Surveillance-based anti-violence strategies do little to stop violence against women.

Evidence

My own concern as a feminist with a Muslim name is the enormous difficulty of practising a feminist politics when feminism can be so easily co-opted. In the post-9/11 environment, how can feminists respond to the very real threats posed by religious conservatives for whom the control of women is paramount? I answer this question through an exploration of the kinds of anti-violence strategies that have gained ground since 9/11, strategies about control and surveillance of communities of colour. These, I argue, do little to confront violence against women and they enable a marking of Muslim communities as insufficiently modern, a branding that has grave consequences. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 58

Categorization

• QUESTION: This is the core empirically-testable claim the reader’s MOC thread wants: state surveillance framed as feminist protection fails as anti-violence policy — testable against housing/employment/policing outcome data.
• SEED: Angle for the MOC piece: a policy-outcome audit showing cancellation-style empowerment measures (criminalization, statutory limits) reduce neither violence nor Muslim women’s safety, while the conceptual debate over Islamophobia never touches the terrain where harm actually registers.