TodayWorld News

White Britain and the Racialised Risk

Literature detailing the inadequacies and controversies of the Stop technique is intensive. Essential accounts of Stop have accused it of failing in its objective to forestall extremism (Skoczylis & Andrews, 2020); argued that it constructs Muslim communities as ‘suspect’ (Hickman et al, 2011) and contended that it neglects the risk posed by the far-Proper (Kundnani, 2012). Acknowledging the latter criticism, the 2011 revision of the Stop technique discredited the preliminary unique deal with Muslim communities and explicitly dedicated to addressing ring-wing extremism and radicalisation. Extending the scope of Stop to handle the specter of the far-Proper was depicted as strengthening counter-terrorism efforts that may also scale back the “perceived discrimination” of the technique (HM Authorities, 2011, p3). However this rhetorical conflation between ring-wing extremism and ‘Islamic’ extremism is insufficient as a result of it maintains a ‘veneer of color blindness’ (Younis, 2020) that fails to have interaction within the (publish)colonial context during which racialised Muslim populations are construed as suspect within the first place. Subsequently, given these inadequacies, what objective does the Stop technique serve?

This essay understands Stop as not about counter-terrorism, however as half of a bigger venture of racial (b)ordering that casts racialised populations as a ‘risk’ to white Britain (El-Enany, 2020). Certainly, silencing the racist logics of Stop reinforces this venture, as a result of it obscures and perpetuates the marginalisation of racialised Muslims, and (re)produces the white nation’s sovereignty and energy (see: Richter-Montpetit, 2014). Thus, sustaining Stop’s ‘veneer of colourblindness’ (Younis, 2020) is significant for white Britain, as a result of it restores its (fragile) energy and (threatened) racial venture.

But, processes of racialisation and race are conspicuously absent from vital accounts of Stop (for instance: Boukalas, 2019; Skoczylis and Andrews, 2020; Heath-Kelly, 2017). Subsequently, the primary contribution of this essay is to display how constructions of Britishness and the racialisation of Muslims is obvious all through all iterations of Stop from its preliminary neighborhood cohesion strategy to the Stop Obligation launched by way of the Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act (2015).

This isn’t to recommend that Stop doesn’t implicate all sections and communities in society (Boukalas, 2019), as a result of because the 2015 imposition of a statutory responsibility on public sector establishments to take part in Stop has proven, the technique issues society as an entire. However, e(race)ing (Moore, 2012) the centrality of the racialisation of Muslims in what makes the Stop technique potential fails to have interaction within the racialised (publish)colonial historical past of safety practices. Occluding this from discussions of Stop leads to a whitewashing of how safety practices function (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019) and assigns racism to a consequence of Stop, relatively than constitutive of it. Thus, the principle contribution the essay makes is to point out that processes of racialisation and the development of a white Britain can’t be faraway from the logics of Stop, as a result of it’s key to its situation of risk.

This essay contains of three sections. The primary part examines the preliminary conceptualisation of Stop and its subsequent technique revisions from 2011-2015. The part highlights the conceptual significance of “Britishness” and “British values”, which is critical in gentle of British colonial historical past. The second part turns to a Foucauldian studying of Stop, inspecting how Muslimified populations are ruled by the programme. The part concludes by arguing a Foucauldian studying of Stop can fail to account for race and coloniality within the building of safety practices. Following from this, the third part seems on the formation of a white Britain by way of immigration legal guidelines and citizenship deprivation, and the way racialised populations come to characterize threats to the nation. This permits Stop to be located inside a bigger racial venture of (b)ordering that depends upon the silencing of its racist logics.

Race written into Stop

Britain’s counter-terrorism (CONTEST) technique contains of 4 coverage strands – Pursue, Stop, Shield and Put together. The Stop strand, which would be the topic of this essay, focuses on countering radical ideology cultivated by “violent extremists” and their alleged “apologists” by way of a ‘hearts and minds’ programme (HM Authorities, 2011). Stop has undergone quite a few revisions following a change in authorities in 2010 and variations in coverage particulars. However there’s one fixed: race is written into Stop, even whether it is in palatable race-neutral phrases. Studying by way of the totally different iterations of Stop from 2003 to 2015 permits us to see how basically racialised Stop is.

First Growth

Launched in response to the “rising terrorist risk” following the 9/11 assaults, CONTEST was initially developed in 2003, though, admittedly, an underdeveloped and “slender doc” (Dwelling Affairs Committee, 2009, p5). The disaster of the 7/7 bombings in 2005, nevertheless, prompted the federal government to rethink the doc to forestall a home terror risk. Stop promised to include this threat by way of a neighborhood cohesion strategy, that unapologetically centered on a homogenised Muslim neighborhood (Thomas, 2015).

Though the neighborhood cohesion strategy was mentioned to be selling integration and shared values, this meant explicitly defining Muslim communities outdoors of ‘Britishness’ within the first place. Certainly, that is seen in then-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s (2005) speech in regards to the 7/7 bombings the place there is a crucial separation between “us”, who “wish to save and enhance human life”, and “them”, who “are intent on destroying human life”. The discursive distinction between us and them, regardless of three of the 4 perpetrators of the bombings being British-born, serves to distance Britain and Britishness away from the causes of the assault, and place it firmly within the arms of the ‘Different’ Muslims.

The unique deal with Muslim communities within the technique produced quite a few, predictable, however disastrous penalties. For example, Thomas (2015) highlights that the monetary funding in Muslim communities, on account of the Stop funding scheme that was finished in direct proportion to the variety of Muslims in a neighborhood authority space (Qurashi, 2018, p4), created resentment amongst non-Muslim communities. Non-Muslim communities perceived Muslim communities as benefiting from ‘alternatives’ supplied by Stop funding that was being denied to them. Right here, the mutually reinforcing relationship between the neighborhood cohesion strategy and the ‘Othering’ of Muslimified communities is clear. The neighborhood cohesion can thus be seen as (re)affirming the ‘separateness’ of Muslimified communities from white Britishness that had been expressed in riots in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in 2001 (Thomas, 2015).

2011 Revision

Responding to the criticism of the earlier neighborhood cohesion technique, the Coalition authorities launched the 2011 Stop overview, which sought to handle all types of “extremist ideology” (HM Authorities, 2011, p1). This dedication to handle the specter of the far-right, nevertheless, has been described as “basically hole” as a result of it’s characterised by pre-existing hierarchal beliefs round ‘Islamic’ extremism (Bentley, 2015, p120). Certainly, the technique’s dedication to take care of the risk posed by the far-right is undermined by the critiques’ persistent declare that the best risk to Britain is from ‘Islamic’ extremism (HM Authorities, 2011).

To fight in opposition to this risk, Prime Minister David Cameron outlined the brand new technique of Stop that emphasised a “muscular” promotion of a value-based strategy. The worth-based strategy established ‘Elementary British Values’ (FBVs), which had been introduced as: ‘democracy’, ‘the rule of regulation’, ‘particular person liberty’ and ‘the mutual respect and tolerance of various faiths and beliefs’ (HM Authorities, 2011). On condition that Britain is based on colonialism, enslavement and racism, these values being superior as basically British is questionable (El-Enany, 2020). Nonetheless, as mentioned by Crawford (2017), these values are racially coded and check with (white) British cultural norms solely, as evidenced by Cameron’s (2014) assertion that FBV’s are as “British because the Union flag, as soccer, as fish and chips”. This discourse enforces a notion of ‘Britishness’ that’s distinctively white and liberal, while designating non-white British norms, existence and identities as non-liberal and belonging outdoors of Britishness. To be thought of as belonging to the nation, racialised populations should continually ‘carry out loyalty’ by confirming their dedication and investing on this flimsy conceptualisation of ‘Britishness’ (Bhattacharyya et al. 2021, p49). 

2013 Killing of Lee Rigby

The demarcation between Muslimified populations and areas grew to become additional entrenched within the Stop technique following the killing of soldier Lee Rigby in 2013, which provoked the Coalition authorities to re-assess the programme (Thomas, 2015). Asserting the meeting of a activity drive on extremism and radicalisation, David Cameron (2013) asserted that the purpose was to “drain the swamp which [extremists] inhabit … which means wanting on the strategy of radicalisation on our campuses, it means Islamic centres which were taken over by extremists and gone unsuitable, it means these mosques, that are struggling to throw out the extremists and to assist them within the work they’re doing”. Thus, Stop isn’t contained within the current house, however spills into the longer term by looking for to defeat the risk by working within the pre-criminal house.

Though Cameron explicitly names ‘Islamic centres’ because the milieu during which radical concepts are accepted and the place the ‘conveyor belt’ to radicalisation cultivates, the query of who is taken into account to stay in these ‘swamps’ could be moreover answered by wanting on the case of Andres Breivik in Norway. Reasonably than participating in an evaluation of the context during which the Islamophobia and white supremacy politics expressed by Breivik is espoused by on a regular basis by Norwegians and different Europeans, the trial and media protection centered nearly solely on his (in)sanity; refusing to compel an evaluation of his racist politics past an individualised and psychologised body (Patel, 2014). In distinction, the racialised and psychologised Muslimified ‘terrorist’ stands in for the ideology of Islam as an entire, who must be drained from Western nation-states (ibid). Thus, the white terrorist isn’t mentioned to stay in a swamp, however an remoted habitat, unlisted for drainage. Moreover, the swamp is devoid of any social, historic and political context, and comprising of the racialised Different who threatens the white social order.

2015 Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act

Following the meeting of the duty drive, arguably essentially the most vital growth of Stop got here within the type of the Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act (HM Authorities, 2015). The Act imposed a statutory responsibility for authorities, akin to healthcare and training establishments, to take part in Stop and forestall folks from being drawn into terrorism. In instructional settings, this additionally includes actively selling FBVs, by “difficult opinions or behaviours in faculties which are opposite to [FBVs]” (Division of Training 2014).

Though this strategy registers everybody who comes into contact with public sector establishments as a risk, Younis and Jadhav (2019) present that Stop continues to be racially marked. Their analysis confirmed that Muslim NHS employees had been deeply frightened of expressing any criticism of Stop, as a result of they felt already regarded ‘by way of a lens of suspicion’ and feared they’d be branded as ‘terrorist sympathisers’ (ibid, p412). Equally, the securitisation and criminalisation of Muslim college students in training settings has discouraged them from discussing, exploring, and researching Islam in case of Stop referrals (Visitor et al. 2020). This worry isn’t unfounded, as Muslim college students have been interrogated and referred to Stop for studying a textbook regarding terrorism for his or her research (Ramesh and Halliday, 2015) and carrying Professional-Palestine badges and wristbands (The Unbiased, 2016), amongst different causes. Moreover, claims of the technique’s neutrality and non-discrimination could be dismissed simply by wanting on the statistics of Stop’s referrals, the place in 2017-18, Muslims had been two and a half occasions extra more likely to be reported than far-right activists (Visitor et al. 2020, p41). That is pertinent as a result of, in accordance with the 2011 census, Muslims comprise solely 4.8% of the inhabitants of England and Wales (Qurashi, 2018).

This temporary historical past of Stop outlines its reactionary beginnings and subsequent refinement to turn into a extremely prioritised counter-terrorism technique. As proven, Stop isn’t a impartial, goal protector, however a regulation that the liberal nation state utilises as a weapon in opposition to Muslimified populations (see Ahmad, 2004). Moreover, claims of Stop’s race neutrality could be clearly rejected by tracing the way it has operated and particularly focused this inhabitants. The next part explores a Foucauldian studying of Stop that appears at how Muslimified populations have been ruled by Stop.

Governing by way of Stop

Because the earlier part has proven, terrorism isn’t an occasion, however a presence permeating the on a regular basis (Cuomo, 1996). Stop was launched, and subsequently expanded, to control contingency and safe life in opposition to this omnipresent risk current inside the social physique. The racialised risk inside the social physique is imagined to be preventable by way of pre-emptive policing and surveillance. Thus, Stop could be seen as an try and “set up a kind of homeostasis […] by reaching an total equilibrium that protects the safety of the entire from inside risks” (Foucault, 2003, p249).

This part proceeds with a Foucauldian studying of Stop, discussing how Stop operates by way of topics, together with Muslimified populations, to create a state of governance. As a result of, as Foucault argues, energy is exercised by way of topics, not over them (Foucault, 1982). Following the work of Howell and Richter-Montpetit (2019), the part concludes with a dialogue of the constraints of a Foucauldian studying of Stop, as a result of it treats racism on account of Stop, relatively than constitutive of it.

Surveying Muslimified Populations

As conveyed inside the earlier part, Muslimified topics are the goal of Stop’s counter-terrorism efforts, regardless of claims from the federal government that it targets all threats of terrorism and extremism. As such, Stop has been understood as ‘embedding infrastructures of surveillance in Muslimified communities’ to foretell and pre-empt radicalisation and extremism (Qurashi, 2018). Certainly, intelligence gathering is on the coronary heart of Stop observe, as confirmed by then-Dwelling Secretary Amber Rudd in an announcement following the Manchester bombings: “we get intelligence far more from the Stop technique, which engages with area people teams, not by way of the police” (The Guardian, 2017). Surveying and gathering info are the very types of liberal governmentality, looking for to handle and govern populations at a distance (Ceyhan, 2012). Thus, Stop could be positioned as a liberal venture, below the guise of counter-terrorism, that goals to include and govern Muslimified populations by way of pre-emptive policing and criminalisation.

Exercised by way of Muslimified Populations

Foucault’s conceptualisation of biopolitics requires an evaluation of the connection between Muslim communities and the state past one that’s purely destructive, as a result of: “what makes energy maintain good, what makes it accepted, is just the truth that it doesn’t solely weigh on us as a drive that claims no, however it traverses and produces issues, it induces pleasure, types of data, produces discourse” (Foucault, 1980, p118-119). For example, Ali (2015) argues the creation of the ‘Muslim neighborhood’ so usually referred to in counter-terrorism discourse was reliant on an asymmetrical relationship between state and Muslim topics. Partaking with distinguished Muslim figures and teams, such because the Muslim Council of Britain (MBC), enabled the federal government to map and govern the created ‘Muslim neighborhood’ from a distance for counter-terrorism functions. Extracting details about Muslim communities by way of these organisations moreover fostered the ‘conduct of conduct’ of Muslims; producing a binary between the ‘good’ and the ‘unhealthy’ Muslim.

The ‘good’ Muslim topic, such because the mom, is invited to train the agenda of Stop. The Stop Tragedies marketing campaign, working from 2015-2017, invited Muslimified ladies to ‘battle in opposition to extremism and terrorism’ by reporting their youngsters to Stop (Andrews, 2020). The narrative of the marketing campaign constructs a selected femininity, the nurturing however naïve mom, who’s outlined in relation to others, to advertise the message of counter-terrorism (ibid). This caricature of the Muslimified lady who’s marked by their passivity, naivety and feelings isn’t a brand new phenomenon in counter-terrorism discourse. As Khalili (2011) exhibits, ladies are essentialised as much less corrupt and fewer war-like and are due to this fact an essential terrain upon whom counterinsurgency experiments and messages could be carried out.  Certainly, the Muslimified lady exists alongside the determine of the Muslimified man, who’s constituted as a risk to the nation, in addition to a risk to the Muslimified lady (ibid).

The invitation of the Muslimified lady to guard the nation in opposition to the upcoming risk of terrorism may also be seen within the controversial appointment of Sara Khan because the lead for the Fee for Countering Extremism. Opposition to Khan’s appointment was involved together with her earlier partnership with the Dwelling Workplace and her “robust advocat[ion]” of Stop, thus resulting in a notion of her as “a creation of and mouthpiece for the Dwelling Workplace” and sustaining the state’s disciplinary equipment (Grierson, 2018). But, to be unwelcoming of the appointment was to be un-feminist, as a result of the management of a younger Muslim lady must be ‘celebrated’, as a result of there “aren’t sufficient ladies in management” (ibid). This mobilisation of ‘ladies’s rights’ to include Muslimified ladies into the disciplinary equipment of the state represents what Farris (2017) phrases the ‘neoliberal institutionalisation of femonationalism’. By this, Farris highlights that sure topics, on this case Muslimified ladies, are invited into the nation to advance anti-Islam agendas and insurance policies, akin to Stop, within the title of advancing ladies’s rights. Emphasising this side of neoliberal governance is essential as a result of it stresses that not all topics are ruled the identical. 

Devices of the State

Because the earlier part mentioned, the Counter-Terrorism Safety Act (2015) imposed a statutory responsibility onto public part establishments and professionals to take part in Stop, making them ‘devices of the state’ (Crawford, 2017). Lecturers, for instance, turn into important in selling the ideological equipment of the state, shaping topics and regulating dissent by figuring out and reporting those that oppose or differ ideologies that threaten the neoliberal consensus (Skoczylis & Andrews, 2020). Critics of the statutory responsibility, such because the Nationwide Union of Lecturers and the Royal Faculty of Psychiatrists, have expressed concern about Stop’s intrusion into the non-public sphere, arguing that it’s profoundly intolerant (Heath-Kelly, 2016). However, as outlined by Skoczylis and Andrews (2020, p358), Stop is “profoundly neoliberal in that it promotes the neoliberal established order and neoliberal ideology, and that it’s designed to handle the destructive results of neoliberal insurance policies on society”. Thus, Stop could be understood as a thread inside the neoliberal ideological quilt, shaping and governing topics. Importantly absent from Skoczylis and Andrew’s evaluation, nevertheless, is an engagement with race and the way Muslimified populations are understood as ‘dangerous’ within the neoliberal order, exemplifying what Bhambra (2017a) calls ‘methodological whiteness’. That is to say that Skocyzlis and Andrew’s evaluation:

fails to acknowledge the function performed by race within the very structuring of that world, and of the methods during which data is constructed and legitimated inside it. It fails to recognise the dominance of ‘whiteness’ as something aside from the usual state of affairs and treats a restricted perspective – that deriving from white expertise – as a common perspective (Bhambra, 2017b).  

Solely by acknowledging the function of race in producing the circumstances that make applied sciences akin to Stop potential can the breadth of its operations be understood.


The erasure (Moore, 2012) of the centrality of the racialisation of Muslims within the operation of Stop could be recognized in literature inserting Stop inside a Foucauldian framework. For instance, Heath-Kelly (2017) highlights the articulation of Stop as safeguarding inside the Counter-Terrorism and Safety Act (2015) emphasises its biopolitical heritage as a construction productive and governing of inhabitants. She argues that inside the imagined pre-criminal house, “every life is interpreted as uniquely harmful” and thus warrant surveillance, though this fails to have interaction with how, particularly, Muslimified populations are focused by Stop (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019). Moreover, profoundly untheorised in Heath-Kelly’s (2017) article, and far of the literature on Stop, is the constitutive function of racial politics within the family tree of safety practices and biopower (ibid). Certainly, there’s a disciplinary tendency of Foucauldian Safety Research (FSS) to whitewash the raciality and coloniality of recent energy and violence (ibid). Solely by way of participating with Britain as a white, imperial nation (El-Enany, 2020) can students seize the importance of Stop, and perceive that racism is constitutive of Stop, relatively than a consequence. Subsequently, the subsequent part situates the racialisation of Muslims inside a white Britain, that has been constructed by way of immigration legal guidelines and citizenship deprivation. The part explores constructed racialised figures who’ve represented threats to white Britain. This conceptualisation allows Stop to be positioned inside a wider racial venture of (b)ordering that locations racialised populations outdoors of Britishness and a risk to the white nation.  This highlights that racism is vital to Stop’s situation of risk.

White Britain threated by the racialised Different

Establishing a White Britain

The structure of a white Britain could be recognized within the manufacturing of a British subjecthood by way of immigration regulation and controls. This isn’t to recommend that earlier than these legal guidelines {that a} white Britain didn’t exist, nor that the nation was welcoming to racialised populations, however relatively this to focus on the function of regulation in producing the current the place racialised populations are outlined as outdoors of Britishness.

The manufacturing of citizenship for the UK and its colonies by way of the British Nationality Act (1948) could be positioned inside the family tree of the manufacturing of a white Britain. Though the truth that the nationality internet was solid broad could be seen as a welcoming of racialised colony and Commonwealth residents into the nation, the thought they’d journey to and stay in Britain was an unintended consequence of the Act, which the federal government sought to quell in subsequent legal guidelines (El-Enany, 2020, p14). The passing of the Immigration Act (1971) promised to manage the migration of racialised topics by imposing the suitable of abode and due to this fact proper of entry and keep into Britain to solely patrials, these born in Britain or with a guardian born in Britain. This regulation made Britishness commensurate to whiteness, as a result of in 1971, an individual born in Britain or with a guardian born in Britain was almost certainly (98%) to be white (ibid, p4). The British Nationality Act (1981) furthered this racial exclusion by defining citizenship solely in nationwide phrases, tying citizenship to the suitable of entry and abode. Racialised colony and Commonwealth residents thus had no entitlement to Britishness as an identification nor to entry Britain as a spot (El-Enany, 2020, p130). Moreover, by way of these legal guidelines, white Britain grew to become geographically distinct from the stays of its racialised colonies and Commonwealth, giving solely the white British topic the suitable to entry its colonial wealth (ibid). Exclusionary and expulsive immigration legal guidelines, due to this fact, have produced a British identification centred on whiteness, and consequently categorised racialised folks outdoors of Britishness.

The (re)building of a white Britain can moreover be seen in examples of citizenship deprivation, as seen within the case of Shamima Begum in 2019. Earlier than continuing, I want to spotlight that it isn’t my intention to create a fallacious binary between that of the ‘good’ and the ‘unhealthy’ citizenship deprival, as a result of the coverage itself is racialised (El-Enany, 2020). However Begum’s case, particularly, is pertinent as a result of she is illegally stateless as results of her citizenship deprivation, and there was no discernible proof she constitutes a risk to nationwide safety (Chahal, 2019). As there are not any recorded examples of white far-right extremists being disadvantaged of their citizenship within the title of nationwide safety, Begum’s citizenship deprivation could be seen as rhetorical (Parsons, 2014). Begum’s case conveys the conditionality of British citizenship for racialised populations, while affirming that Britishness is barely inherent to white British populations.

Establishing Racialised Muslim Distinction

The conditionality of belonging to the white nation is identifiable within the manufacturing of racialised ‘folks devils’, akin to that of the ‘migrant’. The spectacle of the racialised migrant who steals jobs, ‘scrounges’ on welfare advantages, lies about their age and refugee standing induces panic as a result of it tells white Britons their nation isn’t their very own (Bhattacharyya et al. 2021). Certainly, in a time of neoliberal restructuring, the decline of the welfare state and the erosion of the ‘wages of whiteness’, the development of the racialised migrant is central to reconstitution of racial hegemony in a time of disaster (Danewid, 2021). Overcoming the disaster means policing those that are framed to have created and exacerbated it: particularly, the racialised migrant. Thus, the enlargement of borders or the deprivation of citizenship serves to ease white anxieties concerning the racialised Different who threatens the white British nation.

Conceptualising the racialised determine of the Muslim means wanting past the organic essentialism of racism and focusing as an alternative on processes of racialisation that render populations as racial topics. Sure phenotypes, cultural and spiritual attributes which are coded as not British mix to provide the assemble of what Ahmad (2004) refers to because the ‘Muslim-looking individual’. Rooted in the identical logic as Ahmad, this essay has employed the idea of ‘Muslimified populations’ to check with the racialised assemble. 

The determine of the Muslim has taken many various representations inside Britain which is past the breadth of this essay. As an alternative, I’ll deal with two particular figures inside present public discourse, that of the ‘harmful brown man’ who sexually abuses white ladies, and the ‘breeder’ who drains on financial assets in occasions of austerity.

The spectre of the Muslimified ‘grooming gangs’ who ‘ran’ cities akin to Rochdale and Rotherham permeated the British public’s creativeness all through the previous decade. The framing of the ‘harmful brown males’ as having a selected disdain for white ladies as a result of they had been white not solely breathed new life into colonial tropes encompass the sexual extra of Muslimified males but additionally strengthened far-right arguments concerning the nation (Bhattacharyya et al. 2021). The vulnerability of the younger white ladies got here to characterize that of the weak British nation, who had been besieged by multiculturalism and ‘political correctness’ (ibid, p117-118). This was additional consolidated by way of the citizenship deprivation of three males who had been convicted alongside six others in Rochdale, as their contempt for white ladies and Britain constituted a safety risk (BBC, 2018).

Of their article exploring Islamophobia skilled by British Muslims, Ali and Whitham (2021) spotlight the gendered dimensions skilled by Muslim ladies. The concentrating on of Muslim moms as ‘having a load of children … simply to kill the advantages system and housing” attracts upon colonial tropes round ‘breeding’ and competitors for survival in a society with restricted assets (ibid, p206). The conditionality and punitiveness in the advantages system are consequently framed as defending the nation from the ‘breeder’ and ‘scrounger’ who drains the scarce financial assets in occasions of austerity (Bhattacharyya et al. 2021).

These figures don’t exist as a particular phenomenon. Reasonably, the assemble of the racialised migrant, the ‘harmful brown man’, the ‘breeder’ and the Muslimified terrorist each implicate and refer to 1 one other. The manufacturing of those racialised figures who threaten white Britain creates ethical panic that justifies the policing of racialised Others, whether or not that be by way of the violence of the enlargement of borders, the conditionality of the welfare state, or the on a regular basis surveillance of Muslimified populations by way of Stop.

What’s at stake if white Britain was not in a position to carry out these acts of violence in opposition to racialised populations? As Richter-Montpetit’s (2014, p55) article outlines, these acts of violence are very important to white Britain as a result of not solely does this represent a show of its authority, however it’s the place the nation produces sovereignty and subjection. Moreover, silencing the racist logics underpinning these types of state violence is essential as a result of it legitimises their existence. In different phrases, white Britain depends on a ‘veneer of colourblindness’ (Younis, 2020) as a result of if its racist logics had been to be perceived, its authority and sovereignty is threatened. The constraints of white Britain’s energy are obvious right here, as a result of it’s “on account of the vulnerability, permeability, contestability and therefore precarity of energy” that these violences are used within the first place (ibid, p57). In conclusion, the thought Stop is race-neutral, or that racism is a consequence of Stop is tough to maintain in opposition to the backdrop of a white Britain that casts racialised populations as a risk. Additional, unseeing the racist logics constituting Stop legitimises the existence of the programme, and (re)produces the white Britain propagating it.


Including to scholarship vital of the Stop strand of the CONTEST technique, this essay has explored the racialisation of Muslimified populations inherent to the programme. Arguing that this has been obscured and unseen by state actors and non-state actors, in addition to by a few of Stop’s critics. This essay means that solely by way of acknowledging the logics underpinning Stop can the programme be appropriately interrogated.

This essay additional argues that the racialised determine of the Muslimified terrorist propagated by Stop exists alongside that of different racialised Others, particularly the racialised migrant, the ‘harmful brown man’, and the ‘breeder’, who all represent threats to white Britain. These figures exist to legitimise punitive and violent practices by the state, such because the enlargement of borders, the conditionality of the welfare state and the surveillance of Muslimified populations through Stop. These practices are very important to the sustainment of white Britain, as a result of these practices are websites during which the white nation restores its fragile and threated energy. Unseeing the racist logics elementary to those violent practices (re)produces the white Britain instigating them, as a result of it legitimises their existence. Thus, sustaining Stop’s ‘veneer of colourblindness’ (Younis, 2020) isn’t solely very important for its operations, but additionally for white Britain to proceed its racial venture of (b)ordering.

On the present juncture the place Britain defines itself as a ‘beacon to the remainder of Europe and the world’ and ‘not institutionally racist’ (Fee on Race and Ethnic Disparities, 2021, p8) this essay gives a well timed evaluation on how processes of racialisation are central to how white Britain defines itself and restores its authority. Destabilising the facility of white Britain means recognising and interrogating the racist logics at its very core. This requires connecting and resisting exclusionary and expulsive practices of Preventwithin a bigger venture of racial (b)ordering in white Britain. 


Ahmad, M. I. (2004) ‘A rage shared by regulation: Publish-September 11 racial violence as crimes of ardour’, California Legislation Evaluation, 92(5), pp. 1259-1330. doi:10.2307/3481418.

Ali, N. (2015) ‘Mapping the Muslim neighborhood: the politics of counter-radicalisation in Britain’, in Baker-Beall, C., Heath-Kelly, C., Jarvis, L. (ed.) Counter-Radicalisation. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 139-155.

Ali, N., Whitham, B. (2021) ‘Racial Capitalism, Islamophobia, and Austerity’, Worldwide Political Sociology, 15(2), pp. 190-211. Obtainable at:

Andrews, S. (2020) ‘Stop Tragedies: A case examine in female-targeted strategic communications in the UK’s Stop counterterrorism coverage’, Journal for Deradicalization, 24(1), pp 1-39. Obtainable at: (Accessed: 1 Might 2021).

BBC (2018) Rochdale grooming trio to lose British citizenship. Obtainable at:

Bentley, M. (2015) ‘Recognition masking response: stopping far-right extremism and radicalisation’, in Baker-Beall, C., Heath-Kelly, C., Jarvis, L. (ed.) Counter-Radicalisation. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 106-122.

Bhambra, G. Okay. (2017a) ‘Brexit, Trump, and ‘Methodological Whiteness: On the Misrecognition of Race and Class’, The British Journal of Sociology, 68 (S1): S214–32. Obtainable at: (Accessed 30 April 2021).

Bhambra, G. Okay. (2017b) ‘Why are the white working courses nonetheless being held accountable for Brexit and Trump?’, LSE, 10November. Obtainable at: (Accessed 30 April 2021).

Bhattacharyya, G., Elliot-Cooper, A., Balani, S., Nişancioğlu, Okay., Koram, Okay., Gebrial, D., El-Enany, N., De Noronha, L. (2021) Empires Endgame: Racism and the British State. London: Pluto Press.

Blair, T. (2005) ‘7/7/2005: Tony Blair on bombings in London’. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Boukalas, C. (2019) ‘The Stop paradox: destroying liberalism with the intention to defend it’, Crime Legislation Social Change, 72(1), pp. 467-482. Obtainable at:

Cameron, D. (2014) ‘British values aren’t non-obligatory, they’re very important. That’s why I’ll promote them in EVERY college: As row rages over ‘Trojan Horse’ takeover of our lecture rooms, the Prime Minister delivers this uncompromising pledge…’ Mail On-line, 15 June. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Cameron, D. (2013) Drain the swamp of extremism: Cameron orders crackdown on ‘conveyer belt’ of hate in faculties and universities. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Cameron, D. (2011) PM’s speech at Munich Safety Convention. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Ceyhan, A. (2012) ‘Surveillance as biopower’, in Ball, Okay., Haggerty, Okay., Lyon, D. (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Research. New York: Routledge, pp. 38-46.

Chahal, S. (2019) ‘The case of Shamima Begum: A risk to nationwide safety or populist witch hunt?’, Bindmans, 26 March. Obtainable at:

Fee on Race and Ethnic Disparities (2021) Fee on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report. Obtainable at:

Crawford, C. E. (2017) ‘Selling ‘elementary British values’ in faculties: a vital race perspective’, Curriculum Views, 37(1), pp. 197-204. Obtainable at: (Accessed 30 April 2021).

Cuomo, C. (1996) ‘Warfare isn’t just an occasion: Reflections on the importance of on a regular basis violence’, Hypatia, 11(4), pp. 30-45. Obtainable at: (Accessed 26 April 2021).

Danewid, I. (2021) ‘Policing the (migrant) disaster: Stuart Corridor and the defence of whiteness’, Safety Dialogue, 1(1), pp. 1-17. doi:10.1177/0967010621994074.

El-Enany, N. (2020) (B)ordering Britain: Legislation, Race and Empire. Manchester: Manchester College Press.

Farris, S. R. (2017) Within the title of ladies’s rights: the rise of femonationalism. London: Duke College Press.

Foucault, M. (1980) Energy/Data: Chosen Interviews and Different Writings 1972-1977, Gordon, C. (ed.) New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault M. (2003) “Society Should Be Defended”: Lectures on the Collège de France, 1975-1976. New York: Picador.

Foucault, M. (1982) ‘The Topic and Energy’, Essential Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 777-795. Obtainable at: (Accessed: 1 Might 2021).

Grierson, J. (2018) ‘Alternative of latest UK anti-extremism chief criticised as ‘alarming’, The Guardian, 25 January. Obtainable at: (Accessed 2 Might 2021).

Visitor, M., Scott-Baumann, A., Cheruvallil-Contractor, S., Naguib, S., Phoenix, A., Lee, Y., Al-Baghal, T. (2020) Islam and Muslims on UK College Campuses: Perceptions and Challenges. Durham: Durham College, London: SOAS, Coventry: Coventry College and Lancaster: Lancaster College.

Heath-Kelly, C. (2016) ‘Counterterrorism within the NHS: The ‘Stop’ Technique Takes to the Clinic’, E-Worldwide Relations, 13 April. Obtainable at: (Accessed, 1 Might 2021).

Heath-Kelly, C. (2017) ‘The geography of pre-criminal house: epidemiological imaginations of radicalisation threat within the UK Stop Technique, 2007–2017’, Essential Research on Terrorism, 10(2), pp. 297-319, doi:10.1080/17539153.2017.1327141.

Hickman, M., Thomas, L., Silvestri, S., Nickels, H. (2011) ‘”Suspect Communities?” Counter-terrorism coverage, the press, and the influence on Irish and Muslim communities in Britain’ London: London Metropolitan College.

HM Authorities (2015) Counter-Extremism Technique. London: The Stationery Workplace. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

HM Authorities (2011) Stop Technique. London: The Stationery Workplace. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Dwelling Affairs Committee (2009) Challenge CONTEST: The Authorities’s Counter-Terrorism Technique. London: The Stationery Workplace. Obtainable at: (Accessed 25 April 2021).

Howell, A., Richter-Montpetit, M. (2019) ‘Racism in Foucauldian Safety Research: Biopolitics, Liberal Warfare, and the Whitewashing of Colonial and Racial Violence’, Worldwide Political Sociology, 13(1), pp. 2-19, Obtainable at: (Accessed 22 April 2021).

Khalili, L. (2011) ‘Gendered practices of counterinsurgency’, Evaluation of Worldwide Research, 37(4), pp. 1471-1491. doi:10.1017/S026021051000121X.

Kundnani, A. (2012) Blind Spot? Safety Narratives and Far-Proper Violence in Europe. The Worldwide Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague, 3(5), DOI:  

Moore, C. L. (2012) ‘Publish-Whiteness’, Huffington Publish, 24 July. Obtainable at:

Parsons, V. (2014) ‘What will we learn about citizenship stripping?’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 10 December. Obtainable at:

Patel, S. (2014) ‘Racing insanity: The terrorizing insanity of the post-9/11 terrorist physique’, in Ben-Moshe, L., Chapman, C., Carey. A. C. (ed.) Incapacity incarcerated. Imprisonment and incapacity in the USA and Canada. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 201-215.

Qurashi, F. (2018) ‘The Stop technique and the UK ‘conflict on terror’: embedding infrastructures of surveillance in Muslim communities’, Palgrave Communications, 4(1), pp. 1-13. doi:10.1057/s41599-017-0061-9.

Ramesh, R., Halliday, J. (2015) ‘Scholar accused of being a terrorist for studying guide on terrorism’, The Guardian, 24 September. Obtainable at: (Accessed: 1 Might 2021).

Richter-Montpetit, M. (2014) ‘Past the erotics of Orientalism: Lawfare, torture and the racial-sexual grammars of reputable struggling’, Safety Dialogue, 45(1), pp. 43-62. doi:10.1177/0967010613515016.

Skoczylis, J., Andrews, S. (2020) ‘A conceptual critique of Stop: Can Stop be saved? No, however…’, Essential Social Coverage, 40(3), pp. 350-369. doi: 10.1177/0261018319840145.

The Guardian (2017) ‘Amber Rudd denies cuts to police had been consider Manchester atrocity’, 25 Might. Obtainable at: (Accessed: 1 Might 2021).

The Unbiased (2016) ‘Anti-terror police query schoolboy for carrying pro-Palestine badge’, 14 February. Obtainable at: (Accessed: 1 Might 2021).

Thomas, P. (2015) ‘Stop and Neighborhood Cohesion in Britain: the worst of all potential worlds?’, in Baker-Beall, C., Heath-Kelly, C., Jarvis, L. (ed.) Counter-Radicalisation. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 36-53.

Younis, T. (2020) ‘The psychologisation of counter-extremism: unpacking PREVENT’, Race & Class, 62(3), pp. 37-60. doi: 10.1177/0306396820951055.

Younis, T., Jadhav, S. (2019) ‘Maintaining Our Mouths Shut: The Worry and Racialized Self-Censorship of British Healthcare Professionals in PREVENT Coaching’, Tradition, Drugs, and Psychiatry, 43(1), pp. 404-424. Obtainable at: (Accessed 30 April 2021).

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button