Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Feminist philosophers of language have, in the last several decades, demonstrated the usefulness of employing a speech-act theoretical lens to understand how expression works to enact and reinforce oppression. Despite the growing influence of these approaches in the philosophy and political theory literature, however, their use in other disciplines remains severely limited. This is surprising, especially given the real potential of the speech-act approach to illuminate the mechanisms by which everyday acts contribute to large-scale oppressions. This paper takes up this call for interdisciplinarity, utilising a speech-act theory of oppression to better understand the real-life experiences of the under-researched Czech and Slovak communities of Northern Ireland. Using semi-structured interviews followed by thematic analysis, our study expands our understanding of oppressive speech by revealing a complex relationship between victims’ experiences and their understanding of wider societal oppression, exposing a channel via which victims can exercise agency by contesting attempts to reinforce their oppression. In so doing, the study also draws attention to a novel theoretical lens with which to understand experiences of harmful speech, one which is currently under-utilised by those outside of the philosophy/political theory disciplines.

Keywords

Hate speech oppression Northern Ireland Central and Eastern European racism

Introduction

According to a large body of research in feminist philosophy of language, and influenced by J. L. Austin's work on speech-acts (1962), both explicit (racist abuse, hate crime, etc.) and covert (microaggressions, distancing) expressions of inferiority can contribute to the ongoing oppression of groups, depending on the contextual conditions under which they are delivered (Langton, 2018; Maitra, 2012). Perhaps the most illuminating theoretical contribution made by speech-act theorists is the explanation of how harmful speech oppresses in both a constitutive and causal sense, where the former is understood as the harm immediately enacted by the expression (i.e. when victims are ‘ranked’ as morally inferior) and the latter its resulting effects (i.e. withdrawal, psychological injury, etc.) (McGowan, 2019). Such a framing shows us that oppressive expression isn’t ‘only’ harmful because of resulting effects on psychological well-being and listener behaviour, but can also be understood as an instance of discriminatory conduct that enacts and reinforces background social hierarchies.

Despite the influence of this body in normative theory, however, it remains an under-utilised theoretical resource within the social scientific research on oppressive expression. This is surprising, particularly given the approach's usefulness in illuminating the relationship between everyday expression and the perpetuation of background norms of oppression.¹ In response, and by way of a case study, this interdisciplinary study employs a speech-act framing alongside thematic analysis to assess data drawn from 9 semi-structured interviews with Czech and Slovak migrants living in Northern Ireland about their experiences with oppressive expression. Like many Central and Eastern European (CEE) nationals who come to live and work in the region, the experiences of these communities have been tainted by racially motivated abuse² (Gilligan and Lloyd, 2006; Jarman and Monaghan, 2003) as well as more everyday expressions of inferiority (Doebler et al., 2018; Knox, 2011).³ Such abuse it thought to be rooted in socio-historical features of the post-conflict environment, which includes wider economic and structural inequalities (Garvey and Stewart, 2015), ongoing sectarian divisions (Chrisafis, 2004; Geoghegan, 2008; Vieten and Murphy, 2019), and failure of the government to respond appropriately to concerns from immigrant communities (Fraser, 2022; Gilligan, 2019). Thus far, however, little research has explored how Czech and Slovak communities specifically understand and respond to such experiences. Such an absence not only points to a worrying neglect of the voices of a systemically underrepresented section of NI society but leaves open important questions about the presence and nature of anti-migrant norms in the region today.

Our study reveals that participants have been victim to the constitutive and causal effects of oppressive speech in a way reflective of the speech-act framework. While several describe their status as improving over time, they also refer to a background ‘anti-immigrant’ attitude as endemic to the region, suggesting the existence of an oppressive hierarchy of status. Interviewees also report feelings of both speechlessness and voicelessness, suggestive of the constitutive harm of ‘silencing’. Causally oppressive harms include reported feelings of fear and anxiety. Results are also suggestive of a relationship between the constitutive and causal aspects of oppressive expression, a finding which remains under-theorised in the speech-act literature (Anderson and Barnes, 2022; Kukla, 2014). Along such lines, interviewees report that being targeted brought to bear their second-class status in a way that influenced their strategies for dealing with their oppression, with some choosing to withdraw from public life and or ‘adapting’ to the norms of NI society (Nielsen, 2002). The constitutive/causal harms of speech are thus a good deal more interdependent than the philosophical literature suggests, revealing an important way in which victims of oppressive speech respond to (and potentially reject) attempts to enact oppressive norms. Real-world reflection on the theoretical literature on oppressive speech thus allows us to better understand the conditions under which victims of such speech can take part in its mitigation. In addition, this paper showcases to non-philosophers a novel and theoretically fruitful lens with which to understand how expression works to enact and shifts surrounding norms in oppressive ways via the active norm negotiation of the agents involved, something which may be particularly useful in understanding complex societies such as NI.

Some clarifications before beginning. ‘Oppression’ here refers to the harmful social phenomenon, upheld by a network of social norms, which ‘ranks’ as inferior and systematically disadvantages individuals because of their group membership while also privileging others because of their group membership (Cudd, 2005). In-keeping with the norms of speech-act theory, we take a broad view of what counts as ‘oppressive expression’, to include racially motivated hate crime (e.g. physical assaults, damage to property) and hate speech (e.g. public, face-to-face, verbal assaults), and more covert forms of ill-treatment, including stereotyping and ‘microaggressions’. Despite their differences in terms of potential material and nonmaterial outcomes, all involve harm in an expressive sense by reflecting an unjust social hierarchy in which certain groups are designated as morally inferior and unworthy of equal inclusion within the community.

This paper will proceed as follows. In Section 2, and in developing a framework for analysing the interviews findings, we present an account of ‘oppressive speech’ and outline the debate on the theoretical distinction between the ‘constitutive’ and ‘causal’ harms of expression. Section 3 provides a background on the political and social context of Czech and Slovak migrants in NI. In Section 4, we present the findings of the interviews, employing thematic analysis alongside the theoretical framework provided in Section 2. In Section 5, we discuss the findings, proposing potential amendments that could enhance theoretical understandings of oppressive speech. Section 6 concludes.

How oppressive speech enacts oppressive norms

The idea that speech can cause harmful effects is uncontroversial. Victims of racist speech, according to Mari Matsuda, may experience “physiological symptoms and emotional distress ranging from fear in the gut, rapid pulse rate and difficulty in breathing, nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder, hypertension, psychosis, and suicide” (1989: 2336). Long-term, victims may also adapt their behaviour by, for example, quitting their jobs, moving home, or withdrawing from society (Delgado and Stefancic, 2004). Speech can also (negatively) influence attitudes towards a target group (Bilewicz and Soral, 2020), encouraging prejudicial, violent, or discriminatory actions (Allport, 1954).

In addition to causing harms, feminist speech-act theorists, drawing on the work of J. L. Austin (1962), shows us how speech can constitute harm by performing actions under particular conditions (Maitra, 2012; McGowan, 2019). On this view, when I state that “I’ll get it finished by this afternoon” to my boss, for example, I am not only making a claim, but am performing the act of promising. The success of the promise depends on the presence of certain norms and authority relations, including the existence of a professional relationship and a task that I am duty-bound to complete as part of my role. We also enact normative changes in the world using our words. For example, a ‘Keep off the grass’ sign on a quad will enact a norm forbidding passers-by from walking on the grass. In their doing of something, the speech in both cases constitutes an action. In addition, these utterances will also (likely) produce causal effects. My promise to my boss may result in her nodding in approval (or, depending on when the work was due, frowning in dissatisfaction). The norm enacted by the utterance on the sign should reduce the number of people walking on the grass.

Using the same model also allows us to see how speech contributes to oppression in both a constitutive and causal sense. For speech to oppress in a constitutive sense it will need to enact norms prescribing oppressive behaviours (McGowan, 2019). Like in the two examples above, speech that oppresses will need to be recognised as authoritative. For example, a landlady's announcement of a policy excluding migrants from her pub depends upon her (recognised) authority over the norms of that domain. Her utterance constitutes oppression because it enacts a norm that excludes certain people simply because of their group membership. But oppressive expression can also derive its authority informally, meaning that everyday expressive acts (including hate speech, microaggressions, and discriminating actions) can also change surrounding norms. Here, expression gains authority by exploiting general rules of conversation (McGowan, 2019: 31), thereby adapting surrounding norms regarding what is permissible to say going forward (Lewis, 1983; McGowan, 2019: 34).

What makes such comments forms of oppression, however, will depend on the existence of (authoritative) background norms at play, both in the local context (i.e. the meeting) and in wider society. When Bob, for example, tells fellow train passenger Tomas (a migrant) that ‘You lot aren’t welcome around here’, he is enacting norms that make sense within, gain their authority from, and perpetuate, a background social hierarchy of norms that systematically disadvantage migrants within that society. What is made permissible in this case is the verbal mistreatment of migrants qua migrants within the context of the conversation. If left unchallenged, Bob's words may also influence what is permissible to say in public by “altering the normative landscape” (McGowan, 2019: 112) in oppressive ways. Bob's speech-act thus constitutes oppression by enacting norms that draw upon and perpetuate the social position of Tomas as a migrant. If Tomas experiences psychological distress and/or tailors his future behaviour in order to avoid social interaction, or if bystanders’ attitudes are negatively influenced by the speech-act, then it will have also produced causal harms.

To ascertain the presence of constitutive and causal harms of oppressive expression from the study of a particular speech-act, then, we must look to the (background) norms informing the meaning of the locally enacted norms. Where the background norms reflect oppressive social hierarchies, then we can say that certain forms of expression have at least the potential to exploit and enact norms that cause the oppression to continue. Where such background norms are not in place, then, although the expression might be offensive or hurtful in some way, it may not constitute oppressive expression.

In the following, we explore how the background socio-historical context of NI features in the oppression suffered by Czech and Slovak communities in the region.

Racism, migration, and the Slovak and Czech populations of NI

Following the accession of the ‘A8’ countries to the EU in 2004, NI saw a marked increase both in the number of CEE nationals living in the region and in the number of ‘racially-motivated hate incidents’ recorded against them (Knox, 2011: 395; NISRA, 2022; Yu, 2022; Barton, 2023; McVeigh, 1998).⁴ While Poland continues to be the most common country of origin for those coming to live in NI,⁵ there are also an estimated 2700 Slovaks and 700 Czechs living in NI today (Bell and Domecka, 2018; Kempny, 2011; Svašek, 2009).⁶ The legal and social status of both communities within NI has fluctuated considerably over the years. While the UK did not introduce transitional labour restrictions to accompany the opening up of the labour market to A8 nationals, those wishing to live and work there under Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union were required to apply for the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS), a procedure designed to track migration flow from the EU and to which workers were registered for their first year of employment. While loosely enforced, the WRS was thought to impose burdens on already precariously employed CEE workers that were present neither for British and Irish citizens, nor for already-resident non-A8 EU workers (Allamby et al., 2011: 20; Shelley, 2007). Apart from the economic cost of the permit, maintaining up-to-date registration was necessary for a worker to apply for future citizenship. Crucially, those without a permit were ineligible for welfare, while those with a permit had to prove they had been working for at least 12-months (with a maximum break of 30 days) to receive Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) during periods of unemployment. This dependence on stable employment for the enjoyment of basic rights meant that labour exploitation was common for both documented and undocumented workers (Dwyer et al., 2011; Potter and Hamilton, 2014).

Even after the WRS ended in 2011, EU migrants continued to occupy a differential status in NI compared to those with British and Irish citizenship. Entitlement to social benefits has consistently been tied to one's degree of economic activity (O’Brien, 2013), something which burdens (mostly female) caregivers, those on insecure contracts, and the long-term unemployed (Shutes and Walker, 2017). The tendency for migrant EU citizens not to naturalise in the host country also meant that many suffered a ‘structural citizenship deficit’ (Shaw, 2007) by not being permitted to vote in national elections, including the 2016 Brexit vote (Fanning et al., 2021). Following the vote, Czechs and Slovaks wishing to continue living in NI were required to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme, a process which has been shown to be cumbersome and inaccessible for many (Barnard et al., 2021; Jablonowski, 2020).

Apart from the formal burdens placed on CEE workers in NI, migrants have also been victim to considerable levels of anti-migrant and racist abuse. Racially-motivated hate crime and hate speech have long been recognised as a widespread issue in NI (Hainsworth, 1998; Jarman and Monaghan, 2003; McDonald, 2017), leading one commentator to infamously dub the region the ‘race hate capital of Europe’ (Amnesty NI, 2021; Chrisafis, 2004; McVeigh, 2015). White CEE nationals, including Czechs and Slovaks, have not been immune from racially-motivated attacks,⁷ and indeed “[t]he category of people who are most likely to be victims of a racial incident in Northern Ireland today are ‘white’ East Europeans” (Gilligan, 2019: 115). According to figures from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), of the 9739 reported hate incidents and crimes recorded by police between 2007/8 and 2021/22, a total of 86 Czechs and 289 Slovaks have experienced such abuse, making up 3.85% of the total number reported and 13.14% of those from A8 CEE countries (PSNI and NISRA, 2022). While some important research has examined racist abuse in NI (Knox, 2011; McVeigh and Rolston, 2007), very little explores the experiences of Slovak and Czech nationals specifically (Hickman et al., 2008: 76; Wardach, 2016).

The reasons behind the high levels of racial hostility in NI are complex. Several studies have pointed to a link between sectarianism and racial intolerance (Doebler et al., 2018: 2439; Knox, 2011: 404–6; McVeigh, 1998, 2015). On this view, centuries of institutional and cultural dominance and exclusion of Irish Catholics by the British state reflects the historical racialisation of the Irish Catholic population (Gilroy, 1987; Gilligan, 2017; Hickman, 1998, McVeigh, 1998). Particular attention has also been paid to the outsized number of attacks originating in loyalist communities (Gilligan, 2019: 110; Gilligan and Lloyd, 2006), leading some to attribute the greater preponderance of attacks in these areas to historical and ideological features of loyalism/unionism itself⁸ (McVeigh and Rolston, 2007). Others suggest that higher levels of available housing stock in loyalist, working-class areas have triggered a tension over access to resources, thereby mirroring trends in the rise of racist attacks against migrants witnessed in working-class areas in other parts of the UK (Blalock, 1967). To many, then, the racialisation of CEE migrants reflects the interplay between certain structural features of NI society and the formal (legal) categories produced by those immigration policies described above. The differentiated legal status afforded to A8 migrants, combined with widespread anti-migrant political and media messaging,⁹ created a distinctive racial ‘Other’ which comprised those from CEE who were mainly tolerated for their presence in low-skilled, in-demand occupations (Pehrson et al., 2012). Instead of skin colour acting as a marker of distinction, then, racism against those from CEE within NI can be thought to be rooted in “racialized ideas of nationhood” that play a role in “shaping assumptions about who is (and is not) part of the national community” (Clarke, 2023: 285).

The effects of these incidents run deep. In the last couple of decades, targets, including children (Rutherford, 2014), have experienced orchestrated attacks on their homes (O’Neill, 2020) and business premises (Williamson and Rutherford, 2015), verbal abuse (Fraser, 2022), damage to their cars (The Belfast Telegraph, 2015), racist graffiti (McCurry, 2016), violent assault (BBC News, 2013, 2014; McCann, 2015), bomb threats (BBC News, 2016), attacks on public transport (Smyth, 2015), racial harassment in the workplace (Preston, 2019; UNISON, 2009), and have been forced to leave the area in which they live (McDonald, 2009). Those campaigning in support of victims have criticised institutional and political responses to growing racism as both slow and ill-informed, blaming ‘legislative gaps’ (McGrath, 2021), political apathy (Archer, 2021), and structural and overt racism (NICRE, 2021) for a lack of change. Within many quarters, there is a belief that conditions for migrants and ethnic minorities in NI are inadequate at best, and bleak at worst. Along such lines, Patrick Yu (2022), of the Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality (NICRE), noted recently that “there is little evidence” that racism is decreasing. Instead, “institutionalized and structural racism” and racist attitudes have now become ‘norms’ in NI society, bolstering racial disparities and severely impacting the life chances of those from affected groups. There appears to be ample evidence to support the claim that, within NI society, members of migrant populations do indeed suffer oppression in the way described in Section 2.

In the following section, we present the findings of our interviews with individuals from those affected communities about their experiences with such oppressive acts and behaviour.

Oppressive speech and the Slovak/Czech communities of Ni

In September 2021, in-depth, qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 9 participants from Slovakia and the Czech Republic about their experiences with oppressive expression in NI. This method was chosen to give voice to an under-researched and frequently misunderstood group of marginalised individuals (Holstein and Gubrium, 2002; Zempi and Chakraborti, 2015). Giving space to participants to discuss their perspectives in depth and in their own words provides a richer set of data with which to critically assess the role targets of harmful speech play in its resulting effects (Esterberg, 2002; Weiss, 1994).

Participants were recruited via purposive sampling using an online questionnaire (written in both English and Slovak) which was distributed via three Facebook groups: i) The Belfast Multicultural Resource Centre Facebook group (public); ii) Slovaks and Czechs in Northern Ireland (private); and iii) Belfast - Czechoslovak forum (private). Questions (which included response options of yes/no/I don’t know) gathered demographic information (age, nationality, gender, time spent in NI), in addition to information on (first and second-hand) experiences with perceived anti-migrant hostility. Participants had the option of providing their contact details (phone number/email address) for future interview. We recognise that such a sampling method will attract individuals who wish to share their experiences with oppressive speech. As a qualitative exploration of victims’ experiences, however, this was not considered a negative feature of the study.

In total, there were 29 respondents to the online questionnaire and 9 (8 Slovaks and 1 Czech) who took part in an interview. Out of this group, 7 were women and 2 men, including one mixed-sex married couple. Interviewees reported having lived in NI between 10–17 years. Interviews were conducted in English, Slovak, or Czech depending on the interviewee's preference and all took place in either a location of the interviewee's choice or over the phone. Questions centred on interviewees’ experience with anti-migrant hostility, hate speech, discrimination, and Brexit.

The interviewer's position as a female Slovak researcher who has worked for over 8 years in Northern Ireland allowed them to use their linguistic and cultural competencies to conduct the research. Their background had a profound impact on the whole research process, starting with the choice of research interest, the communication with interviewees, and the interpretation of the data. All interviews were conducted in the interviewees’ chosen language to mitigate power asymmetry and they could end the interview at any time. The interviewer was, however, aware that removing cultural and language barriers cannot completely remove power asymmetries and biases from the research process. To address the risks, the transcripts and the findings were discussed on a regular basis with the co-author, who is a senior researcher.

Both the questionnaires and interviews were approved by the University Research Ethics Committee. Participant involvement was voluntary and all had the opportunity to review transcripts and to withdraw participation for a short period following interview. The questionnaires included a full explanation (in English and Slovak) of the study and how their responses would be used, as well as contact details of the University Ethics Committee. Participant Information Sheets and Consent Forms for interview (in English and Slovak) were provided and signed before the study took place.

Data from the questionnaires was securely stored on the university digital storage system in a password-protected folder. Recordings and transcripts of the interviews were also stored securely on this system in a separate folder. No identifying details (including names) were attached to files and participants were given pseudonyms. Once transcribed, translated, and reviewed, transcripts were coded using an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Such a method best serves the purpose of the study by helping to capture ‘the complexities of meaning’ found within qualitative data (Guest et al., 2012: 11) This method was also chosen for its flexibility and for its non-reliance on a specific epistemology. This allowed for the coding to be informed by background theoretical research, which is necessary for the testing of the philosophical account of oppressive speech proposed in Section 1. Utilising Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-stage method, we familiarised ourselves with the data before identifying relevant codes relating to the research questions. Themes were extensively discussed and agreed-upon between researchers before finalisation.

Results

Results indicate that migrants experienced a range of incidents of oppressive expression relating to their status as a migrant, including violence, intimidation, and verbal harassment. While most subject to hostility did not describe themselves in terms of their victimisation, all interviewees spoke of experiences of abuse that they believe was connected to their ‘foreignness’. Most of the respondents were women aged between 30 and 45, perhaps due to this demographic's relative high engagement with social media and the Multicultural Centre where the questionnaire was disseminated. Themes drawn from the data were divided into two broad categories: (i) Reinforcement of ‘outsider’ status; and (ii) Responses and strategies.

Reinforcement of ‘outsider’ status

For many interviewees, their negative experiences served to remind and reinforce their standing as an outsider or ‘Other’ in NI society. Most perceived a general ‘hostile’ background attitude towards migrants, one which tended to rear its head in public and semi-public spaces. This finding reflects the speech-act position that racist expression harms in a constitutive sense by both drawing upon and reinforcing norms that map on to a wider social hierarchy, which in this case is one in which migrants are afforded a lower status than ‘local’ NI residents.

One of the common contexts in which these attacks on standing took place were interviewees’ workplaces, spaces which frequently placed them in contact with members of the public. Several describe being “bullied” (TW) and “verbally attacked” (BU) by “difficult” (BU, FT) customers because of their background. Such customers frequently challenged the authority of interviewees:

“I was working in Lidl and had a very difficult customer. I was a supervisor at that time. He approached me and requested to speak to the supervisor. He responded saying: “no I want a local person, someone from here”. He refused to speak to me. It was discriminatory.” (FT, 48 years old, female, Slovakia)

Despite being in a position of (formal) authority in her workplace as a supervisor, the customer refuses to recognise FT as such. According to the speech-act literature, such experiences reflect instances of ‘discursive injustice’ (Kukla, 2014), where a speaker's attempt at employing speech-acts which she is entitled to make fail to have appropriate ‘uptake’ among the audience because of background social hierarchies. In this case, the customer may not respect FT in her role as supervisor because of anti-migrant attitudes that are a result of more general background anti-migrant norms in NI society. Building on the theoretical framework described in Section 2, then, we might say that the customer's words here draw upon and enact oppressive background norms that ‘rank’ migrants as inferior in comparison to ‘locals’, thereby entrenching existing patterns of migrant exclusion described as common to the region.

For some, these experiences of exclusionary expression were also suffered by their children, typically during school or while attending a youth group:

“My son, 5 years old, was bullied at school (first grade). He was being called stupid, ugly, not British. Once, he was thrown over the radiator. He was attacked both physically and verbally.” (NK, 37 years old, female, Slovakia)

The child in this scenario experiences violence and verbal abuse in a way that can be directly connected to their migrant background. The expressive power of such an attack is evident. Here, the social meaning of the attack is one that draws upon and reinforces background anti-migrant norms within a shared institutional space. In such cases, attackers’ strategy of abuse includes reinforcing physical boundaries within the local (classroom/youth club) context as well as those of NI society. These expressions aim to establish norms regarding which sorts of groups are permitted to occupy and take part in shared spaces, using tactics of intimidation and threat to ensure those boundaries remain uncrossed in future. As Sime et al. (2022) aptly suggest, schools are not always safe havens but rather environments where various risks, including the risk of being marginalized or even subjected to physical violence, are constantly negotiated. The influence of peers and teachers (in their roles as defenders against abuse, as perpetrators, or as bystanders) is thus crucial in shaping young people's experiences of violence and marginalization in educational settings.

For several interviewees, these forms of boundary-drawing hostilities were also felt in their homes and surrounding neighbourhood:

“… there was a car set on a fire on the street where we had our community meet up. It all happened very fast. The young guys with hoodies and the masks on started gathering, we had to leave very fast. It was frightening to our kids mainly.” (NC, 41 years old, male, Slovakia)

Arson is a common intimidation tactic used to express prejudicial sentiment and to reinforce exclusionary social and geographical boundaries (Carter, 2003: 261). In Northern Ireland, such acts derive their meaning from background norms and socio-historical practices of boundary-drawing found in urban spaces (Boulton, 2014; Bryan, 2020). Putting this into speech-act terms, then, we might say that the setting of fires in public spaces enacts and reinforces a norm which says that ‘outsiders’ are not welcome, thereby re-establishing a background social hierarchy in which targets are afforded second-class status (Lawrence, 1993).

That interviewees understood these acts to be directly connected to their ‘outsider’ status, even where attackers do not explicitly state this, reflects a general shared perception that NI locals are generally hostile to newcomers and that they will always be viewed as “blow-ins” (FT). These ideas about NI as a ‘hostile environment’ for outsiders appeared to come from word-of-mouth discussions with others from the migrant community, but were also ‘confirmed’ by interviewees’ experiences with locals:

“Northern Ireland has generally been known as a country not being extremely open to foreigners. Mainly among young people. When I would say hello to them, I would get response, something like “you don’t belong here”.” (LI, 40 years old, female, Slovakia)

LI's experience confirms her existing beliefs about the existence of anti-migrant norms and attitudes in NI society, at least among young people. Other interviewees also identified young people as some of the main enforcers of those norms. For some, these behaviours stem from the fact that young people in NI are “raised differently” to those back home, and are encouraged to be “rude to foreigners” (NC):

[Rioting teenagers are] “raised on streets, raised to have strong feelings against foreigners – anti-migrant attitude.” (LI, 40 years old, female, Slovakia)

These sentiments reveal the complexity of racism in Northern Ireland which, as others have shown, is influenced by factors such as sectarianism, social contact, and economic self-interest (McKee, 2016). Despite efforts to foster inclusive nationalism (Dempsey, 2020), the region continues to struggle with exclusionary practices, including the exclusion of Eastern Europeans from public spaces. This struggle to create inclusiveness has also been tied by researchers to the region's historical and ongoing sectarian divisions (Yuval-Davis and Vieten, 2018), something which emerges in the form of different kinds of ‘othering’ practices to those found elsewhere in the UK (Vieten and Murphy, 2019). While our interviewees did not explicitly tie anti-migrant sentiment to sectarianism, there was a general perception that such hostility was tied up with other forms of anti-social behaviour (e.g. rioting, graffiti, arson) carried out by young people in loyalist areas.

Responses and strategies

Interviewees describe responding to their experiences using a range of strategies, which include both internal emotional responses and strategies in addition to social relational responses of integration and distancing. From an emotional perspective, interviewees report being left “in tears” and feeling fear (FT, JW) and anxiety (JW, LI), both in moments of attack and over longer periods of time. In response to these emotions, interviewees describe their attempt to minimise the discrimination, fearing they might be labelled as oversensitive or intolerant if they speak back. Several also describe complying with exclusionary tactics:

“When I see kids gathering of young kids, I get scared, I walk away. I was attacked in Ballymena once. It seems like I always get into troubles.” (JW, 55 years old, female, Czech Republic)

Each of these emotional responses reflect findings from the speech-act literature on the silencing effect of racist speech, which occurs when an attempt at communication is subverted or distorted by the interference of others (West, 2012). A verbal attack can silence by inducing “fear, rage, shock, and flight” or “physical symptoms that temporarily disable the victim” (Lawrence, 1993: 452).

These emotional responses also support philosophical understandings of the causal harms of oppressive speech. Interviewees reported experiencing short and/or long-term psychological distress, self-blame and low self-esteem, social isolation, and a sense of exclusion from NI society, with some choosing to withdraw from others so that they might avoid such experiences happening again in future. This cumulative harm of oppressive speech is much discussed in the philosophical literature and reflects the existence of a wider ‘hostile environment’ for the target group that prevents them from fully participating in the formal and informal aspects of society (Gelber and McNamara, 2015: 336; Matsuda, 1993: 24). This systematic enactment of norms that place migrant groups within a second-class status thereby reinforces the background social hierarchy in which such groups are not engaged with both the informal and formal aspects of citizenship.

At the same time, the way in which interviewees describe these experiences aligns with Verkuyten's (2005) findings, which reveal how victims often downplay racism to avoid negative perceptions. This is a finding also found in work on discursive psychology, which suggests that victims tend to provide vague accounts of their experiences, downplaying the seriousness of incidents and avoiding being seen as ‘Other’, while also reducing the culpability of the individuals involved (Kirkwood et al., 2013).

This tendency to downplay culpability of offenders can be found in the case of FT, who discusses what she takes to be changes in surrounding community attitudes towards her since her attack:

“[The attack] made me more frightened, I was thinking that people will always look at me this way. They will always see me as a foreigner. Now I know, this is not a [sic] case, people in general are nice, very helpful. Our neighbours don’t see us as foreigners.” (FT, female, 48 years old, Slovakia)

Apart from minimising their experiences of abuse, it was common for interviewees to point to (what they perceived to be) their own responsibilities to integrate successfully. For many, it was believed that things ‘get better’ once “locals get to know you” (NC). This notion of improvement is reflected somewhat in social attitudes surveys, which report that migrant workers from CEE countries have, over time, become the ‘most welcome’ ethnic minority in the region (Devine, 2018; McKee, 2016), something which could possibly be explained by increased social contact (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006). In a similar vein, most interviewees stressed (what they believed to be) their responsibility to learn English as part of this process of integration. Participants spoke of how they “discriminated themselves” (LI) and were “very vulnerable” (BU) by not knowing how to speak English, believing things will be “much easier” (NK) once they learned (FT):

“Overall, I am happy in NI, I can deal with some hate speech – or perhaps we could call it misunderstandings with locals?” (NK, 37 years old, female, Slovakia)

These individuals attribute their challenges with locals to language differences, underscoring the vulnerability that arises from such barriers. When individuals are unable to effectively communicate in the local language, they may struggle to navigate daily interactions, access essential services, or advocate for their rights, leaving them feeling exposed and at a disadvantage. At the same time, however, these statements further support the pattern of minimising and personal responsibility found throughout the interviews. This tendency to blame oneself for one's oppressive experiences reinforces the strength of the background racist norms. This ambivalent interpretation of the source of their negative experiences is indicative of the ‘sneaky’ nature of oppressive speech. As stressed by McGowan, oppressive speech is capable of successfully perpetuating largely because of its ordinariness and, very frequently, its imperceptibility. In other words, “[b]ecause of our social situatedness, what our utterances manage to do far outstrips our individual authority, our intentions, and even our awareness” (2018: 167).

This notion of personal responsibility in the face of oppression can also be found in how interviewees describe relations with fellow migrants. Here, interviewees’ strategies for integration involve creating distance between themselves and other migrant groups, including others from CEE:

“Leaving Czech Republic, I thought Czechs would be the ones that will support me here in NI, but I realized it's better to stay away from them. There is lot of envy within our community.” (JW, female, 55 years old, Czech Republic)

“In Belfast and in Ballymena, there is a big Roma community. They are on benefits, they know how to abuse system, lots of them are on disability benefits. Systems [sic] is not tough enough on them. After Brexit, it won’t be so easy. I am happy for Brexit; it sets up rules and boundaries for people.” (LI, 40 years old, female, Slovakia)

JW's statement reflects her disillusionment with the lack of support she expected from her fellow Czechs in Northern Ireland. Initially anticipating solidarity and assistance from those sharing her cultural background, she instead encountered a pervasive sense of envy within the Czech migrant community, prompting her to distance herself from them.¹⁰ In contrast, LI's remarks shed light on her perception of the Roma community's exploitation of the welfare system and receipt of preferential treatment. She criticizes the system's perceived lack of accountability and enforcement, allowing some Roma individuals to exploit it for personal gain. LI supports Brexit, believing it will help establish stricter regulations, potentially addressing welfare system issues and creating a fairer environment for all migrants.

Both JW and LI's experiences with other migrants within NI reveal the complexity of intergroup migrant dynamics in the region. Each reflects on their relation to other communities as a way of describing and negotiating their own standing in NI society. JW initially reaches out to the Czech community as a way of dealing with her own vulnerability as a migrant but finds the community to be more hostile than the wider society. LI disparages the Roma community as a way of creating discursive distance between herself and a group which she feels lowers societal perceptions of migrants more generally. In both statements, we see interviewees attempting to navigate the challenges posed by their perceived ‘outsider’ status by creating space between themselves and those other outsiders in the region. Such tactics of intergroup distancing and anti-Roma sentiment are common among migrant communities more generally (Garapich, 2012; Nowicka and Krzyżowski, 2017), again revealing the complexity of experiences of such groups as they navigate NI society.

For some, the hostility surrounding the Brexit vote also forced interviewees to re-think their decision to live in NI completely:

“At first, it was a big general panic within our community, lots of talk and panic on a social media, in daily conversation between people. People literally believed that they will be deported. I believe that it helped people to make a decision whether to stay or move back to their home-country.” (LI, 40 years old, female, Slovakia)

The sense of belonging among migrants in the UK was significantly impacted by the Brexit vote in 2016, as it was widely perceived to be motivated by anti-migrant sentiment (Lumsden et al., 2018, Sogelola, 2018). This was reflected in the experiences and perceptions of various individuals, reflecting a sense of uncertainty and detachment, despite having established a life in the UK, or capturing the initial panic within the communities following the referendum, with individuals grappling with the possibility of deportation and contemplating their future in the UK. Similar studies on Polish migrant women's experiences of racism and xenophobia (Rzepnikowska, 2019) before and after the EU referendum underscore the enduring presence of racism and xenophobia in British society predating the Brexit vote, while highlighting the complexity of racial dynamics, acknowledging that even less visible minorities can experience racism and xenophobia.

Discussion and conclusion

The experiences shared by participants support the constitutive/causal model of oppressive speech put forward in the philosophical literature. Oppressive expression, as we saw from the discussion of McGowan's account in Section 2, works when an utterance enacts certain (local) norms that harm members of the target group within a given domain. Expression oppresses wider group members by drawing on and perpetuating norms that systematically disadvantage the group. Interview data show that participants recognise that their negative experiences with the dominant community were directly connected to their (perceived) membership of a migrant group. Participants’ tendency to link their formal, legal status as a migrant to their non-acceptance within certain quarters of NI society reveal a general sense of exclusion as an outsider. In sum, our interview data suggest that Czech and Slovaks within NI have been subject to oppressive conditions bolstered by oppressive expression in a way reflective of the speech-act account put forward by McGowan and others in the philosophical speech-act tradition.

The results also indicate a range of constitutive and causal harms connected to participants’ experiences, though the two are not easily distinguished and appear to be interdependent in fundamental ways. Interviewees reported that their negative experiences with locals were a constant reminder of their ‘outsider’ status, something which in their view reflected a particular anti-migrant attitude which is ‘baked into’ the culture of NI. In turn, interviewees were left confused and fearful in the wake of an instance of oppressive speech. For many, a desire to integrate and ‘get on’ left them reluctant to seek support following an attack, both from the state and from (‘local’ and Slovak/Czech) neighbours, thereby causing them to withdraw from public life even further. Others, however, approached negative experiences with a sense of agency, either blaming themselves for their perceived lack of proficiency in English and/or brushing off abuse as ‘just something that happens’. The degree to which such enactment of oppressive norms is ‘successful’, however, is contingent on the formal conditions of citizenship afforded by NI as a host society and by the victims’ own understanding of and response to the speech itself. In particular, interviewees expressed a desire to shift background racist norms (incrementally) in a more egalitarian direction by increasing communicability between themselves and locals, reflecting an awareness of the place such (malleable) local norms can play in informing wider structures. This finding is significant, in that it sheds light on the conditions under which targets and bystanders can contest the enactment of oppressive norms by endorsing (competing) egalitarian norms (McGowan, 2019: 196). Were these sorts of appeals to egalitarian norms to become more frequent, then the strength of alternative, anti-egalitarian norms will, at least in theory, diminish over time. Evidence of these moves, and of the increased salience of egalitarian norms, is reflected in the way some of our interviewees (NK, BW, FT) reacted to their experiences as ‘mere’ misunderstandings between equals instead of as attempts to oppress. As McGowan (McGowan, 2019: 187) reminds us, socially constructed facts can come into being simply by behaving as though they are already the case.

In addition to supporting theoretical work on oppressive speech, our study also reveals important features of the status of Czech and Slovak communities in NI. A general feeling among participants was that anti-migrant attitudes were ‘built in’ to the background culture of the dominant community, particularly among youths. At the same time, however, others expressed optimism that NI was, on the whole, becoming more accustomed to the presence of foreign nationals. Given the burdens direct engagement with oppressive speakers may place on targets, then, it is important that wider society works to make these alternative egalitarian norms more salient and easier to draw upon when engaging in harmful speech situations. Reasserting the equal standing of migrants requires that those with and without public authority speak out publicly against hate attacks, and institutions such as the police service, health service, and education system can ensure that their practices and policies properly uphold equal standing for migrants.

The study's limitation lies in its small sample size of nine interviews. However, qualitative research often prioritises depth over breadth, aiming for rich insights from a smaller pool of participants (Issari et al., 2021). The determination of sample size was complex, influenced by factors including research method and sampling strategy (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Sandelowski, 1995). To address this limitation, future research could expand the participant pool for greater generalizability and integrate quantitative methods for a more comprehensive understanding. Exploring different contexts within Northern Ireland and beyond would also provide valuable insights into ethnicity and race dynamics, contributing to our broader understanding of these issues and enriching the philosophical framework further.

The speech-act theoretical lens applied to this study also reveals the huge potential for the framework to contribute to future cross- and interdisciplinary work on harmful and oppressive speech. There are three areas in particular where the speech-act framework could prove especially fruitful for those in other disciplines. Because the speech-act framework helps explain the ways in which oppressive norms perpetuate across communities via speech, it should be of keen interest to those who study the spread of hate in the fields of sociology, social anthropology, and political science. More specifically, the approach pursued in this paper reveals the diverse ways in which different communities respond to their experiences based on their own interpretation of the relevant surrounding norms. This finding poses some interesting questions regarding the universalizability of ‘hate’ speech and similar categories found in the social scientific literature on the topic.

Further, and by illuminating the (active) norm-negotiation role that victims of oppressive speech play in the perpetuation of problematic norms, the speech-act lens could prove useful for social psychological work on the emotional and behavioural effects of targeted speech. In particular, the speech-act lens can help explain the complex ways in which targets respond to and understand their experiences as they engage with (and attempt to shift) surrounding social norms. By drawing attention to the role of victims and bystanders in the perpetuation of oppressive norms, the speech-act approach pursued here also signals the need for a greater focus on ‘bottom up’ interventions, thereby proving it theoretically valuable for those researching potential avenues of intervention for oppressive speech in the fields of law, digital ethics, criminology, and political theory.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This study was supported by the Extraordinary Grant: Social Psychology Ambassadorship from the European Association of Social Psychology (EASP).

ORCID iD

Suzanne Whitten

Statements and declarations

Ethical Approval for this study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee in the School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics, Queen's University Belfast. Participants provided written consent before taking part.

Notes

Correction (November 2024):

There have been minor updates to the author affiliation of Jana Papcunová since the original publication.

References

Allamby

Bell

Hamilton

, et al. (2011) Forced Labour in Northern Ireland: Exploiting Vulnerability. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Amnesty International UK (2021, November 25) Northern Ireland: concern at hate crime epidemic as PSNI report figures rise. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/northern-ireland-concern-hate-crime-epidemic-psni-report-figures-rise-0 (accessed 15 March 2023).

Anderson

Barnes

(2022) Hate Speech. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/hate-speech/ (accessed 15 April 2023).

Archer

(2021, February 18) ‘Being in race hate crime before it is too late’- assembly members urge Justice Minister Naomi Long. The Irish News. Available at: https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/18/news/-bring-in-race-hate-crime-before-it-is-too-late—assembly-members-urge-justice-minister-naomi-long-2227302/ (accessed 01 February 2023).

Austin

(1962) How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barnard

Butlin

Costello

(2021) The changing status of European Union nationals in the United Kingdom following Brexit: the lived experience of the European Settlement Scheme. Social & Legal Studies 31(3): 365–388.

Barton

(2023, March 29) Constituency data: ethnic groups, 2021 census. House of Commons Library. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/constituency-statistics-ethnicity/#:∼:text=Across%20England%20and%20Wales%2C%2082,Explore%20constituency%20data (accessed 14 July 2023).

BBC News (2013, June 10) Ryan Newberry and David Wilton jailed for racist attack. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22843823 (accessed 20 March 2023).

10.

BBC News (2014, July 29) Racist attacks: police say hate crimes were ‘orchestrated’. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28540284 (accessed 14 March 2023).

11.

BBC News (2016, August 25) Belfast: neighbour ‘picked up pipe bomb’ after racist attack in Atlantic Avenue. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37187367 (accessed 09 March 2023).

12.

Bell

Domecka

(2018) The transformative potential of migration: Polish migrants’ everyday life experiences in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Gender, Place & Culture 25(6): 866–881.

13.

Bilewicz

Soral

(2020) Hate speech epidemic: the dynamic effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political radicalization. Political Psychology 41(1): 3–33.

14.

Blalock

(1967) Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Capricorn Books.

15.

Boulton

(2014) Frontier wars: violence and space in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology 22(1): 1–13.

16.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

17.

Bryan

(2020) Belfast: urban space, “policing” and sectarian polarization. In: Wounded Cities. Routledge, pp.251–269.

18.

Carter

(2003) Violent pastime (s): on the commendation and condemnation of violence in Belfast. City & Society 15(2): 255–281.

19.

Chrisafis

(2004, January 10) Racist war of the loyalist street gangs. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/10/northernireland.race (accessed 18 March 2023).

20.

Clarke

(2023) Recognising British bodies: the significance of race and whiteness in ‘post-racial’ Britain. Sociological Research Online 28(1): 279–295.

21.

Cudd

(2005) How to explain oppression: criteria of adequacy for normative explanatory theories. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35(1): 20–49.

22.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2004) Understanding Words that Wound. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

23.

Dempsey

(2020) Fostering grassroots civic nationalism in an ethno-nationally divided community in Northern Ireland. Geopolitics: 292–308.

24.

Devine

(2018, October) Attitudes to minority ethnic groups in Northern Ireland, 2005-2016. Research Update, Number 122 ARK Northern Ireland.

25.

Doebler

McArevey

Shortall

(2018) Is racism the new sectarianism? Negativity towards immigrants and ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland from 2004 to 2015. Ethnic & Racial Studies 41(14): 2426–2444.

26.

Dwyer

Lewis

Waite

(2011) Forced Labour and Immigration Policy: Status Matters? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

27.

Esterberg

(2002) Qualitative Methods in Social Research. McGraw-Hill Book Co Inc.

28.

Fanning

Kloc-Nowak

Lesińska

(2021) Polish migrant settlement without political integration in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a comparative analysis in the context of Brexit and thin European citizenship. International Migration 59(1): 263–280.

29.

Fox

Morasanu

Szilassy

(2012) The racialization of the new European migration to the UK. Sociology 46(4): 680–695.

30.

Fraser

(2022, January 31) Written evidence submitted by Ken Fraser, relating to the experiences of minority ethnic and migrant people in Northern Ireland inquiry (MEM0033). Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC). Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/42492/pdf/ (accessed 14 March 2023).

31.

Garapich

(2012) Between cooperation and hostility–constructions of ethnicity and social class among Polish migrants in London. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Sociologica 4(2): 31–45.

32.

Garvey

Stewart

(2015) Migrant workers and the north of Ireland: between neo-liberalism and sectarianism. Work, Employment & Society 29(3): 392–408.

33.

Gelber

McNamara

(2015) Evidencing the harms of hate speech. Social Identities 22(3): 324–341.

34.

Geoghegan

(2008) Managing ‘race’ in a divided society: a study of race relations policy in Northern Ireland. In: Dwyer

Bressev

(eds) New Geographies of Race and Racism. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.125–139.

35.

Gilligan

(2017) Northern Ireland and the crisis of anti-racism: rethinking racism and sectarianism. In: Northern Ireland and the Crisis of Anti-racism. Chicago: Manchester University Press.

36.

Gilligan

(2019) Northern Ireland and the limits of the race relations framework. Capital & Class 43(1): 105–121.

37.

Gilligan

Lloyd

(2006, June) Racial prejudice in Northern Ireland. ARK Research Update No. 44, ARK Northern Ireland, Social and Political Archive.

38.

Gilroy

(1987) There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. London: Hutchinson.

39.

Gilroy

(2006) Multiculturalism in times of war: an inaugural lecture given at the London School of Economics. Critical Quarterly 48(4): 27–45.

40.

Guest

MacQueen

Namey

(2012) Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC: Sage Publications.

41.

Hainsworth

(1998) Divided Society: Ethnic Minorities and Racism in Northern Ireland. London: Pluto Press.

42.

Hickman

Crowley

Mai

(2008) Immigration and Social Cohesion in the UK: The Rhythms and Realities of Everyday Life. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

43.

Hickman

(1998) Reconstructing deconstructing ‘race’: British political discourses about the Irish in Britain’. Ethnic & Racial Studies 21(2): 288–307.

44.

Holstein

Gubrium

(2002) Active interviewing. In: Weinberg

(eds) Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.112–126.

45.

Issari

Christopoulou

Galika

(2021) Life stories of Syrian refugees: a qualitative study. Psychology (Savannah, Ga ) 12: 1542–1560.

46.

Jablonowski

(2020) There are cracks in the EU Settlement Scheme–who will fall through them? LSE Brexit. Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104761/1/brexit_2020_05_06_there_are_cracks_in_the_eu_settlement_scheme_who.pdf (accessed 04 March 2023).

47.

Jarman

Monaghan

(2003) Racist Harassment in Northern Ireland. Belfast: OFMDFM.

48.

Kempny

(2011) Polish Migrants in Belfast: Border Crossing and Identity Construction. Newcastle: Cambridge Publishing.

49.

Kirkwood

McKinlay

McVittie

(2013) ‘They're more than animals’: refugees’ accounts of racially motivated violence. British Journal of Social Psychology 52(4): 747–762.

50.

Knox

(2011) Tackling racism in Northern Ireland: ‘the race hate capital of Europe. Journal of Social Policy 40(2): 387–412.

51.

Kukla

[writing as Rebecca] (2014) Performative force, convention, and discursive injustice. Hypatia 29(2): 440–457.

52.

Langton

(2018) The authority of hate speech. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law 3: 123–152.

53.

Lawrence

Charles

III (1993) If he hollers let him go: regulating racist speech on campus. In: Matsuda

Lawrence

III Delgado

Crenshaw

(eds) Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.53–88.

54.

Lewis

(1983) Scorekeeping in a language game. In: Philosophical Papers Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.233–249.

55.

Lumsden

Goode

Black

(2018) “I will not be thrown out of the country because I’m an immigrant’”: Eastern European migrants’ responses to hate crime in a semi-rural context in the wake of Brexit. Sociological Research 24(2): 167–184.

56.

Maitra

(2012) Subordinating speech. In: Maitra

McGowan

(eds) Speech & Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.94–120.

57.

Matsuda

(1993) Public response to racist speech: considering the victim's story. In: Matsuda MJ, Lawrence CR, Delgado R, et al. (eds) Words that Wound. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.17–51.

58.

Matsuda

(1989) Public response to racist speech: considering the victim’s story. Michigan Law Review 87: 2320–2381.

59.

McCann

(2015, April 8) Polish mum threatened by men with pickaxes in Belfast race hate attack. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/polish-mum-threatened-by-men-with-pickaxes-in-belfast-race-hate-attack/31125946.html (accessed 13 March 2023).

60.

McCurry

(2016, August 5) Larne residents ‘disgusted’ as foreign nationals are targeted in hate crime. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/larne-residents-disgusted-as-foreign-nationals-are-targeted-in-hate-crime/34939509.html (accessed 12 March 2023).

61.

McDonald

(2017, November 12) Racially motivated crimes now exceed sectarian ones in Northern Ireland. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/12/racially-motivated-crimes-now-exceed-sectarian-ones-in-northern-ireland (accessed 12 March 2023).

62.

Mcdonald

(2009) They said they wanted to kill us' - Romanians holed up in Belfast speak of ordeal. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jun/17/northern-ireland-romanians-attacked (accessed 2 March 2024).

63.

McGowan

(2018) On locker room talk and linguistic oppression. Philosophical Topics 46(2): 165–181.

64.

McGowan

(2019) Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

65.

McGrath

(2021, October 20) Written evidence from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, relating to the experiences of minority ethnic and migrant people in Northern Ireland Inquiry (MEM0030). Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC). Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/39706/pdf/ (accessed 04 April 2023).

66.

McKee

(2016) Love thy neighbour? Exploring prejudice against ethnic minority groups in a divided society: the case of Northern Ireland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42(5): 777–796.

67.

McVeigh

(1998) ‘There’s no racism because there’s no Black people here’: racism and anti-racism in Northern Ireland. In: Hainsworth

(eds) Divided Society: Ethnic Minorities and Racism in Northern Ireland. London: Pluto Press, pp.11–32.

68.

McVeigh

(2015) Living the peace process in reverse: racist violence and British nationalism in Northern Ireland. Race & Class 56(4): 3–25.

69.

McVeigh

Rolston

(2007) From Good Friday to good relations: sectarianism, racism and the Northern Ireland state. Race & Class 48(4): 1–23.

70.

Meredith

(2014, June 20) It’s prejudiced to dismiss every loyalist as racist. Belfast Telegraph. Available at: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/debateni/fionola-meredith/its-prejudiced-to-dismiss-every-loyalist-as-racist-30368893.html (accessed 01 May 2023).

71.

Narkowicz

(2023) White enough, not white enough: racism and racialisation among Poles in the UK. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 49(6): 1534–1551.

72.

NICRE (2021) Written evidence submitted by the Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality, and the All Party Assembly Group on Ethnic Minority Community (MEM0006). UK Parliament. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36403/pdf/ (accessed 4 May 2024).

73.

Nielsen

(2002) Subtle, pervasive, harmful: racist and sexist remarks in public as hate speech. Journal of Social Issues 58(2): 265–280.

74.

NISRA (2022, September 22) Main statistics for Northern Ireland: statistical bulletin, ethnic group. Available at: https://www.nisra.gov.uk/system/files/statistics/census-2021-main-statistics-for-northern-ireland-phase-1-statistical-bulletin-ethnic-group.pdf (accessed 14 July 2023).

75.

Nowicka

Krzyżowski

(2017) The social distance of Poles to other minorities: a study of four cities in Germany and Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43(3): 359–378.

76.

O’Brien

(2013) I trade, therefore I am: legal personhood in the European Union. Common Market Law Review 50: 1643–1684.

77.

O’Neill

(2020, February 3) Couple’s terror in baseball bat racist attack in Omagh as mum and boy leap from window to flee thug. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/couples-terror-in-baseball-bat-racist-attack-in-omagh-as-mum-and-boy-leap-from-window-to-flee-thug/38919777.html.

78.

Pehrson

Gheorghiu

Ireland

(2012) Cultural threat and anti-immigrant prejudice: the case of protestants in Northern Ireland. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 22(2): 111–124.

79.

Perkins

(2016) The integration of ‘bottom-up’ approaches to the analysis of race talk for the future of discourse analytic research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 10(6): 329–336.

80.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5): 751–783.

81.

Potter

Hamilton

(2014) Picking on vulnerable migrants: precarity and the mushroom industry in Northern Ireland. Work, Employment & Society 28(3): 390–406.

82.

Preston

(2019, November 14) Polish chef awarded £15k in job bias case tells of heartache over racist abuse at Northern Ireland restaurant. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/polish-chef-awarded-15k-in-job-bias-case-tells-of-heartache-over-racist-abuse-at-northern-ireland-restaurant/38690280.html (accessed 12 March 2023).

83.

PSNI

and NISRA

(2022) Statistical bulletin cases involving hate crime 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. Available at: https://www.ppsni.gov.uk/files/ppsni/publications/Statistical%20Bulletin%20on%20Cases%20Involving%20Hate%20Crime%202021- 22.pdf (accessed 14 August 2023).

84.

Rutherford

(2014, June 4) Polish teenager hit by bottle in Belfast’s Ormeau Park. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/polish-teenager-hit-by-bottle-in-belfasts-ormeau-park/30326631.html (accessed 12 April 2023).

85.

Rzepnikowska

(2019) Racism and xenophobia experienced by Polish migrants in the UK before and after Brexit vote. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 45(1): 61–77.

86.

Sandelowski

(1995) Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health 18(2): 179–183.

87.

Shaw

(2007) E. U. Citizenship and political rights in an evolving European Union. Fordham Law Review 75: 2549–2579.

88.

Shelley

(2007) Exploited: Migrant Labour in the New Global Economy. London: Zed.

89.

Shutes

Walker

(2017) Gender and free movement: EU migrant women’s access to residence and social rights in the UK. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 44(1): 137–153.

90.

Sime

Tyrrell

Käkelä

, et al. (2022) Performing whiteness: Central and Eastern European young people’s experiences of xenophobia and racialisation in the UK post-Brexit. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48(19): 4527–4546.

91.

Smyth

(2015, April 2) Woman charged with racist attack on Polish couple on Belfast bus. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/woman-charged-with-racist-attack-on-polish-couple-on-belfast-bus/31112467.html (accessed 05 March 2023).

92.

Sogelola

(2018) Brexit, agenda setting and framing of immigration in the media: the case of The Daily Mail. LSE Undergraduate Political Review 1: 128–142.

93.

Svašek

(2009) Shared history? Polish migrant experiences and the politics of display in Northern Ireland. In: Burrell

(eds) Polish Migration to the UK in the ‘New’ European Union. After 2004. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp.129–148.

94.

The Belfast Telegraph (2015, November 23) I won’t leave, vows Polish man as cars burnt in hate attack. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/i-wont-leave-vows-polish-man-as-cars-burnt-in-hate-attack/34224627.html (accessed 12 April 2023).

95.

UNISON (2009, October) Migrant workers, racism and the recession: survey results on the impact of the recession on UNISON migrant worker and Black and minority ethnic members. Available at: http://www.unison.org.uk/file/MW_Racism_and_the_Recession_-_final_report[1].pdf (accessed 20 March 2023).

96.

Verkuyten

(2005) Accounting for ethnic discrimination: a discursive study among minority and majority group members. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 24(1): 66–92.

97.

Vieten

Murphy

(2019) The imagination of the other in a (post-) sectarian society: asylum seekers and refugees in the divided city of Belfast. Social Inclusion 7(2): 176–186.

98.

Wardach

(2016) Polish residents in Belfast: issues of discrimination, safety and integration. Belfast Interface Project. Available at: http://www.belfastinterfaceproject.org/publication/polish-residents-belfast (accessed 3 April 2024).

99.

Weiss

(1994) Learning From Strangers. New York: Free Press.

100.

West

(2012) Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech. In: Maitra

McGowan

(eds) Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.222–248.

101.

Williamson

Rutherford

(2015, April 15) Race attack salon owner’s defiance and tears as protest shows solidarity. The Belfast Telegraph. Available at: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/race-attack-salon-owners-defiance-and-tears-as-protest-shows-solidarity/31144073.html (accessed 05 April 2023).

102.

(2022, January 27) Submission to the Ministry of Justice: UN Periodic Review 2022). Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality (NICRE). Available at: https://nicre.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/NICRE-submission-on-UN-Universal-Periodic-Review-2022-1.pdf (accessed 02 March 2023).

103.

Yuval-Davis

Vieten

(2018) Citizenship, entitlement, and autochthonic political projects of belonging in the age of Brexit. In: Ellis

(eds) Enfranchising Ireland? Identity, Citizenship and State. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, pp.70–80.

104.

Zempi

Chakraborti

(2015) ‘They make us feel like we're a virus’: the multiple impacts of Islamophobic hostility towards veiled Muslim women. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 4(3): 44–56.

Oppressive expression and the Czech and Slovak communities of Northern Ireland

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

How oppressive speech enacts oppressive norms

Racism, migration, and the Slovak and Czech populations of NI

Oppressive speech and the Slovak/Czech communities of Ni

Results

Reinforcement of ‘outsider’ status

Responses and strategies

Discussion and conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Statements and declarations

Notes

Correction (November 2024):

References