Visible Difference, Stigmatising Language(s) and the Distinctive Construction of Prejudices against Others in Leeds and Warsaw

The chapter argues that language and cultural communication matter in a transnational world and that the transmission of prejudices against minorities has to be closely analysed while contextualising national histories with minorities. Looking at two spatial sites (Leeds and Warsaw) and analysing interview material that was drawn from a larger study, the authors discuss the way local people address difference particularly through the axes of gendered ethnicity (Muslim men) and gendered class (male underclass). It explores how the same categories of difference are discursively produced in Poland and the UK/ England; to what degree they differ or overlap.

Queering Memories of the Troubles: Performing LGBTQ testimonies in Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, decades of religious and political unrest led to the marginalization not only of rights but also the experiences and voices of those who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and/or Queer (LGBTQ). The peace process has arguably created space in which sexual minorities can voice their experiences and articulate counter-memories to those that tend to dominate ethno-nationalist commemorations of the conflict. This essay explores two productions of Northern Ireland’s first publicly funded gay theatre company, TheatreofplucK, led by artistic director Niall Rea: D.R.A.G (Divided, Radical and Gorgeous) was first performed in 2011 and explores the personal experiences of a Belfast drag queen in the form of personal testimonial monologue. The forthcoming (November 2015) performed archive installation, Tr<uble, by Shannon Yee, assembles true-life testimonies of the LGBTQ community in Northern Ireland during and after the Troubles. I will explore how performed and performative memories have the potential to ‘queer’ remembrance of the Troubles.

Expecting Too Much: European Union’s Minority Protection Hide-and-Seek

EU’s deference to the Member State approaches in minority protection can intensify the oppression of
the vulnerable groups, its insistence on non-discrimination on the basis of nationality in the minority regions with special rights in place can equally produce injustice. Its inability to protect EU-wide minorities, like the Roma, is equally problematic. Although a ‘value’, minority protection functions incoherently, if at all. It is time to approach the EU as a highly specific minority protection arena not to be confused with its component parts – the Member States. The reform of the Member State-centred thinking should start at the level of approaching the core issues. It should include the assessment of such questions as what is a minority in the EU’s context of a missing majority, what is the appropriate depth of EU’s intervention in the area of minority protection, i.e. how much room for manœuvre should reasonably be left with the Member States without disrupting the effectiveness of EU’s regulation, as well as the approach to defining what a success in minority protection should be, in the
EU context. The latter should be done, in particular, with due regard to the division of competences between the EU and the Member States in this and other relevant fields. This paper briefly explores a series of diverse casestudies – from migrant EU citizens, Baltic Russians, and sexual minorities to, most importantly, Roma rights to make the first attempt to test the proposed synergetic approach.

Conclusion: patterns of non-territorial autonomy

This article seeks to generalise about the significance of non-territorial autonomy as a mechanism for the management of ethnic conflict on the basis of a set of case studies covering the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sami in Norway and Maori in New Zealand. It begins by assessing the extent to which the spatial distribution of ethnonational communities determined the range of autonomy options available—whether these might be territorial or whether only non-territorial autonomy would be realistic. The article continues with an assessment of the significance of ‘autonomy’ in circumstances where the institutions with which it is associated enjoy a non-territorial rather than a territorial writ. It concludes by suggesting that in almost all cases where autonomy is extended to a minority within a state this is exercised on a territorial basis, and that in many cases of non-territorial autonomy, or national–cultural autonomy, the powers assumed by the ‘autonomous’ institutions are substantially symbolic. It argues that notwithstanding the limited empirical evidence for the existence of non-territorial autonomy, this device should not be written off at a normative level.