« | Home | »

Citizens and Pseudo-Citizens

Tags: | |

Equal treatment under the law only really works when not everybody counts as human. The classical Athenians enjoyed their freedom behind a franchise firewall that kept most people out; the parliamentarians of John Locke’s time accorded each other equal respect but contrived to notice no one else. The truths held to be self-evident by the founding ‘fathers’ of the United States a couple of generations later only applied to rich white men.

During the 19th century, British labour activists and Irish nationalists found the law to be good at protecting the Salvation Army and anti-nationalist rabbles, but not so good (entirely absent actually) where their own activities were concerned. In 1925, the home secretary, William Joynson-Hicks, defended an egregious prosecution of Communists by explaining that they had not been engaged in the ‘right kind of freedom of speech’. Fascists could march but protests by unemployed workers were brutally broken up.

Double standards have long been used by unequal societies to receive and tame ideas which are potentially challenging to power, turning ethical principles into means of supporting rather than subverting inequality. The human rights era has made little difference.

‘Human rights’ is a term turned on and off by the executive to suit its needs. The foreign secretary tells the world to adopt human rights while the prime minister promises to abolish them at home. Bolivian cat-owners must be thrown out of the country and Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan sent to face potential life imprisonment in US jails, as Theresa May proudly reminded the House of Commons on Tuesday, but Gary McKinnon’s illness elicited from the home secretary a solicitude bordering on the sentimental – and, incidentally, unwarranted by human rights law, as the judges had already found. (It won’t happen again: ‘Matters such as representations on human rights grounds,’ May said, ‘should, in future, be considered by the high court rather than the home secretary.’)

The difference in treatment is partly about where we are from but also about who we are, whether we really are ‘citizens’ or just ‘pseudo-citizens’, fraudulent interlopers. The names are usually enough: Gary McKinnon as opposed to, say, Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen killed by US forces in Yemen in September 2011, or Osama Awadallah, another American who was held and brutally treated by the US authorities for over ten weeks after 11 September 2001. Everyone subject to a UK control order at the time the regime came to an end was British, and though their names have not been released we can be pretty sure they were not a bunch of John Smiths. (Though John Smiths occasionally get into trouble too: Brandon Mayfield was held by the FBI on wrongful suspicion of having been involved in the 2004 Madrid bombings. His conversion to Islam must have confused the authorities, but at least he got $2 million compensation, the benefit, perhaps, of having once been a real American.)

Double standards are what make our neo-democratic world tick. We design a system of apparently universal standards which we then ensure is partially applied – but usually in a way that we can hide from ourselves, and so preserve our egalitarian ethic as well as our privilege. It is a virtue of the current home secretary’s approach to politics that she makes the hypocrisy briefly unmistakable.  

Comments on “Citizens and Pseudo-Citizens”

  1. RonGraves says:

    Neo-democratic? This isn’t any sort of democracy.

    Government of the people, by the people, and for the people has always translated as government by an elite, and screw the people.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement