioned. Although rather implicitly, a post from respondent PeterGuillam, perhaps comes the closest of all, however, to challenging the relationship:

'As soon as we say that "bad people"s' civil liberties can be eroded so long as "normal people" retain theirs then the battle is lost because government can then keep shifting the boundaries of what is normal and what isn't; and in any particular case will find enthusiastic cheerleaders for the denial of rights to that particular group.'

What I'm interested in therefore in my reading of this article and its responses, is that a close association would seem to be evident between dominant discourses surrounding 'asylum' on the one hand, and surrounding 'terrorism' on the other, and that their joint articulation would appear to be 'sedimented' - as if rather uncontroversial and settled. But, if this is the case, I would suggest that the best political strategy would not, first and foremost (if at all) be to seek to dissassociate 'asylum' and 'terrorism' through an appeal 'responsible' journalism (e.g. by warning columnists such as Natasha Walter of what a worry their regular collocation in the media might be). On the contrary, perhaps it is to take a lead from Walter and her respondent PeterGuillam, in reading the joint articulation of these discourses differently - against the grain and subversively, as it were: emphasising the discursive link between 'asylum' and 'terrorism' in order to harness opposition to it to a set of other strategic issues highlighting a broader injustice (e.g. the State's erosion of human rights). In the process, we might hope that the apparently taken for granted associations between 'asylum' and 'terrorism' will be undermined. Whether a project invoking civil liberties and a liberal human rights paradigm as its political horizon might stand up in the current climate however, is another and perhaps more fundamental question.

Migrationwatch Watch

In a spot on 'Health tourism', Rachel Burden's Radio 5 live show http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/programmes/burden.shtml featured Sir Andrew Green as its sole studio guest expert yesterday morning. The discussion focused upon the government's 'discussion' of options for potentially restricting refused asylum seekers and 'illegal immigrants' access to primary health care services. The proposed measures would affect the right to register with a GP and be treated free at the point of delivery other than in the area of emergency health care. Refused asylum seekers are already denied access to secondary health care services, so these proposals would further extend restrictive measures on the health care available to them.


Presumably in order to 'balance' the views of Sir Andrew Green, the discussion also included Jill Rutter, who was identified as representing the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR). Gill Rutter put in a impressive performance to counter and refocus attention from the slick and super media savvy arguments of Green. But whilst he spoke from the studio, Jill Rutter's contribution, by contrast, was delivered via a (slightly crackly) phone line. At the very least it seemed to me, this placed her at a distinct disadvantage in terms of conveying her status as a credible 'expert'. Speaking from a microphone in the studio during a radio phone in attributes the 'invited guest expert' a privileged position, clearly setting them apart from the 'listener contributor'. In addition, a studio guest could also benefit from their physical presence in the studio - establishing a rapport with the presenter perhaps, and possibly using visual cues to their advantage as a guide for timely interventions. Indeed, at one stage, this disadvantage seemed to be signalled when the host, Rachel Burden even voiced her uncertainty about whether or not Jill Rutter was 'still there'.

Equally as concerning however in this programme, was the seemingly unquestioned acceptance of Sir Andrew Green's Migrationwatch as an appropriate organisation to speak on these issues (and indeed the unquestioned acceptance that Migrationwatch is actually an 'organisation' as such, rather than essentially consisting of Andrew Green). There was no real attempt to explain to listeners why this particular individual deserved such a privileged public platform, nor why he might represent a good choice as a voice of authority on the topic. It is not that I would wish to silence Andrew Green or necessarily seek to entirely prevent his point of view from being heard in the media. However, I do think it is important that a convincing justification be provided by broadcasters for the inclusion of his perspective in particular, and the extent to which attention is paid to it. It would also be useful if something of the political background and the nature of such pressure groups were to be clearly stated (e.g., in this case that Migrationwatch is essentially a one man show, and as such is by no means the equivalent in terms of political credibility and legitimacy of a think tank such as the IPPR). At least then listeners may be provided with a more informed context through which to engage with the 'expert' arguments that are advanced.

All a bit disappointing on a Sunday morning really, but on the bright side, one strong voice (albeit over crackly lines) was at least there to challenge the beguilingly packaged bile and circumscribed terms of the debate as articulated by Green this time. I'm tempted to begin a Migrationwatch Watch series of posts, but perhaps this would be to attribute further unwarranted attention to an already infuriatingly over-exposed source. Views on this question would be very welcome!

Link to Asylum in the Media from Media and Politics Group of the PSA

The Media and Politics Group of the Political Studies Association is linking to my blog on Facebook. In the spirit of reciprocation and mutual puffery here is a link to their homepage on the PSA site.

http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/mpg/mpg.asp

And now it's real...

So, I now have the beginnings of some content for the blog - a growing list of really great links, plus several news feeds from some of my favourite sources on asylum and refugee issues. The feed from Phillipe Legrain (author of Immigrants Your Country Needs Them, 2006 is concerned with immigration more generally rather than asylum and refugee issues. It's necessary in my view though, to engage with the broader network of ideas which surround and construct asylum discourse in order to properly explore it, so I feel quite justified in including this. Legrain's interventions are often really interesting and they tend to generate political debate.

The blog is now also now linked to my Facebook profile and because of this, a few people have let me know that they've noticed it...which means that this blogging Asylum in the Media business suddenly feels a bit more real! Asylum in the Media has the beginnings of 'a public'...admittedly it's actually just my friends so far... but then it's quality, and not necessarily quantity that counts... and it is very early doors after all.

Right, that's quite enough introversion and shameless self-aggrandising. Next post soon to follow - hopefully including a bit more substance and a bit less of the patter.

First asylum in the media blog

So, this is it, my first blog on asylum in the media. Right now, I'm intending to use this site to collect my observations about media stories which either feature asylum seekers and refugees, or which I consider important to the formation of wider issues that surround them. I've begun to construct a collection of links and resources that I think are interesting or useful. I'm envisaging the blog as a place for commentating on contemporary media and political discourses of asylum, but also for highlighting existing and new research. I'll also be thinking about some of the different ways in which asylum discourse and contemporary forms of racism more generally might be productively explored, and potentially developing new ideas for research.

If anyone actually finds my blog and has the inclination to respond to any of my posts, then that would be great!