With the exception of a brief appearance during the Gulf War period[1], ‘the Muslim question’ had been largely absent from Australian political discourse prior to 2001. Since that time, though, concerns about Muslims and Islam have, in one form or another, remained at its forefront. With the ‘Tampa incident’ followed closely by the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the framing of Muslims as a threat to Australia’s national security quickly proved a winning political formula. What had begun life as a tall tale about the questionable morality of asylum seekers morphed first into a story about a region, and then about a religion. But, this wouldn’t be its final transformation, by a long shot.
In an effort to bolster flagging public support for the ‘War on Terror’, the official justification for it was revised to include the element of gender. Muslim women were to be seen as passive victims of religiously inspired patriarchal violence who must be ‘rescued’: first, from the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then, in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, from al-Qaeda.
In the years since 2001, countless Australian Muslim women have made it plain that they undertake their religious practices by choice and are more than capable themselves of resisting patriarchal oppression. This steadfast refusal to be ‘saved’, however, has seen a new discursive shift occur: Muslim women as agents of Islamisation. This post provides a brief analysis of this shifting discourse through the constructivist framework of ‘securitisation’.
(Securitisation refers to the process in which, through speech acts, specific issues come to be conceived and approached as existential threats to certain political communities. Chiefly associated with the Copenhagen School[2], the securitisation framework focuses on the constructed nature of security as a political category, and to the importance of how security functions politically. It constitutes a response to approaches that assert a universal and timeless definition of security, by pointing to the need to understand how security is given meaning in certain political, cultural and social contexts. Ultimately, the securitisation framework holds that the successful construction of an issue as a security threat facilitates the implementation of emergency measures in order to address it.[3])
Two weeks prior to the 11 September 2001 airliner attacks in the US, Australian SAS troops boarded the MV Tampa: a Norwegian cargo ship that had rescued 438 asylum seekers—chiefly Afghan Hazaras—from the disabled KM Palapa 1, which ran into trouble in international waters en route to Australia.[4] Swiftly denying entry to the vessel, the Australian Government ordered its human cargo detained in two hastily established processing centres on Nauru.[5] Amid international condemnation of its actions in the days following, the Coalition Government found itself in a tricky political situation, and polling suggested it was facing certain defeat in the upcoming Federal Election.[6] Although a tarnished international image is seldom viewed favourably by voters, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party had picked up more than one million disaffected voters at the 1998 election, running on an anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism platform.[7] Plus, white Australians have a long history of fearing invasion from the sea.[8]
The Government seized the opportunity to demonise those picked up by the Tampa as ‘queue jumpers’ and ‘people smugglers’[9], which served to retrospectively justify their new Border Protection Bill, while simultaneously nullifying One Nation’s far-right appeal by mainstreaming its approach.[10] Press had been kept far from the Tampa and there was little mention of the asylum seekers’ background[11]—perhaps for fear of humanising them in the eyes of an Australian public still accustomed to previous governments’ explicitly multicultural policies[12]—but the message was clear: these people were not ‘good’ like ‘us’, these were Others.[13] While, at this stage, these outsiders were not necessarily to be feared, they were certainly not to be welcomed. As then-Prime Minister John Howard told radio host Alan Jones:
On the one hand we want to defend our borders, rightly so; on the other hand, we are a decent people […] and it’s probably because of that that we are seen by many around the world as a soft touch.[14]
By the time US newspapers went to press on the 12th of September[15], many were mentioning the name Osama bin Laden, and various Western leaders appeared in their pages pledging allegiance to the US and swearing revenge.[16] Two weeks later, the US had invaded Afghanistan in the name of a ‘War on Terror’[17], and the Australian government quickly invoked the ANZUS Treaty in order to provide military support. In terms of the security discourse in Australia, both the in-group and the out-group had now been massively expanded: no longer was it simply a case of Australians versus ‘boat people’, but rather a ‘clash of civilisations’[18] between ‘the West’ and ‘the Arab world’.
This is not to say, however, that when a securitising discourse shifts, it simply replaces what came before. Although speech acts may be used to rapidly securitise new concerns, the socially embedded nature of already existing concerns seems to make them somewhat ‘sticky’. They may recede over time, but securitisation does not function in a strictly paradigmatic fashion. Rather, it has an additive effect.[19]
When another boat, the SIEV (Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel) 4, was intercepted near Christmas Island on 6 October, Howard claimed that a number of those aboard had thrown their children into the sea. The allegations were completely unfounded. Thirteen days later, the SIEV X sunk inside a temporary Australian border protection surveillance area near Christmas Island, killing 353 asylum seekers.[20] Preying on public fears of a wave of these monstrous Others arriving on Australian shores, the Coalition went on to a landslide election victory. The Australian Arabic Council reported a rapid and twenty-fold increase in the rate of anti-Arab racial vilification in the month following 11 September 2001.[21]
By the time of the Bali bombings, which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians, the media was doing much of the government’s securitisation work for it. Whereas immediately following 9/11, many investigative journalists had busied themselves looking for the root causes of the attacks—the long-standing US military presence in Mecca and Medina, for example[22]—it was not long before such questioning of Western foreign policy was internalised by the media as being not ‘with us’, but ‘with the terrorists’.[23]
Despite the loss of Australian lives in Bali, public support for the War on Terror had waned, and a new justification for its continuance was needed. An effective security narrative demands simplicity, and a commonality between the Saudi hijackers and the Indonesian bombers meant that it had been delivered in the form of ‘Islam’. That there are many ‘Islams’ was of no concern; what mattered was its ‘incompatibility’ with ‘our way of life’. Further, it meant that ‘they’ were no longer on the outside, trying to infiltrate our borders by boat or in a hijacked plane, but already among ‘us’.
Singled out for special attention was how Muslim men were said to treat ‘their’ women, who, at this stage of the story, served solely as passive victims in need of rescue from religiously inspired patriarchal violence. It is a familiar Orientalist tale that has held widespread appeal for Western liberals since the seventeenth century; a tale in which, as Gayatri Spivak famously put it, ‘White men are saving brown women from brown men.’[24]
‘There is,’ said the Prime Minister, ‘within some sections of the Islamic community an attitude towards women which is out of line with the mainstream Australian society.’[25] That the staunchly conservative Howard should be so concerned with the emancipation of women no doubt came as a shock to many. But, much like Lord Cromer before him—the ruler of British-occupied Egypt who championed the unveiling of ‘oppressed’ Egyptian Muslim women, despite in England having been a founding member and sometime president of the Men’s League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage[26]—Howard was only a feminist insofar as it served his securitisation agenda. As Leila Ahmed observes, it is an approach in which:
Feminism on the home front and feminism directed against white men [is] to be resisted and suppressed; but taken abroad […] it could be promoted in ways that admirably served and furthered the project of the dominance of the white man.[27]
However, this double standard was not practiced by white men alone. In the Western popular liberal feminist imaginary, too, these securitising discursive moves serve to ‘shore up the positional superiority of white Western feminists vis-à-vis “other” women.’[28] It is an imperial sort of feminism that creates for itself a space of innocence in which its complicity in helping to create this subaltern archetype—which it simultaneously pities and fetishises—is denied.
Then-US President and fellow conservative George W. Bush used his 2002 State of the Union address to emphasise the importance of an ongoing War on Terror in order to ‘free’ Muslim women.[29] Large public protest marches notwithstanding, the decision for Australia to invade Iraq in 2003 as part of the ‘coaliton of the willing’ met with little political resistance.[30]
In late 2005, a scuffle between a group of Lebanese men and some surf lifesavers quickly escalated into the Cronulla Riots after a talkback caller claimed the group had previously been ‘leering’ at female beachgoers. That Muslim women should refuse to be saved from such savages proved a problem for many white liberals, who consider ‘choice’ paramount, just so long as the choice one expresses is for liberalism. That a Muslim woman should opt not to ‘free’ herself—especially from her coverings, long the primary symbol of oppression in the eyes of Westerners—despite secular society affording her every opportunity to do so, simply did not compute.
By then, the War on Terror had left both Afghanistan and Iraq in ruins, and none of the promised liberation had occurred. Further, despite the public’s appetite for ‘behind the veil’-style stories by ‘native informants’[31] about women’s oppression under Islam, it had by this time become impossible—due largely to the increasing ubiquitousness of the internet—to ignore the voices of Muslim women who flatly rejected their ‘victim’ label.[32] Given that liberalism is the default state for all people, the thinking went, these women must have been brainwashed; in which case, they are a lost cause, and we should focus on saving their (‘Our’) girls by means of liberal education.[33] Worse still, they may be hiding something. Melbourne University’s Shakira Hussein notes:
As ‘the Muslim question’ has become an increasingly important issue in domestic as well as international politics … Muslim women have come to be regarded as the accomplices rather than (or as well as) the victims of Muslim men.’[34]
As in Europe, calls to ‘ban the burqa’[35] have been frequent in Australia. However, only more recently has the purported rationale become security. Once, Muslim women were to be unveiled for their own good; now, they must be unveiled for ‘our’ safety. After all, the apparatuses of surveillance—ever-expanding and justified by the securitisation discourse since 9/11—cannot function to protect ‘us’ if people’s faces are hidden. Fears of Muslim women as agents of ‘Islamification’, ‘creeping Shari’a’, radicalised ‘jihadi brides’ and burqa-wearing suicide bombers abound, inflated by sensationalist media and politicians. All of which only serves to increase the likelihood of such fears becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
The securitisation of Muslim women in Australia is quite a recent development. What began as a security discourse about ‘boat people’ shifted its focus to the Arab world, then Muslim men more broadly, and then Muslim women. Securitisation does not operate in a strictly linear fashion, with speech acts occurring after actions as retrospective justification. Despite being initiated by the government, the securitisation discourse did not remain strictly under its control, with both the media and the public playing key roles in dictating where it led. New speech acts do not erase previous ones, meaning that at no stage were any of the concerns mentioned de-securitised and there is a tendency for short-term security measures to become permanent policy. Each new speech act builds upon the last, which can lead to contradictions, as seen in the ‘choice’ paradox of liberal feminism and the parallel but antithetical victim–suspect narratives.
Notes
[1] Although there had been comparatively more attacks on residents of ‘Middle Eastern appearance’ during the Gulf War than prior to it, their number was dwarfed by those after 9/11 and they were generally considered to be the acts of a few racist outliers, rather than part of a growing trend. Hage, G., ‘Racism, Multiculturalism and the Gulf War’, Arena, No. 96, 1991, pp. 8–13.
[2] See, e.g., Buzan, B., Wæver, O. & de Wilde, J., Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, 1998; Balzacq, T. (ed.), Securitisation Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, London, Routledge, 2010.
[3] Wæver, O., ‘Securitisation and Desecuritisation’, in R. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security, New York, Columbia University Press, 1995, pp. 46–87.
[4] Marr, D. & Wilkinson, M., ‘They Shall Not Land’, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 October 2001, p. 29.
[5] Every, D. & Augoustinos, M., ‘Constructions of Australia in Pro- and Anti-Asylum Seeker Political Discourse’, Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2008, p. 565.
[6] Kelly, F., ‘Tampa Issue Improves Coalition Election Prospects’, The 7:30 Report, television transcript, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 4 September 2001, retrieved 31 August 2016 from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s357998.htm
[7] One Nation’s political approach was, consciously or not, itself a form of securitisation that provided a convenient Other to blame for the economic insecurity many voters felt due to effects of globalisation. Tsiolkas, C., ‘Why Australia Hates Asylum Seekers’, The Monthly, September, 2013, retrieved 11 September 2016 from https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/september/1377957600/christos-tsiolkas/why-australia-hates-asylum-seekers
[8] That is to say, in the words of Anthony Burke, of being ‘Aboriginalised’. Burke, A., Fear of Security: Australia’s Invasion Anxiety, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 18–38.
[9] McAdam, J., ‘Australia and Asylum Seekers’, Editorial, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2013, p. 436.
[10] Burnside, J., ‘Refugees: The Tampa Case’, Postcolonial Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2002, p. 19a.
[11] Burnside, 2002, p. 19b.
[12] See, e.g., Stratton, J. & Ang, I., ‘Multicultural Imagined Communities: Cultural Difference and National Identity in Australia and the USA’, Continuum, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1994, p. 127.
[13] Edward Said describes the constructing of the Other as ‘disregarding, essentialising, denuding the humanity of another culture, people or geographical region’ in Said, E. W., Orientalism, London, Penguin, 1977, p. 108.
[14] Howard, J. W., ‘Interview with Alan Jones, Radio 2UE’, transcript, PM Transcripts, 3 August 2001, retrieved 11 September 2016 from https://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/release/transcript-12021
[15] ‘Newspaper Front Pages from September 12, 2001’, ABC News Online, 9 September 2011, retrieved 11 September 2016 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-05/september-11-newspaper-front-pages/2870784
[16] ‘This is not a battle between the United States of America and terrorism, but between the free and democratic world, and terrorism.’ Blair, T., ‘Statement to the Nation’, transcript, BBC News, 11 September 2001, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1538551.stm
[17] Bush, G. W., ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People’, transcript, The White House Archives, 20 September 2001, retrieved 11 September 2016 from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
[18] A phrase coined by the Orientalist historian Bernard Lewis and popularised by Samuel P. Huntington in a 1993 article for Foreign Affairs, which he expanded into the 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
[19] The problems this may pose for the Copenhagen School’s theory of ‘de-securitisation’ are beyond the scope of this blog post, but see, e.g., McDonald, M., ‘Deliberation and Resecuritisation: Australia, Asylum Seekers and the Normative Limits of the Copenhagen School’, Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2011, pp. 281–95.
[20] Commonwealth of Australia, Report of the Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident, Canberra, Senate Select Committee, Parliament House, 2002, retrieved 10 September 2016 from https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report.pdf
[21] Australian Arabic Council, Increase in Racial Vilification in Light of Terror Attacks: Sep 2001, unpublished facsimile, quoted in S. Poynting, ‘“Bin Laden in the Suburbs”: Attacks on Arab and Muslim Australians Before and After 11 September’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2002, p. 44.
[22] Otterman, S., ‘Saudi Arabia: Withdrawal of US Forces’, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 May 2013, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://www.cfr.org/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-withdrawl-us-forces/p7739
[23] ‘Bush: “You Are Either with Us, or with the Terrorists” 2001-09-21’, Voice of America, 27 October 2009, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-09-21-14-bush-66411197/549664.html
[24] Spivak, G. C., ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Hampshire, UK, Macmillan, 1988, p. 296.
[25] Howard, J. W., quoted in Aslan, A., Islamaphobia in Australia, Glebe, NSW, Agora Press, 2009, p. 148.
[26] Massad, J. A., Islam in Liberalism, ePub, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2015, Chapter 2: ‘Women and/in “Islam”: The Rescue Mission of Western Liberal Feminism’, n.p.
[27] Ahmed, L., Women and Gender in Islam, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, p. 153.
[28] Zine, J., Taylor, L. K. & Davis, H. E., ‘Reading Muslim Women and Muslim Women Reading Back: Transnational Feminist Reading Practices, Pedagogy and Ethical Concerns’, Intercultural Education, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007, p. 273.
[29] Bush, G. W., ‘The President’s State of the Union Address’, transcript, The White House Archives, 29 January 2002, retrieved 13 September 2016 from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
[30] Jackson, A., ‘Melbourne Rallies to the Call for Peace’, The Age, 15 February 2003, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927801876.html
[31] See, e.g., Manji, I., The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith, Toronto, Random House, 2003; Nafisi, A., Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books, New York, Random House, 2003; Hirsi Ali, A., Infidel, New York, Free Press, 2007.
[32] See, e.g., Abu-Lughod, L., ‘Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No. 3, 2002, pp. 783–90.
[33] Berents, H., ‘Hashtagging Girlhood: #IAmMalala, #BringBackOurGirls and Gendering Representations of Global Politics’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8 August 2016, retrieved 14 September 2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2016.1207463
[34] Hussein, S., From Victims to Suspects: Muslim Women Since 9/11, Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2016, p. 69.
[35] An item that few Australian Muslims wear, and usually employed as a catch-all term for any religious covering, including the burqa, hijab, niqab, chador and dupatta.
References
Abu-Lughod, L., ‘Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and its Others’, American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No. 3, 2002, pp. 783–90.
Ahmed, L., Women and Gender in Islam, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992.
Aslan, A., Islamaphobia in Australia, Glebe, NSW, Agora Press, 2009.
Balzacq, T. (ed.), Securitisation Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, London, Routledge, 2010.
Berents, H., ‘Hashtagging Girlhood: #IAmMalala, #BringBackOurGirls and Gendering Representations of Global Politics’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8 August 2016, retrieved 14 September 2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2016.1207463
Blair, T., ‘Statement to the Nation’, transcript, BBC News, 11 September 2001, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1538551.stm
Burke, A., Fear of Security: Australia’s Invasion Anxiety, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 18–38.
Burnside, J., ‘Refugees: The Tampa Case’, Postcolonial Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2002, pp. 17–28.
‘Bush: “You Are Either with Us, Or with the Terrorists” 2001-09-21’, Voice of America, 27 October 2009, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-09-21-14-bush-66411197/549664.html
Bush, G. W., ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People’, transcript, The White House Archives, 20 September 2001, retrieved 11 September 2016 from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
———‘The President’s State of the Union Address’, transcript, The White House Archives, 29 January 2002, retrieved 13 September 2016 from https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
Buzan, B., Wæver, O. & de Wilde, J., Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, 1998.
Commonwealth of Australia, Report of the Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident, Canberra, Senate Select Committee, Parliament House, 2002, retrieved 10 September 2016 from https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report.pdf
Every, D. & Augoustinos, M., ‘Constructions of Australia in Pro- and Anti-Asylum Seeker Political Discourse’, Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2008, pp. 562–580.
Hage, G., ‘Racism, Multiculturalism and the Gulf War’, Arena, No. 96, 1991, pp. 8–13.
Hirsi Ali, A., Infidel, New York, Free Press, 2007.
Howard, J. W., ‘Interview with Alan Jones, Radio 2UE’, transcript, PM Transcripts, 3 August 2001, retrieved 11 September 2016 from https://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/release/transcript-12021
Huntington, S. P., ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, retrieved 12 September 2016 from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations
———The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Hussein, S., From Victims to Suspects: Muslim Women Since 9/11, Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2016.
Jackson, A., ‘Melbourne Rallies to the Call for Peace’, The Age, 15 February 2003, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927801876.html
Kelly, F., ‘Tampa Issue Improves Coalition Election Prospects’, The 7:30 Report, television transcript, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 4 September 2001, retrieved 31 August 2016 from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s357998.htm
Manji, I., The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith, Toronto, Random House, 2003.
Marr, D. & Wilkinson, M., ‘They Shall Not Land’, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 October 2001, p. 29.
Massad, J. A., Islam in Liberalism, ePub, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2015.
McAdam, J., ‘Australia and Asylum Seekers’, Editorial, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2013, pp. 435–48.
McDonald, M., ‘Deliberation and Resecuritisation: Australia, Asylum Seekers and the Normative Limits of the Copenhagen School’, Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2011, pp. 281–95.
Nafisi, A., Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books, New York, Random House, 2003.
‘Newspaper Front Pages from September 12, 2001’, ABC News Online, 9 September 2011, retrieved 11 September 2016 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-05/september-11-newspaper-front-pages/2870784
Otterman, S., ‘Saudi Arabia: Withdrawal of US Forces’, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 May 2013, retrieved 13 September 2016 from http://www.cfr.org/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia-withdrawl-us-forces/p7739
Poynting, S., ‘“Bin Laden in the Suburbs”: Attacks on Arab and Muslim Australians Before and After 11 September’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2002, pp. 43–64.
Said, E. W., Orientalism, London, Penguin, 1977.
Spivak, G. C., ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Hampshire, UK, Macmillan, 1988, pp. 271–313.
Stratton, J. & Ang, I., ‘Multicultural Imagined Communities: Cultural Difference and National Identity in Australia and the USA’, Continuum, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1994, pp. 124–58.
Tsiolkas, C., ‘Why Australia Hates Asylum Seekers’, The Monthly, September, 2013, retrieved 11 September 2016 from https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/september/1377957600/christos-tsiolkas/why-australia-hates-asylum-seekers
Wæver, O., ‘Securitisation and Desecuritisation’, in R. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security, New York, Columbia University Press, 1995, pp. 46–87.
Zine, J., Taylor, L. K. & Davis, H. E., ‘Reading Muslim Women and Muslim Women Reading Back: Transnational Feminist Reading Practices, Pedagogy and Ethical Concerns’, Intercultural Education, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007, pp. 271–80.
samquigley 