Abstract

The Charity Commission of England and Wales supports and regulates the charity sector whose emergence can be traced back to the early seventeenth century. However, there has been limited academic scrutiny of its regulatory approach particularly regarding Muslim-identified charities. This article first challenges the Commission's claim to be an independent body, and second questions whether its contemporary role reveals institutional Islamophobia. It is argued that, since partnering with the UK government's “Prevent” agenda – or war on terror – to control ungoverned spaces for extremism, the Commission has assumed a policing role. This role is analysed through discourse theory and a Foucauldian approach to disciplinary techniques. To analyse the repertoire of institutionalised Islamophobia, the study draws upon Carmichael and Hamilton's definition of institutional racism, the Parekh Report, and Pilkington's ten components of institutional racism. In challenging the Commission's claim to independence, the article highlights the changes in its practices and structure. It argues the structural changes have deflected accountabilities of the board members and chair and resulted in the politicisation of their selection process. Furthermore, the shifts in the Commission's practices have had a disproportionate impact on Muslim charities, where thirty-eight per cent of all disclosed statutory investigations conducted are on Muslim charities despite representing only 1.21 per cent of the sector. This article provides a discourse analysis of the regulatory approach of a significant public body and departs from investigations of subjective and media representations of Muslims that have monopolised research on Islamophobia.

Highlights

  • The charity sector is a vital part of civil society that is extremely large, complex in its field of operation, and international in its remit

  • Hall makes a comparable argument when he articulates that the discourses on ethnicity and race both signify social and cultural differences that “constitute not two different systems, but racism’s two registers” (2000: 223). It is on these grounds that it is argued that Islamophobia is a form of governmentality

  • In other words, institutionalised racism is understood to arise from social and cultural processes that regulate conduct (Parekh 2000: 71). This directs attention towards discourse theory, which enables us to articulate the problematising of Muslim charities as racialised governmentality that makes these charities visible, and normalises practices and procedures through disciplinary techniques

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The charity sector is a vital part of civil society that is extremely large, complex in its field of operation, and international in its remit. The problematising of Muslims is one of the most important social and political issues of our time (Sayyid 2010; Norton 2013: 3) This hegemonised the discourse on (in)security of charities that facilitated for the Charities Act 2006 to be enacted, providing the Commission with enhanced powers to police this sector diligently. The report fails to distinguish between race and religion and this exclusion mirrors the lack of legislative protection against anti-Muslim prejudice Confronting this literalist reading, Sayyid (2010: 13) points out that a term can more usefully be understood through its usage rather than an etymological interpretation. Hall makes a comparable argument when he articulates that the discourses on ethnicity and race both signify social and cultural differences that “constitute not two different systems, but racism’s two registers” (2000: 223) It is on these grounds that it is argued that Islamophobia is a form of governmentality

Institutionalised Islamophobia and the Charity Commission
The Evolving Role of the Charity Commission
The Case of Muslim Charities
Percentage against the number of religious classifications
Accounts Accounts frozen unfrozen
No presence of Muslims in senior management
Lack of positive action
Low expertise in intercultural issues
High No data
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.