‘A tough but necessary power’: Making sense of proscription Lee Jarvis and Tim Legrand Contact: Lee Jarvis, School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies University of East Anglia l.jarvis@uea.ac.uk Paper presented to the Constructions of Terrorism: Reconciling Human Rights, Human Security in Countering Terrorism conference, London, November 2016

Proscription in the UK The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation: If it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000) Extended, in 2006, to include glorification offences Proscription powers: Render specific groups illegal within a particular territory Criminalise support for and membership of proscribed groups Trigger further crimes, e.g. uniforms As of July 2016: 70 international terrorist organisations 14 in Northern Ireland Eight new groups added since the start of 2015

Debating proscription Academic debate on proscription: Surprisingly limited Prioritises questions of ethics and efficacy Is proscription legitimate? Does proscription work? Emphasises contingency Our focus: How are proscription decisions argued, justified, and performed? 27 UK Parliamentary debates between October 2002 and August 2014 Approximately 150,000 words

Making sense of proscription Parliamentary proscription debates: Help (re)produce national identity (Review of International Studies, 2016) Have a ritualistic quality, and perform both democracy and sovereignty (Political Studies, forthcoming) Yet, contain demands that the executive justify, explain, clarify, elaborate, and defend its decisions (Security Dialogue, forthcoming) Three questions: How is proscription debated? How do Parliamentarians evaluate proscription’s value and limitations? Why might this matter?

‘Proscription should be a matter of last resort’: Framing proscription Standard opening to proscription debates: How the power works, from where it comes, criteria for its usage Repeated reference to proscription’s significance ‘a very serious matter’ (McNulty 2006) Appropriateness for countering terrorism: ‘a useful power’ (Blears 2005) Impartiality, transparency, due process ‘We take action irrespective of the creed or nationality of those involved’ (Blunkett 2002) ‘It is right that the case for proscribing organisations must be approved by both Houses’ (Brokenshire 2013).

‘Proscription rightly sends out a strong signal’: The value of proscription Multiple functions: ‘It will signal our condemnation…It will support our international partners in disrupting terrorist activity...It will also send a strong message that the United Kingdom is not willing to tolerate terrorism’ (West 2008) Specific claims: Disruption: ‘proscription can be an important mechansim to disrupt activity’ (Brokenshire 2013) Prevention: ‘...a practical step to stop funding’ (Mahmood 2007) Deterrence: ‘it also deters international terrorist organisations from coming to this country’ (Blears 2005) Communicative role: ‘telling those who belong to, work for, and associate themselves with certain organisations that such activities are unacceptable in this country’ (Hughes 2002)

‘It is very easy to be unjust in the context of ‘It is very easy to be unjust in the context of...terrorism’: Questioning proscription Effectiveness: ‘there is still a fundamental question about banning and whether it is productive in any shape or form’ (Brake 2010) Counter-productive: ‘There are also good intelligence reasons why it is sometimes necessary – or advised – to be less robust with such organisations than might otherwise be the temptation’ (Mercer 2013) Civil liberties: ‘It is possible that other members of the community who are completely unassociated with this terrible organisation will in some way be caught up in the problem’ (Vaz 2011) Democratic processes: ‘It is important that this country does not just automatically proscribe an organisation because Government X, Y or Z has said so. If we did that, our history would be very different. (Corbyn 2011).

So what? Proscription debates share a discursive framework: Basic semantic structure: Emphasising positive things abut us Emphasising negative things about them Recurrence of particular metaphors: Balance: ‘we have weighed very carefully’ (Blunkett 2002) Medical: ‘clinical and immediate’ (Vaz 2014) Biological: ‘ameoba-like [terrorist groups] can transform themselves’ (Vaz 2013) Journey: ‘Muslims against crusades…got round the proscription’ (Gapes 2014)

So what? Proscription matters: For national security For the protection of civil liberties For political protest, opposition and dissent Proscription debates are instrumentalised for other concerns: Effectiveness of UK’s security services British values and legacies Oppression elsewhere in the world

When is a debate not a debate? Proscription decisions are a foregone conclusion: They are never opposed Proposed groups are always added to the UK’s list. Removal from the list is notoriously difficult. Yet, the debates do witness evidence of other forms of political and normative opposition: Are these debates, but about something other than proscription?

Thanks for listening! Related publications: Jarvis, L. & Legrand, T. (Forthcoming) ‘Preaching to the Converted: Parliament and the Proscription Ritual’, Political Studies. Jarvis, L. & Legrand, T. (Forthcoming) ‘‘I am somewhat puzzled’: Questions, audiences, and securitization in the proscription of terrorist organisations’, Security Dialogue. Jarvis, L. & Legrand, T. (2016) ‘Legislating for Otherness: Proscription Powers and Parliamentary Discourse’, Review of International Studies 42(3): 558-574. Legrand, T. & Jarvis, L. (2014) ‘Enemies of the State: Proscription Powers and Their Use in the U.K.’, British Politics 9(4): 450-471. l.jarvis@uea.ac.uk and tim.legrand@anu.edu.au