Holocaust inversion,anti-Zionism and British neo-fascism: the Israel–Palestine conflict and the extreme right in post-war Britain

ABSTRACT

The British extreme right has always struggled to distance itself from the crimes of the Third Reich, not helped by the high level of Holocaust consciousness in Britain and by the importance of antisemitic conspiracy theory to British neo-fascist ideology. Bland’s article charts attempts by British neo-fascist actors to use Holocaust inversion and—by extension—anti-Zionism as a mask for their Nazi sympathies. It shall, first of all, demonstrate how the Israel–Palestine conflict was incorporated into British neo-fascist antisemitic discourse in the 1960s. It shall then use the 1980s National Front as a case study, to illustrate the manner in which the extreme right can use anti-Zionist activism as a tactic aimed at legitimizing its politics and gaining new supporters. The article therefore contributes to the historiographies of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in Britain, as well as to scholarly understandings of neo-fascism.     

Secret Law Revisited

What follows is an attempt to do some conceptual housekeeping around the notion of secret law as provided by Christopher Kutz (2013). First I consider low‐salience (or merely obscure) law, suggesting that it fails to capture the legal and moral facts that are at stake in the case which Kutz used to motivate it. Then I outline a theoretical contrast between mere obscurity and secrecy, in contrast to the “neutral” account of secrecy provided by Sissela Bok (1989). The upshot of the two sections is that low‐salience law is neither secret law nor necessarily problematic, though it closely resembles a kind of law that is both secret and problematic, namely, those legal obscurities that subvert manifest interests related to the informational needs of citizens. The ensuing argument undermines the fiction of constructive presence found in Austin and Blackstone.     

Väter in Elternzeit. Deutungen,Aushandlungen und Bewertungen von Familien- und Erwerbsarbeit im Paar

Berliner Journal für Soziologie - Der Anteil von Vätern, die Elternzeit beanspruchen, ist mittlerweile auf über ein Drittel angestiegen. Der Beitrag analysiert Deutungen...     

A Day in the “Swamp”: Understanding Discourse in the Online Counter-Jihad Nebula

The counter-jihad scene can be understood variously as a collection of parties, pundits, and movements all linked by a common belief that the West is being subjected to takeover by Muslims. In this article, I seek to improve academic understanding of this collection of movements, parties, and ideas by analyzing the discourse presented by a collection of online advocates whom I describe as the counter-jihad nebula. The findings suggest a need to at least partially re-evaluate the role of the nebula within the wider counter-jihad scene as well as the relationship between the wider counter-jihad scene and mainstream political discourse as expressed through various media outlets.     

Examining the moderating role of family cohesion on the relationship between witnessed community violence and delinquency in a national sample of adolescents

Witnessed community violence has been linked to a number of internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescents. Guided by Cicchetti and Lynch's (1993) ecological-transactional model, this study aimed to examine the impact that family-level factors had on negative outcomes associated with witnessed community violence. Using a nationally representative sample, we explored the moderational role of family cohesion in the relationship between witnessing community violence and delinquent behavior while taking demographic variables into account. Results from the investigation suggested that low levels of family cohesion were predictive of delinquency after controlling for race, gender, past delinquency, and direct trauma. In addition, the findings suggested that family cohesion moderated the impact of witnessed community violence on future delinquent behavior. Future directions for research and implications for practice were also discussed.     

The legal status of abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is overruled

This article explores the legal status of abortion in the States if the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), as modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Although an overruling decision eventually could have a significant effect on the legal status of abortion, the immediate impact of such a decision would be far more modest than most commentators on both sides of the issue believe. More than two-thirds of the States have expressly repealed their pre-Roe laws or have amended those laws to conform to the trimester scheme of Roe v. Wade, which allows abortions for any reason before viability and for virtually any reason after viability. Those laws would not be revived by the overruling of Roe. Only a few of those States have enacted post-Roe laws that would prohibit most abortions if Roe were overruled. Slightly less than one-third of the States have not expressly repealed their pre-Roe laws. Many of those laws would notbe effective to prohibit abortion if Roe were overruled either because they allow abortion on demand, for undefined reasons of health or for mental health reasons; because enforcement would be precluded on state constitutional grounds; or because the pre-Roe laws prohibiting abortion have been repealed by implication with the enactment of post-Roe laws regulating abortion. In sum, no more than eleven States, and very possibly as few as eight, would have laws on the books that would prohibit most abortions if Roe were overruled.