No abstract

No abstract

Under the original version of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (2014), dual citizens having committed high treason, terrorism or espionage could lose their Canadian citizenship. In this paper, we examine how the measure was discussed in Canada's mainstream newspapers. We ask: who/what is seen as the target of citizenship revocation? What does this tell us about the direction that Canadian citizenship is moving towards? Our findings show that Canadian newspapers were more often critical than supportive of the citizenship revocation provision. However, the press ignored the involvement of non-Muslim, white, Western-origin Canadians in terrorist acts and interpreted the measure as one that was mostly affecting Canadian Muslims. Thus, despite advocating for equal citizenship in principle, in their writing and reporting practice, Canadian newspapers constructed Canadian Muslims as suspicious and less Canadian nonetheless.Résumé: Au sein de la version originale de la Loi renforçant la citoyenneté canadienne (2014), les citoyens canadiens ayant une double citoyenneté et ayant été condamnés pour haute trahison, pour terrorisme ou pour espionnage, auraient pu se faire révoquer leur citoyenneté canadienne. Dans cet article, nous étudions comment ce projet de loi fut discuté au sein de la presse canadienne. Nous cherchons à répondre à deux questions: Qui/quoi est perçu comme pouvant faire l'objet d'une révocation de citoyenneté? En quoi cela nous informe-t-il sur les orientations futures de la citoyenneté canadienne? Nos résultats démontrent que les journaux canadiens sont plus critiques à l'égard de la révocation de la citoyenneté que positionnés en sa faveur. Toutefois, la presse omet l'implication des non-musulmans, des Blancs ainsi que des Canadiens d'origine occidentale au sein d'actes terroristes et considère que le projet de loi concerne principalement les Canadiens musulmans. Même si les journaux canadiens prônent, en principe, une citoyenneté égalitaire, dans leur pratique d'écriture et de reportage ils néanmoins construisent les Canadiens musulmans comme étant suspects et, par conséquent, moins canadiens.

No abstract

In late 2011, Canada’s Conservative government banned face coverings for those taking oath at citizenship ceremonies. The ban was unequivocally interpreted by the press to be targeting veil-wearing Muslim women. This paper analyzes newspaper coverage in the month following the announcement of the policy. It argues that most commentators conceptualized citizenship to be a neoliberal tool of rescuing veiled Muslim women from their male oppressors and making them more like the equal/neoliberal “us” and/or as a reward for those who already are or will become equal/neoliberal. Most non-Muslim commentators constructed gender oppression as the reason for which veiled women should (not) become citizens. Gender equality in Canada was represented as a key national value and inequality was erased or minimized and presented as a Muslim problem. In attempting to deflect these arguments, most Muslim commentators silenced gender inequality among Muslims by arguing that veiled Muslim women choose the practice and by relegating gender oppression to Western societies, thereby constructing veiled Muslim women as ideal neoliberal subjects worthy of Canadian citizenship.