(frequently) variable ways
(see also Jarvis and Lister 2015a ).
In order to assess these impacts upon security and citizenship more
specifically, this chapter offers a brief overview of our own approach
to these complex and contested concepts. We begin by exploring how
recent scholarship on security has sought, first, to escape the
state-centrism of earlier work in this area and, second, to examine the
This book explores how different publics make sense of and evaluate anti-terrorism powers within the UK, and the implications of this for citizenship and security. Since 9/11, the UK’s anti-terrorism framework has undergone dramatic changes, including with the introduction of numerous new pieces of legislation. Drawing on primary empirical research, this book examines the impact of these changes on security and citizenship, as perceived by citizens themselves. We examine such impacts on different communities within the UK, and find that generally, whilst white individuals were not unconcerned about the effects of anti-terrorism, ethnic minority citizens (and not Muslim communities alone) believe that anti-terrorism measures have had a direct, negative impact on various dimensions of their citizenship and security. This book thus offers the first systematic engagement with ‘vernacular’ or ‘everyday’ understandings of anti-terrorism policy, citizenship and security. Beyond an empirical analysis of citizen attitudes, it argues that while transformations in anti-terrorism frameworks impact on public experiences of security and citizenship, they do not do so in a uniform, homogeneous, or predictable manner. At the same time, public understandings and expectations of security and citizenship themselves shape how developments in anti-terrorism frameworks are discussed and evaluated. The relationships between these phenomenon, in other words, are both multiple and co-constitutive. By detailing these findings, this book adds depth and complexity to existing studies of the impact of anti-terrorism powers. The book will be of interest to a wide range of academic disciplines including Political Science, International Relations, Security Studies and Sociology.
This chapter follows the previous
discussion of public evaluations of anti-terrorism powers by examining
the impact thereof on citizens and citizenship more specifically. Two
main findings from our research are discussed. First, that
anti-terrorism powers have impacted – variably – on four
key aspects of citizenship: rights, participation, identity and duties.
political agenda to promote individual entitlements that transcend national citizenship ( Moyn, 2010 ). In his inaugural address, in January 1977,
President Jimmy Carter declared that ‘Our commitment to human rights must be
absolute’ (quoted in Moyn, 2014: 69 ). Under the
guardianship of the UN, following the UDHR in 1948, the concept of human rights had lacked
prescriptive force; only once adopted by the US as an instrument of order and hegemony did it
become the basis for a global movement.
For many liberal commentators at the turn of the 1990s
moral obligation to take a political stance that citizenship imposes. 5 No such ‘opt out’ is available with regard to the
boat people at sea or the migrants in Calais and other French port cities, camped as they
endeavour to find a way to get to Britain. The fact that where one stands with regard to the
migrants has become the defining political and moral issue in the EU makes even a semblance of
humanitarian ‘neutrality’ an impossibility. And rightly so.
At present, however, European relief NGOs seem to want to maintain the fiction that their
it). This is the same foundational commitment that animates human rights work. The humanist core
to both of these forms of social practice is a similar kind of belief in the ultimate priority of
moral claims made by human beings as human beings rather than as possessors of
any markers of identity or citizenship.
What differences exist between humanitarianism and human rights are largely sociological
– the contextual specifics of the evolution of two different forms of social activism. I
have argued elsewhere, for example, that
, cosmopolitan citizens and themes relevant to
their everyday lives and perceptions of citizenship. Thus, the distinction commonly
drawn between ‘data rich’ governments, institutions and commercial
enterprises, which collect, store and mine data, and ‘data poor’
individual citizens targeted by such efforts has been criticised for obscuring
global inequities ( Ruckenstein and
Schüll, 2017 ). This insight is highly relevant to humanitarian
wearables, because it
Four Conversations with Canadian Communications Officers
Globetrotting or Global Citizenship? Perils and Potential of International Experiential Learning ( Toronto :
University of Toronto Press ), pp.
230 – 57 .
( 2018 ),
Mobilizing Mercy: A History of the Canadian Red Cross ( Montreal and Kingston :
McGill-Queen’s University Press ).
( 2021 ), ‘ Social Media and Charities in Canada ’, in
S. D. and
Innovations: Change for Canada’s Voluntary and Nonprofit Sector
Lewis Hine’s Photographs of Refugees for the American Red Cross, 1918–20
Sonya de Laat
( Gutman, 1967 : 14). Hine’s skills would prove invaluable for shining light on civilians’ wartime need; they were equally instrumental in making the ARC shine as American’s preeminent relief agency.
It was the Great War that created stateless persons, making stark the emerging reality that rights were not inhered in the person, as has been the central tenet of European philosophy since the time of the French Revolution. Rights were increasingly tied to citizenship ( Ngai, 2004 ; see also Hunt, 2007 ). For many in today’s world it is difficult to imagine anything