Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Creep and Normalisation: Exploring a Strategy of Social Control

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the post 9/11 world, expansion of extraordinary powers of control through criminal justice is an important area of study. However criminological study of how these powers expand into unintended areas of criminal justice is currently underdeveloped. A few notable authors have set out complimentary templates that can provide basic tools to understanding the processes by which extraordinary laws are normalised into not so extraordinary activity. By analysing, understanding and unifying the existing literature in this area, this article seeks to amalgamate the studies of control creep and normalisation of the extraordinary into one comprehensive school of thought capable of recognising, and analysing unjustified expansion of state power. Furthermore this article will analyse the G8/G20 Meetings in Ontario, Canada to demonstrate how the processes of creep and normalisation have intentionally been used to criminalise legitimate protest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As was the case with “Investigative Hearings” and “Recognisances with Conditions” powers in Canada; the powers were introduced as part of post 9/11 anti-terrorism legislation but expired without use on December 31, 2006. It should be also noted that the current government of Canada is planning to reintroduce the powers after a failed attempt to do so in 2007.

  2. http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/WWW/NationalSecurity.nsf/Page/Information_for_Individuals_National_Security_Alert_System_National_Counter-Terrorism_Alert_System.

  3. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html.

  4. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/navigation?file=home.

References

  • Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance (pp. 147–153). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K., Hadden, T., & Hillyard, P. (1975). Law and state: The case of Northern Ireland. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2010a). Summit has Toronto businesses expecting losses. CBC Online, June 19, 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/19/business-costs.html.

  • Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2010b). Chief admits 5-meter G20 security rule didn’t exist. CBC Online, June 29, 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/29/g20-chief-fence571.html.

  • Canadian Broadcasting Company. (2007). Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest. CBC Online, August 23, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html.

  • Carver, A. (2011). The devil is in the details: Post 9/11 anti-terrorism in Australia and Canada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia.

  • Cockburn, A., & St. Clair, J. (2000). Five days that shook the world, Seattle and beyond. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyghed, J. (2002). Normalising the exceptional: The case of political violence. Policing and Society, 13(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillham, P. F., & Marx, G. T. (2000). Complexity and irony in policing and protesting: The World Trade Organisation in Seattle. Social Justice, 2, 212–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, J. (2010). Policing protest: An authoritarian consensus. Criminal Justice Matters, 82(1), 21–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, S. (2007). The “Battle of Seattle” revisited: Or, seven views of a protest-zoning state. Political Geography, 26, 601–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillyard, P. (1987). The normalisation of special powers. In P. Scraton (Ed.), Law, order and the authoritarian state. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillyard, P. (1993). Suspect community: People’s experience of the prevention of terrorism acts in Britain. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, I., & LeClerc, P. (2011). “The Big Smoke” screen: Toronto’s G20 protests, police brutality, and the unaccountability of public officials. The Journal of Society and Socialist Studies, 7(1/2), 282–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innes, M. (2001). “Control Creep”, sociological research online. (6), viewed March 19, 2009. http://ideas.repec.org/a/sro/srosro/2001-45-2.html.

  • Jackson, R., & Lawler, P. (2005). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juris, J. (2005). Violence performed and imagined: Militant action, the Black Bloc and the mass media in Genoa. Critique of Anthropology, 25, 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & Swire, P. (2003). State wiretaps and electronic surveillance after September 11. Hastings Law Journal, 971, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, N. (2004). The war on civil liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft have dismantled the Bill of Rights. New York: Lawrence Hill Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, T. (2006). Doublespeak in the war on terror. CATO Institute Briefing Papers. 98. viewed 10 January 2010. http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp98.pdf.

  • Marin, A. (2010a). Timeline: Key events cited in Caught in the Act. Ombudsman of Ontario. viewed 1 December 2013. http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Files/sitemedia/Documents/Investigations/SORT%20Investigations/g20timeline-en.pdf.

  • Marin, A. (2010b). Caught in the act: Investigation into The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ conduct in relation to Ontario Regulation 233/10 under the Public Works Protection Act. Ombudsman of Ontario. viewed 1 December 2013. http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/Files/sitemedia/Documents/Investigations/SORT%20Investigations/g20final1-en.pdf.

  • Mathews, A. (1986). Freedom, state security, and the rule of law: Dilemmas of the apartheid society. Johannesburg: Juta Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, J., & Tham, J. C. (2005). Secret state, transparent subject: The Australian security intelligence organisation in the age of terror. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 400–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, A. (2005). The ‘other’ lessons from Ireland. European Journal of Criminology, 2(2), 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noakes, J., & Gillham, P. (2007). Police and protester innovation since Seattle. Mobilization, 12(4), 335–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northern Ireland Office. (2006). Replacement arrangements of the Diplock court system: A consultation paper. Northern Ireland: Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • NTAS. (2013). National Terrorism Advisory System: Department of Homeland Security. Viewed July 25. http://www.dhs.gov/national-terrorism-advisory-system.

  • Peña, C. (2002). Homeland security alert system: Why bother? CATO Institute. Viewed December 28, 2009. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4205.

  • People v. Morales, No. 2210/2004 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. . 2005).

  • Rafail, P. (2010). Asymmetry in protest control? Comparing protest policing patterns in Montrea, Toronto, and Vancouver, 1998–2004. Mobilization, 15(4), 489–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen, J., & Lichtblau, E. (2005). Bush Let U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. New York Times. Accessed 28 December, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print.

  • Roach, K. (2002). Did September 11 change everything? Struggling to preserve Canadian values in the face of terrorism. McGill Law Journal/Revue de Droit de McGill, 47, 893–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (2004). Do terror alerts work? The Rake. October 4, 2004. Accessed at: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/10/do_terror_alert.html.

  • Sidel, M. (2004). More secure, less free? Antiterrorism policy and civil liberties after September 11. Detroit: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, J., & Thomas, P. (1983). The prevention of terrorism act: Normalising the politics of repression. Journal of Law and Society, 10(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (2001). Globalizing resistance: The Battle of Seattle and the future of social movements. Mobilization, 6, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soule, S., & Davenport, C. (2009). Velvet glove, iron fist, or even hand? Protest policing in the United States, 1960–1990. Mobilisation, 14(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. (2011). World Drug Report 2011. Vienna: Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, D. (1989). The impact of the anti subversive laws on police powers and practices in Ireland: The silent erosion of individual freedom. Temple Law Review, 62(4), 1099–1129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T. (2007). Gang member is convicted under terror law. The New York Times. November 1, 2007. Accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/nyregion/01terror.html.

  • Yang, J. (2010). G20 law gives police sweeping powers to arrest people. Toronto Star. June 25, 2010. http://www.thestar.com/article/828367.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Criminology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, B3C 3C3, Canada

    Ashley Carver

Authors
  1. Ashley Carver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley Carver.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carver, A. Creep and Normalisation: Exploring a Strategy of Social Control. Crit Crim 22, 419–432 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9219-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9219-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation