The context in which the current `debate' about Muslim women and the veil is taking place, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, is that of the new orthodoxy, the `clash of civilisations'. This attempts to explain much of the world's political turmoil in terms of a clash between the (`secular modern') West and the (`traditionalist religion') Islam. The increased visibility of veiled bodies in Britain today has stirred a response that draws on long-standing orientalist oppositions and reworks them in the current climate of the `war on terror', connecting them to parallel racist discourses about `threats' to British culture. Sections of the British media have homogenised the variety of Muslim veiling practices and have presented the veil as an obstacle to meaningful `communication'; an example of Islamic `refusal' to embrace `modernity'. Veiled women are considered to be ungrateful subjects who have failed to assimilate and are deemed to threaten the `British' way of life. This paper reviews the debate over the veil in Britain in the context of British foreign policy, attacks on civil liberties, the further marginalisation of poor communities and the politicisation of British Muslims, where the veil is an increasingly political image of both difference and defiance.

No abstract

The veil has become an image of otherness, of a refusal to integrate and an example of the ‘failings’ of multiculturalism. As such, it has become an important symbol in the homogenisation and demonisation of Muslims in Britain. It is important to situate this ‘debate’ about the veil in the broader context of racism, immigration and imperialism, and neoliberal economic and political transformations. In the post-9/11 and 7/7 climate, public discussions of Muslims in Britain have centred on the twin issues of ‘integration’ and ‘terrorism’, at a time when racism is on the rise and poverty has increased for immigrant communities. How the veil is understood in this ‘debate’ is shaped by this wider context and, above all, by a history of colonialism and imperialism. This article examines the debate on the veil, showing that many garments and practices surrounding veiling are reduced in the British media to a threatening set of symbols of difference and otherness. It is argued that to detach gender issues and Islam from their wider social context leads to regressive, intolerant and overtly racist assumptions.

According to the UN Refugee Agency, 59.5 million people around the world were forcibly displaced in 2014. The numbers are particularly high in countries which have been subject to a process of 'redrawing the map' by imperial powers or their regional allies. The response to the recent developments -a stage which has been dubbed as 'refugee crisis' -is as polarising and as problematic as before. On the one hand we have witnessed the heroic acts not only of the refugees themselves who moved collectively and refused to queue 'orderly' in the immigration lines, but also the magnificent response of citizens in all over Europe who rushed to feed, clothe, accommodate and welcome them. In contrast the overwhelming institutional response by 'liberal' states has been, and remains, depressingly illiberal. The official response to this humanitarian crisiswhich is after all the product of 'humanitarian interventions' -has nothing to do with whether or not Europe can cope with a 'swarm of people' aiming to exploit the 'host' countries. It is to do with managing a massive reserve army of labour. Forced migration is not only a product of this staggering inequality but also an important element of how that inequality is produced, maintained and managed.

This article revisits Comedia's assessment and theory of the alternative press. In its examination of the radical projects and press in the 1970s and 1980s, the group pointed out some internal weaknesses and the failure of the alternative press to take advantage of some `useful' aspects of capitalism. It suggested that the alternative press, in order to escape from the ghetto of marginality, should employ mainstream economic and organizational technique to put finances on a firmer footing. This article examines Comedia's view by looking at the founding and history of Red Pepper, which can be seen as a test bed for Comedia's theory. The article presents the Comedia position in its intellectual context. By outlining the background to the launch of the magazine, which was organized according to the principles that were set out by Comedia, and through detailed analysis of its organization and financing, the Comedia theory of the alternative press is shown to be wrong. It suggests that the more commercially sophisticated model of an alternative press independent of the party is not viable.