Suchergebnisse

The debate over Sunday shopping in Nova Scotia, Canada's last bastion of Sunday closing laws, has polarized the province during the last half-decade. Traditionalists supported the status quo for, inter alia, religious reasons, to reject consumerism, or to protect workers. These individuals were pitted against business groups, who favoured a market-based approach to determining retail hours; and some citizens, who desired greater consumer choice. It not often that a curt first-instance decision on an application challenging the validity of an order-in-council might warrant the attention of a case comment. Nevertheless, the decision of Richard J. in Sobeys Group Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), which ultimately led to the end of the enforcement of Sunday closing legislation in Nova Scotia, is one such instance. Despite the court's narrow holding – that the Retail Business Uniform Closing Day Act did not give the provincial cabinet the authority to craft regulations that prevented retail operations beyond a certain size from opening – the government publicly responded by permitting all stores to open on Sundays and statutory holidays. Subsequently, cabinet effected this response through an order-in-council excluding all retail operations from the ambit of the act. This comment will first provide a contextual backdrop for the decision in Sobeys, followed by a discussion of the court's holding. It will then review the government's response to the decision, and evaluate its implied claim that the court required the government to lift its prohibition on Sunday store openings. A discussion of the legislative-judicial dialogue, and its impact on political discourse, follows. The comment contends that while the province's response to Sobeys was a victory for consumer and retailer choice while eliminating a regulatory anachronism, it is nevertheless symptomatic of the willingness of legislators in the era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to rely on judicial pronouncements as a reason to avoid making decisions on divisive public policy matters – even in instances where constitutional rights are not implicated.

Research on de-radicalisation has been primarily concerned with the efficacy of de-radicalisation programmes and their negative consequences. However, there has been little research on how the public perceives de-radicalisation programmes and whether they are viewed as effective or desirable. It is important to understand public attitudes to de-radicalisation programmes because public opinion can affect the capacity to deliver the programmes. The following article takes a first step towards understanding these issues by examining how The Daily Mail has framed de-radicalisation in terms of whether or not the programmes are effective or desirable. We argue that an assumption of potential efficacy exists throughout the newspaper's framing of de-radicalisation which presents the policy as desirable, despite also framing de-radicalisation as ineffective. While practitioners are reluctant to promote de-radicalisation programmes, The Daily Mail's framing of de-radicalisation as natural, logical and desirable reflects the concept's ideological flexibility as both a rehabilitative and normative endeavour.

Barack Obama's 2009 visit to Turkey resulted in an Obama‐Mania in Turkish media, followed by a friendship between Obama and Recep Erdoğan, which was widely reported in the media and emphasized in their rhetoric. This article explains the existence of the Erdoğan‐Obama friendship narrative, in spite of no actual political friendship existing. We first interpret their relationship through five key components of political friendship (affect, grand project, altruistic reciprocity, moral obligations, equality) and argue that, despite a strong friendship narrative, their histories, leadership styles, and political goals diverged to such an extent that a friendship never existed. We then introduce sentimental utility theory (SUT) to explain the utility of maintaining the appearance of a friendship. Through SUT, this article illuminates the utility of collective emotions and offers insight into how collective emotions produce ingroup identities and generate stability for a state's population. SUT reveals how Erdoğan utilized the Obama‐mania in Turkey to create a personal bond with Obama which linked himself, and his policies, to Obama and his progressive policies. Future research can deploy SUT to make sense of other claims of friendship and special relationships between states and between state leaders.

Conceptualising de-radicalisation programmes -- Theorising the media's framing of de-radicalisation -- The effectiveness and desirability of de-radicalisation -- Nigeria and de-radicalising its repentant citizens -- UK and de-radicalisation's ideational tensions -- German media debates and framing processes in a hybridised P/CVE landscape -- Public relations campaigns, de-radicalisation and the P/CVE field : negotiating a discourse.

"This book examines how de-radicalisation programmes have been portrayed in the media and details the role of public relations (PR) strategies employed by such programmes and Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) to create positive coverage of their work. CVE and de-radicalisation programmes have seen a significant rise in recent years and are now cornerstones of many countries' counterterrorism strategies. Despite the increased importance of these tools to counter violent radicalisation leading to terrorism, they remain controversial and sometimes receive fierce public criticism and opposition. This work looks at how CVE and de-radicalisation programs are able to influence a country's discourse on de-radicalisation, and how far governmental programs differ from non-governmental initiatives in terms of their PR strategies. The book also provides a theoretical basis of how the discourse on CVE is constructed in the media. As major case studies, this book examines the United Kingdom, Germany and Nigeria. For these countries, the authors have gathered and assessed roughly 3,000 newspaper articles on de-radicalisation programmes over a decade to provide an empirical base. This book will be of much interest to students of countering violent extremism, de-radicalisation, and terrorism studies"--

The article reports on the findings of an experimental survey which was conducted to ascertain the level of support and perceived effectiveness of using de-radicalisation programmes to re-integrate returning foreign fighters. Public support (or the lack of opposition) for re-integration programmes can be important in ensuring the programmes have the time, resources and opportunity to be successful however we know little about what wider society thinks about re-integration programmes. The article explores the extent to which the inclusion of de-radicalisation – in name and content – changes attitudes to a re-integration programme. This is relevant in showing attitudes to de-radicalisation over disengagement and whether de-radicalisation, while perhaps not more effective at the programme-level, is or is not more effective at generating public support for re-integration (and thereby facilitating the process itself). We find that the inclusion of de-radicalisation in the name and content of a re-integration programme to a small extent increases support for re-integration over a programme that uses the terms disengagement and desistance. However, we also find that while de-radicalisation increases support, it also decreases perceived effectiveness, leading respondents to feel it makes the country less safe and less likely to reduce the re-offending rate than if the programme excludes de-radicalisation. We argue this polarising effect is reflective of wider reasons for supporting the policies (e.g. de-radicalisation may be seen as a form of ideational/normative punishment) and that the term de-radicalisation may shift the framing of the problematic to entrenched social structures, thus rendering itself ineffective as a policy treatment. In terms of policy, we argue there is a necessity for greater openness about re-integration programmes and that governments would benefit from selling the programmes to the public. We conclude our paper with a justification of focusing further research on understanding public/community attitudes to re-integration programmes and understanding the PR of counter-terrorism policies more generally.