Poetic Injustice: A Case Study of the UK's Anti-Terrorism Legislation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper explores the effects of anti-terrorism policy and legislation on the Muslim immigrant communities, in general, and British-born Muslims, in particular. R v Malik, in which the Court of Appeal quashed Samina Malik's conviction on terrorism charges, provides our point of entry into the legal discourse on counter-terrorism. Malik's conviction at the Old Bailey and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal to declare her conviction unsafe, will serve to highlight three interrelated aspects of anti-terrorism policy and legislation in the UK. These two decisions, firstly, will help to examine how the legal and policing measures to combat the threat of terrorism interact with the ethno-cultural relationships in contemporary Britain. Secondly, they will allow us to view the UK's anti-terrorism policy and legislation in relation to what David Garland termed the "culture of control", which marks the move from a criminal policy based on "penal welfarism" to a governance of crime based on "the management of risks". Finally, they will throw light on the tension between the UK government and the judiciary.

Details

Authors
  • Reza Banakar
Organisations
Research areas and keywords

Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY

  • Law and Society

Keywords

  • immigrant communities, anti-terrorism, human rights, risk, law, socio-legal, R v Malik
Original languageSwedish
Pages (from-to)69-90
JournalRetfærd: Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift
Volume31
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2008
Publication categoryResearch
Peer-reviewedYes