种族、宗教、法律:英格兰和威尔士“煽动仇恨”条款的互文微观谱系

IF 1.5 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Critical Discourse Studies Pub Date : 2022-07-25 DOI:10.1080/17405904.2022.2102516
J. Neller
{"title":"种族、宗教、法律:英格兰和威尔士“煽动仇恨”条款的互文微观谱系","authors":"J. Neller","doi":"10.1080/17405904.2022.2102516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines why there are different thresholds for the offences of stirring up racial hatred and stirring up religious hatred in the UK’s Public Order Act 1986. Concepts of genealogy, intertextuality and problematisation are used to structure a critical discourse analysis that traces different understandings of race, religion, and racial and religious hatred across legal texts. The analysis reveals a rift between assertions within parliament that race is an immutable characteristic, and much more flexible and inclusive judicial understandings of race. This finding challenges justifications for the legislative discrepancy and points to more progressive possibilities.","PeriodicalId":46948,"journal":{"name":"Critical Discourse Studies","volume":"20 1","pages":"282 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Race, religion, law: an intertextual micro-genealogy of ‘stirring up hatred’ provisions in England and Wales\",\"authors\":\"J. Neller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17405904.2022.2102516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper examines why there are different thresholds for the offences of stirring up racial hatred and stirring up religious hatred in the UK’s Public Order Act 1986. Concepts of genealogy, intertextuality and problematisation are used to structure a critical discourse analysis that traces different understandings of race, religion, and racial and religious hatred across legal texts. The analysis reveals a rift between assertions within parliament that race is an immutable characteristic, and much more flexible and inclusive judicial understandings of race. This finding challenges justifications for the legislative discrepancy and points to more progressive possibilities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Discourse Studies\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"282 - 293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Discourse Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2022.2102516\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Discourse Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2022.2102516","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文探讨了英国1986年《公共秩序法》中煽动种族仇恨罪和煽动宗教仇恨罪的门槛为何不同。谱系学、互文性和问题化的概念被用来构建批判性话语分析,追溯法律文本中对种族、宗教以及种族和宗教仇恨的不同理解。该分析揭示了议会内部关于种族是一个永恒特征的断言与对种族的更灵活和包容的司法理解之间的分歧。这一发现挑战了立法差异的正当性,并指出了更进步的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Race, religion, law: an intertextual micro-genealogy of ‘stirring up hatred’ provisions in England and Wales
ABSTRACT This paper examines why there are different thresholds for the offences of stirring up racial hatred and stirring up religious hatred in the UK’s Public Order Act 1986. Concepts of genealogy, intertextuality and problematisation are used to structure a critical discourse analysis that traces different understandings of race, religion, and racial and religious hatred across legal texts. The analysis reveals a rift between assertions within parliament that race is an immutable characteristic, and much more flexible and inclusive judicial understandings of race. This finding challenges justifications for the legislative discrepancy and points to more progressive possibilities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
47
期刊最新文献
‘Can women have it all?’ Transitions in media representations of Jacinda Ardern’s leadership and identity by a global newsroom Why and when should we (not) distinguish between academic and therapeutic discourses on the past? A response to Burnett et al.’s ‘Indigenous resurgence, collective “reminding”, and insidious binaries’ The pragmatics of hypocrisy Discourses of perfection: representing cosmetic procedures and beauty products in UK lifestyle magazines ‘Post-fascism’, or how the far right talks about itself: the 2022 Italian election campaign as a case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1