Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Muslim communities today find themselves at the sharp end of a number of broad trends that have coalesced in the political context. These trends include a development of governance upon communitarian lines, with the increased ‘responsibilisation’ of citizens (Rose 2000), the introduction of ambient police strategies which are appearing in high crime societies such as the USA and Britain to deal primarily with insecurity rather than crime (Innes 2004), and a risk management approach to governance (Beck 1992). Drawing on analyses of interviews and observations conducted across Muslim communities in two British cities, this paper explores the role of leadership in this changing context, as civic relations at both national and local levels are altered. The author reflects on the capacity of minority ‘leaders’ to manage conflict, cohesion and civility within those communities as leadership is required to be exercised in new ways, engaging with extreme (or ‘deviant’) positions within ethno-religious communities, as well as fulfilling existing roles. Particularly, in the context of contemporary counter-terrorism efforts and the ‘dangerisation’ of new populations (Lianos and Douglas 2001), this paper explores how issues of security and participation are presented by community representatives to institutions of local governance, and within the public sphere.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: New information technologies—and increasing computer-mediated communication—demonstrate the need to understand the factors that affect our ability to detect deception online. We examined the effect of level of suspicion on deception detection accuracy across four discussion topics. Preliminary results (70 dyads) suggest suspicion level does not affect deception detection accuracy (p = .28). However, despite the suspicion manipulation, there was an overall truth bias; participants were significantly more likely to rate senders as truthful on both honest and deceptive topics (p = .02). The implications of our results will be considered and compared to face to face deception research.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In meeting the direct, explicit threat posed by global terrorism, the democratic state also faces a paradox: Those practices best suited to defending the state are often least suited to democracy. Such is the case with official secrecy, which has received renewed attention. Military and intelligence operations frequently depend on secrecy for their success. At the same time, democracy depends on openness, a fact too often neglected by democratic theory. Official secrecy subverts citizen autonomy. Where citizens are expected to govern themselves, official secrecy denies them the information they may require to do so, creating a division between insider and outsider that should be a matter of serious concern for democratic theory. Official secrecy limits the ability of citizens to act as citizens - that is to participate - at all phases of the political process.
In addition to this denying autonomy to citizens, official secrecy - even practiced with the purest of motives - creates fertile ground for distrust, suspicion, even paranoia. The ability to lie depends on the ability to keep secrets, and where citizens see a secret, they frequently imagine a lie. Louis Farrakhan provides a striking example of this phenomenon in his call for the release of information implicating Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks. "They have lied before and there's no guarantee they are not lying now," he told the Associated Press. Official secrecy is both hostile to democracy and necessary for the state. This is a problem democratic theory must take seriously, for democratic practice has no choice but to face the consequences.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper looks at the experiences of South Asian immigrants in the post-9/11 United States. It particularly looks at the experiences of marginalization faced by different sections of this group and the ways in which religion, country of origin and racial difference have shaped it. South Asian immigrants belong to diverse religious backgrounds including Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and Buddhism. The paper analyzes 60 interviews conducted with the immigrants from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh located in Los Angeles and New York to understand this question. The paper argues that the last six years have intensified the feeling of being outsiders/marginalized among a section of South Asian immigrants which has led to varied responses- increased activism and mobilization to protect civil rights and ensure nondiscrimination; complete marginalization coming out of fear; increased transnational interaction to have a safe option. The paper also points towards the differences in the experiences of South Asian immigrants based on religion and the country of origin and how this phase in the history of the U.S. has been used to racialize South Asian immigrants in a particular way. I argue that religion, country of origin, racial difference and the status of outsider have played an important role in shaping the constant gaze of suspicion on South Asian immigrants.