Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 August 2017
This article argues that public expressions of Islamophobia are best understood as securitising requests (that is, calls on powerful figures/bodies to treat an issue in security mode so that extraordinary measures can be used to combat it), especially in those cases where Muslims are feared and disliked because of the perception that Islamic people are prone to terrorism. This article argues that harmful and derogatory securitising requests targeting racial, ethnic, or religious minorities are on par with hate speech and it highlights the fact that many contemporary societies are now seeking legal protections against such security speech (expressed most notably in the desire to ban Islamophobia). It is from this perspective that this article poses an important research question: With a view to protecting those adversely affected, are legal protections against harmful and offensive securitising requests justified? The research question can be answered by drawing parallels to the existing hate speech debate in legal and political theory. The research reveals that, although the case against legal protections of harmful and defamatory security speech is ultimately more convincing, security speech alone can be so damaging that it should be informed by a number of ethical considerations. This article goes on to suggest three criteria for governing the ethics of requesting securitisation. As such this article fills a lacuna in the ‘positive/negative debate’ on the ethics of security that has engaged with securitisation, but that has failed to consider the ethics of speaking security.
1 Zeit online, ‘AfD will Flüchtlinge notfalls mit Waffengewalt stoppen’ (2016), available at: {http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-01/frauke-petry-afd-grenzschutz-auf-fluechtlinge-schiessen} accessed 3 March 2016.
2 Stern, ‘AfD-Vize von Storch: Schusswaffen-Äußerung war Fehler’ (2016), available at: {http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/afd-vize-von-storch--schusswaffen-aeusserung-war-fehler-6692738.html} accessed 3 March 2016.
3 L. Harding, ‘Pegida Leader Criticised for Linking Munich Terror Plot to Refugee Intake’ (2016), available at: {http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/01/pegida-leader-lutz-bachmann-linking-munich-terror-plot-with-refugee-intake} accessed 3 March 2016.
4 Die Welt/N24, ‘Grüner zeigt Bachmann wegen Volksverhetzung an’ (2016), available at: {https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article150828327/Gruener-zeigt-Bachmann-wegen-Volksverhetzung-an.html} accessed 10 July 2017.
5 L. Bachmann, ‘Rede von Lutz Bachman auf der Pegida – Demonstration am 12 January 2015 in Dresden’ (2015), available at: {http://www.menschen-in-dresden.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Pegida-Rede-Lutz-Bachmann-12.-Januar-2015.pdf}, my translation.
6 Buzan, B., Wæver, O., and de Wilde, J., Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998)Google Scholar.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.; Balzacq, T. (ed.), Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar.
9 J. A. Vuori, ‘How to do Security with Words: A Grammar of Securitization in the People’s Republic of China’ (unpublished manuscript, University of Turku, Finland, 2011), p. 197.
10 Squire, V., The Exclusionary Politics of Asylum (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009), p. 85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Said, E. W., Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How we see the Rest of the World (London: Vintage Books, 1997)Google Scholar.
11 Cf. F. Vultee, ‘Securitization as a media frame: What happens when the media “speak security”’, in Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory, pp. 77–93; Croft, S., Securitising Islam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 In the context of the Muhammad cartoon crisis, for example one popular argument was ‘that equating Islam with terrorism, violence, and death is … racism’. Bleich, E., ‘On democratic integration and free speech: Response to Tariq Modood and Randall Hansen’, International Migration, 44:5 (2006), pp. 17–22 (p. 17)Google Scholar.
13 L. Bachmann, ‘Eröffnungsrede Lutz Bachmann’, PEGIDA, Dresden (1 December 2014), p. 3, available at: {http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/upload/pdf/141219_pegida_mitschrift.pdf}, accessed 10 July 2017.
14 It should be noted that not all expressions of anti-religious or blasphemous speech are hate speech. Tariq Modood suggests, for example, that the Danish newspaper’s intention in publishing the cartoon was to ‘bring Muslims in line’ and ‘to teach Muslims a lesson’. Modood, T., ‘The liberal dilemma: Integration or vilification?’, International Migration, 44:5 (2006), pp. 4–7 Google Scholar (p. 5); see also Carens, J., ‘Free speech and democratic norms in the Danish cartoons controversy’, International Migration, 44:5 (2006), pp. 33–44 (p. 34)Google Scholar.
15 See, for example, Allen, C., Islamophobia (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Sayyid, S. and Vakil, A., Thinking through Islamophobia: Global Perspectives (London: Hurst & Company, 2010)Google Scholar; and Esposito, J. L. and Kalin, I. (eds), Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21 st Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
16 Cited in J. L. Esposito, ‘Introduction’, in Esposito and Kalin (eds), Islamophobia, pp. xxi–xxxv (p. xxiii).
17 The threshold for what sort of thing counts as Islamophobia is different for different people because – it is widely acknowledged – that some people (mainly Muslim leaders) use it to knock down legitimate criticisms of Islam. Allen, Islamophobia, p. 3.
18 Ibid., pp. 15, 36.
19 Cited in ibid., p. 135.
20 Meer, N. and Modood, T., ‘Refutations of racism in the “Muslim question”’, Patterns of Prejudice, 43:3–4 (2009), pp. 335–354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meer, N., ‘Racialization and religion: Race, culture and difference in the study of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36:3 (2013), pp. 385–398 Google Scholar.
21 Sayyid and Vakil, Thinking through Islamophobia, p. 13.
22 Ibid., p. 12; Allen, Islamophobia, p. 136.
23 H. Chapman, ‘Labour would outlaw Islamophobia, says Miliband in an exclusive interview’, The Muslim News (24 April 2015).
25 German Criminal Code, ‘Section 130: Incitement to Hatred’ (2015), available at: {http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1241} accessed 3 March 2016. Bachman was charged for ‘Volksverhetzung’ for ‘Rapefugees not welcome’ under this amended law in May 2016. Petry, who had been reported separately to the authorities for the firearm remark, was not followed up by the prosecutor in Mannheim in February 2016, as the remark was deemed in line with freedom of speech. Noteworthy is that Petry had done much to downplay and ameliorate the remark immediately after it was made.
26 L. Cerulus, ‘It’s Time to Take Action Against Islamophobia in Europe’ (2016), available at: {http://www.euractiv.com/section/languages-culture/opinion/it-s-time-to-take-action-against-islamophobia-in-europe/} accessed 7 March 2016.
27 Waldron, J., The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), p. 124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 In inverted commas here, because it technically also includes visuals.
29 The Legal Project, ‘European Hate Speech Law’ (2015), available at: {http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws} accessed 22 April 2015.
30 Floyd, R., ‘Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 427–439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Floyd, R., ‘Just and unjust desecuritization’, in T. Balzacq (ed.), Contesting Security (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015), pp. 122–138 Google Scholar; Floyd, R., ‘The promise of just securitization theories’, in Jonna Nyman and Anthony Burke (eds), Ethical Security Studies: A New Research Agenda (London: Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar.
31 See, for example, Floyd, R., ‘Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: Bringing together the Copenhagen School and the Welsh School of security studies’, Review of International Studies, 33:2 (2007), pp. 327–350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roe, P., ‘The “value” of positive security’, Review of International Studies, 34 (2008), pp. 777–794 Google Scholar; Hoogensen Gjørv, G., ‘Security by any other name: Negative security, positive security, and a multi-actor approach’, Review of International Studies, 38:4 (2012), pp. 835–859 Google Scholar; and Nyman, J., ‘What is the value of security? Contextualising the negative/positive debate’, Review of International Studies, 92:5 (2016), pp. 821–839 Google Scholar.
32 Buzan, B. and Hansen, L., The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 See, for example, various in Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory; Williams, M. C., ‘Words, images, enemies: Securitization and international politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 47 (2003), pp. 511–531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hansen, L., ‘The Little Mermaid’s silent dilemma and the absence of gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium, 29:2 (2000), pp. 285–306.Google Scholar
34 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., p. 25.
37 Wæver, O., ‘Securitization and desecuritization’, in Ronnie D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 55.Google Scholar
38 Vuori, ‘How to do Security with Words’, fn. 98.
39 J. A. Vuori, ‘Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: Applying the theory of securitization to the study of non-democratic political orders’, European Journal of International Relations, 14 (2008), p. 76.
40 Collins, A., ‘Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian education’, Pacific Review, 18:4 (2005), pp. 567–588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Buzan, Wæver, and de Wilde, Security.
42 Without going into excessive detail, it can be argued that securitisation scholarship ought to be more consistent with regards to terminology. It is misleading to label anyone who can utter a securitising speech act a securitising actor; instead the securitising actor is the one who either acts on the threat, or who is in a position of power to instruct others to act (but of course this holds only if one believes that successful securitisation involves policy change).
43 Floyd, R., Security and the Environment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Floyd, R., ‘Extraordinary or ordinary emergency measures: What, and who, defines the “success” of securitization?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29:2 (2016), pp. 677–694 Google Scholar.
44 This qualifier mostly is necessary because securitising actors may not be truthful in their intention (cf. Floyd. Security and the Environment).
45 Roe, P., ‘Actor, audience(s) and emergency measures: Securitization and the UK’s decision to invade Iraq’, Security Dialogue, 39:6 (2008), pp. 615–635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Notably the Copenhagen School denies individual persons the capability to securitise outright.
47 Often, but not necessarily the state.
48 Take for example, Claire (now Cai) Wilkinson’s work on securitisation in Kyrgyzstan prior to the ousting of President Akaev, which has done much to question the linear logic of process in securitisation. In the article, Wilkinson identifies ‘an initial securitizing move … at the local level by a number of candidates’. Wilkinson, C., ‘The Copenhagen School on tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is securitization theory useable outside Europe?’, Security Dialogue, 38:1 (2007), pp. 5–25 (p. 17)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, opposing the ruling government, aiming to organise the fractured opposition from its supporters. Wilkinson further argues that this same initial securitising move together with counter-securitisation by the ruling government informed, indeed constructed the securitising actor, insofar as opposition leaders came together, and began echoing the initial securitising move in their own rhetoric (ibid., p. 19). Given this, Wilkinson observes: ‘securitizing moves do not exist in isolation and may be simultaneously or subsequently linked to other securitizing moves that in total contribute to a securitization even if they are individually unsuccessful’ (ibid., p. 20). My point here is not that Wilkinson is incorrect, but simply that conceptually it makes more sense to describe Wilkinson’s initial securitising move as a securitising request, while the Opposition’s speech act was the securitising move.
49 Who this is precisely varies for different theorists as it depends on one’s understanding of what sort of measures count as security measures (that is, only extraordinary ones, or also more ordinary ones) (cf. Floyd, ‘Extraordinary or ordinary emergency measures’).
50 See D. van Mill, ‘Freedom of Speech’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2015), available at: {http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/freedom-speech/} accessed 1 April 2015.
51 See Hansen, ‘The Little Mermaid’s silent dilemma’.
52 These speech acts are related to the criminalisation of minorities such as asylum seekers who have been identified not only as deviant or criminal but also as threats to the welfare state system in the UK and other European Union member states. See, for example, J. Banks, ‘The criminalization of asylum seekers and asylum policy’, Prison Service Journal, 175 (2008), pp. 43-9; J. Huysmans, ‘The European Union and the securitization of migration’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38:5 (2000), pp. 751–77.
53 See, for example, Baker, D. J. and Zhao, L. X., ‘The normativity of using prison to control hate speech: the hollowness of Waldron’s harm theory’, New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 16:4 (2013), pp. 621–656 Google Scholar.
54 NICE, ‘Antibiotic Prescribing – Especially Broad Spectrum Antibiotics’ (2015), available at: {https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/ktt9/resources/non-guidance-antibiotic-prescribing-especially-broad-spectrum-antibiotics-pdf} accessed 27 April 2015.
55 At this point it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that within securitisation theory it is not necessary that the word security is spoken. Wæver argues as follows: ‘In practice it is not necessary that the word security is spoken. There can be occasions where the word is used without this particular logic at play, and situations where it is metaphorically at play without being pronounced. We are dealing with a specific logic which usually appears under the name security, and this logic constitutes the core meaning of the concept security, a meaning which has been found through the study of actual discourse with the use of the word security, but in the further investigation, it is the specificity of the rhetorical structure which is the criterion – not the occurrence of a particular word.’ Wæver, ‘Securitization and desecuritization’, p. 49, fn. 15.
56 See Pantakis, C. and Pemberton, S., ‘Reconfiguring security and liberty: Political discourses and public opinion in the new century’, British Journal of Criminology, 52 (2009), pp. 651–667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croft, Securitising Islam.
57 Ibid., p. 212.
58 Ibid., p. 213.
59 Ibid.
60 K. Hopkins, ‘Hopkins: Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop illegal migrants’, SunNation (2015), available at: {http://www.sunnation.co.uk/hopkins-rescue-boats-id-use-gunships-to-stop-illegal-migrants/} accessed 3 September 2015.
61 Tell MAMA, The Geography of Anti-Muslim Hatred: Tell MAMA Annual Report 2015 (Faith Matters: London, 2016), pp. 6 Google Scholar, 11; see also Said, Covering Islam.
62 Bigo, D., ‘When two become one: Internal and external securitisations in Europe’, in Morton Kelstrup and Michael C. Williams (eds), International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 171–204.Google Scholar
63 For Rawls a well-ordered society is ‘a formal ideal of a perfectly just society implicit in Rawls’s contractarianism. It is a society where (a) all citizens agree on the same conception of justice and this is public knowledge; moreover, (b) society enacts this conception in its laws and institutions; and (c) citizens have a sense of justice and willingness to comply with these terms.’ S. Freeman, Rawls (London: Routledge, 2007). For discussion of how this idea [well-ordered society] fits in within Rawls’s wider commitments, see J. Floyd, ‘Rawls’ methodological blueprint’, European Journal of Political Theory (2015), doi: 1474885115605260.
64 Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, pp. 82–3.
65 Ibid., p. 81.
66 Ibid., p. 95.
67 However, many states’ efforts to widen hate speech legislation means that legislation increasingly includes mere offending, especially as states are trying to regulate trolling and expressions of hate speech in social media. See, for example, the above-mentioned Section 130 of the German Criminal Code, or Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 in England.
68 L. Bakare, ‘Benedict Cumberbatch apologises after calling black actors “coloured”’, The Guardian (26 January 2015), available at: {http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jan/26/benedict-cumberbatch-apologises-after-calling-black-actors-coloured} accessed 22 April 2015.
69 Notably some courts (specifically US courts) arbitrate successfully on similar matters with high subjectivity, including by using legal tests for establishing what is pornography or the way some courts apply the ‘reasonable person’ standard.
70 Hansen, L., ‘Theorizing the image for security studies: Visual securitization and the Muhammad cartoon crisis’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:1 (2011), pp. 51–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71 Ibid., p. 53.
72 Hansen, L., ‘How images make world politics: International icons and the Case of Abu Ghraib’, Review of International Studies, 41:2 (2015), pp. 263–288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Croft, Securitising Islam, pp. 104–6.
73 Hansen, ‘Theorizing the image for security studies’, p. 59.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid., p. 63.
76 Hansen, L., ‘The politics of securitization and the Muhammad cartoon crisis: a poststructuralist perspective’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 357–369 (p. 364)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 In securitisation studies resistance is usually considered a form of desecuritisation (i.e. the act of resisting securitisation) (see, for example, Juha A. Vuori, Critical Security and Chinese Politics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014)), but there is no reason why resistance cannot also take the form of ‘counter-securitisation’ (that is, resisting someone else’s security speech through one’s own security speech and action), or indeed we can say that securitisation is motivated by wishing to resist a (perceived) threat.
78 J. Burke, L. Harding, A. Duval Smith, and P. Beaumont, ‘How cartoons fanned flames of Muslim rage’, The Guardian (5 February 2006), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/pressandpublishing.religion}.
79 Gelber, K. and McNamara, L., ‘The effects of civil hate speech laws: Lessons from Australia’, Law & Society Review, 49:3 (2015), pp. 631–664 (p. 649)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
80 Ibid., p. 650.
81 See Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, p. 145.
82 Neal, A., ‘Normalization and legislative exceptionalism: Counterterrorist lawmaking and the changing times of security emergencies’, International Political Sociology, 6 (2012), pp. 260–276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 Evangelista, M., Law, Ethics, and the War on Terror (Cambridge: Polity, 2008), p. 60 Google Scholar; Croft, S., Culture, Crisis and America’s War on Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
84 G. W. Bush (2001) ‘Address to the Joint Session of the 107th Congress United States Capitol, Washington, DC, 20 September 2001, in Selected President George W. Bush (2001–8), p. 69, available at: {https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/selected_speeches_george_w_bush.pdf} accessed 10 July 2017.
85 Edwards, M., ‘McCarthyism’, in R. Chapman and J. Ciment (eds), Culture Wars: An Encyclopaedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices (London: Routledge, 2015), p. 409 Google Scholar.
86 Gad, U. P. and Petersen, K. L., ‘Concepts of politics in securitization studies’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 315–328 Google Scholar; Taureck, R., ‘Securitisation theory and securitisation studies’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 9:1 (2006), pp. 53–61 Google Scholar.
87 Pantazis and Pemberton, ‘Reconfiguring security and liberty’.
88 Dworkin, R., ‘Foreword’, in I. Hare and J. Weinstein (ed.), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.
89 Dworkin cited in Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, p. 175, emphasis added.
90 Any definition of failure depends, of course, on one’s definition of success. Given the difficulties with that (see earlier), at a minimum level, however, we can perhaps say securitising requests fail when they are not picked up by the designated securitising actor.
91 Barendt, E., Freedom of Speech (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Barendt, E., ‘Threats to freedom of speech in the United Kingdom’, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 28 (2005), p. 895 Google Scholar.
92 Cf. Buzan, B., From International to World Society? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
93 Cf. Barendt, ‘Threats to freedom of speech’.
94 Baker and Zhao, ‘The normativity of using prison to control hate speech’, pp. 625, 627. See also D. J. Baker, The Right Not to Be Criminalized: Demarcating Criminal Law’s Authority (London: Ashgate, 2011).
95 Ibid., p. 626.
96 For example, Pantakis and Pemberton, ‘Reconfiguring security and liberty’; Croft, Securitising Islam.
97 With the ethics of security and securitisation only just emerging in security studies (see Nyman, J. and Burke, T., Ethics and Security (London: Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Browning, C. S. and McDonald, M., ‘The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:2 (2013), pp. 235–255)Google Scholar, the precise meaning of unjust securitisation is not set in stone. Judging by the well-established literature on the morality of war (security’s closest relative), however, it is to be expected that just securitisation will have to involve considerations concerning proportionality, expected outcome, right intention and so on. Floyd, ‘Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis?’; Floyd, ‘Just and unjust desecuritization’; Floyd, ‘The promise of theories of just securitization’.
98 Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, pp. 103, 106.
99 Cited in ‘Charlie Hebdo’s Charb publishes posthumous book on Islam’, BBC News (16 April 2015), available at: {http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32325884} accessed 27 April 2015.
100 Hansen, R., ‘The Danish cartoon controversy: a defence of liberal freedom’, International Migration, 44:5 (2006), pp. 7–16 (p. 12)Google Scholar.
101 C. Zelizer, ‘Laughing our way to peace or war: Humour and peacebuilding’, Journal of Conflictology, 1:2 (2010).
102 Hansen, ‘Theorizing the image for security studies’, p. 63.
103 D. Talwar, ‘Badman: Trying to prevent radicalisation with humour’, BBC Asian (2015), available at: {http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31004012} accessed 4 November 2016.
104 This is not to suggest that unjust securitisation ought to be criminalised, merely that it could – in certain circumstances – be warranted.
105 Floyd, ‘Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis?’; Floyd, ‘The promise of just securitization theories’.
106 Especially, J. McMahan, Killing in War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
107 Wæver, O., ‘What exactly makes a continuous existential threat existential?’, in O. Barak and G. Sheffer (eds), Existential Threats and Civil-Security Relations (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009)Google Scholar, reasons along similar lines when he argues that securitisation requires existential threats.
108 See, for example, Burke, A., Lee-Koo, K., and McDonald, M., Ethics and Global Security (London: Routledge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and various in Nyman and Burke, Ethics and Security.
109 O. Wæver ‘Politics, security, theory’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 465–80.
110 T. Balzacq, ‘A theory of securitization: Origins, core assumptions, and variants’, in Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory, p. 13.
111 Parfit, D., On What Matters, Volume I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 150–64.Google Scholar
112 Ibid.
113 Fierke, K., Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007)Google Scholar.
114 Modood, ‘The liberal dilemma’, p. 6.
115 Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, p. 126.
116 See, for example, Wacquant, L., ‘Marginality, ethnicity, and penality: a Bourdieusian perspective on criminalization’, in R. A. Duff et al. (eds), Criminalization: The Political Morality of the Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar, ch. 10; Huysmans, J., The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar; Simon, J., ‘Fear and loathing in late modernity: Reflections on the cultural sources of mass imprisonment in the United States’, Punishment and Society, 3:1 (2001), pp. 21–33 Google Scholar.
