Constructing ‘suspect’ communities and Britishness: Mapping British press coverage of Irish and Muslim communities, 1974–2007

Abstract

There exist many parallels between the experiences of Irish communities in Britain in the past and those of Muslim communities today. However, although they have both been the subject of negative stereotyping, intelligence profiling, wrongful arrest and prejudice, little research has been carried out comparing how these communities are represented in the media. This article addresses this gap by mapping British press coverage of events involving Irish and Muslim communities that occurred between 1974 and 2007. The analysis shows that both sets of communities have been represented as ‘suspect’ to different degrees, which the article attributes to varying perceptions within the press as to the nature of the threat Irish and Muslim communities are thought to pose to Britain. The article concludes that a central concern of the press lies with defending its own constructions of Britishness against perceived extremists, and against abuses of power and authority by the state security apparatus.

Theorising the “suspect community”: counterterrorism, security practices and the public imagination

“…Thus it appears that following the use of violence previously by Irish Republican and currently by Al Qaeda inspired groups, media representations have played a significant role in the consolidation of a suspicious public who identify Muslim-ness -as Irishnesswith threat and danger (Nickels et al 2012a). Muslim-ness is identified as Irishness was identified previously -through a series of racial, ethnic and cultural markers.…”

“…Some, such as Jean Charles de Menezes or Harry Stanley, are misidentified. These practices, witnessed by the public and represented in the media, create and consolidate a suspect community in the public eye (see Pantazis and Pemberton 2009;Nickels et al 2012a), on the basis that "there is no smoke without fire". Enhanced levels of public fear and the discourse of threat prepare the minds of the public for understanding this virtual "suspect community" as dangerous, antipathetic and traitorous.…”

“…Hillyard's conception of the suspect community is that of a community targeted by certain legislation and policing and judicial practices. Whilst one can certainly see a suspect community in the abstract sense is so targeted, and the media do much to encourage the suspicion (see, for example, Nickels et al 2012aNickels et al , 2012b with which the general public regard them, there are other significant dimensions to such communities. I wish to argue that whilst Hillyard sees the suspect community as formed by legislation and security practices, other significant moves and cultural, political and ideological discourses combine to construct and consolidate the suspect community in the mind of the fearful public, including those of the "suspects" themselves.…”

“…Like Anderson's "imagined community", members will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them or even hear of them; but unlike them, the suspect community is not created by their identification with other suspects. Rather, the community exists in the public suspicious mind, a public organised and created by a space of discourse focussed on security, insecurity, terrorism and threat and reproduced by media, security practitioners and political actors (Nickels et al 2012a). Like Anderson's "imagined communities", "suspect communities" are limited, but these limits are fluid and boundaries between suspects and non-suspects are permeable and apparent to those imaging the suspect community, but not to the suspects themselves.…”

“…Hickman et al (2008, Thomas (2010a, 2010b), have published various studies, firstly, of the Irish community (1997), and latterly, of both Irish and Muslim communities in the UK, focusing on their experience of being suspect, rather than on debating how they might be defined as a community, suspect or otherwise (see, for example, Nickels et al 2012a).…”