Type Your Frontispiece Or Quote Page Here
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Memorial University Research Repository DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE? THE USE OF ARGUMENTATION, LEGITIMATION, AND OTHERING IN DEBATES ON REFUGEES IN THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS, 2010-2012 by © James Thomas Ernest Baker A Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology Faculty of Arts Memorial University of Newfoundland April 2015 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Abstract The goal of this thesis is to investigate language use among elite parliamentarians in debates related to refugee asylum. It challenges the non-political “taken for granted” notions that many parliamentarians employ in their speeches and, using Critical Discourse Analysis, seeks to understand how argumentation, legitimation, and Othering strategies are used to support and reinforce their positions. While the Conservative government contends that Bill C-11: The Balanced Refugee Reform Act and Bill C-31: Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act are aimed at refugee reform and designed to target “criminal middlemen,” I argue that their approach is actually aimed at restricting refugee asylum, despite the fact that it is an internationally recognized treaty right. To augment my efforts, I frame my analysis around the work of two key theorists: Antonio Gramsci and Zygmunt Bauman. The Gramscian model of cultural hegemony informs my thesis in at least two key ways: first, I argue that language use (specifically, the negative portrayal of asylum seekers) is manipulated for the sole purpose of presenting refugee claimants as criminals; second, by criminalizing certain groups, the Conservative government is able to put forward a particular worldview that portrays certain types of refugees as legitimate, and therefore deserving of protection. I contend, however, that cultural hegemony is insufficient to explain how the Conservatives are able to propagate this worldview given that cultural hegemony is primarily driven by ideology. While contemporary Canadian political ideologies differ significantly, opposition parties nonetheless unintentionally reproduce a Conservative worldview regarding asylum seekers. In its place, I argue that ii banal hegemony helps to explain this discrepancy. Bauman’s discussion of mobility is relevant given that I assess how asylum seekers are framed as illegals whose ability to seek asylum is restrained. Restricting or controlling mobility is central to the Conservative defense precisely because those who cannot arrive in Canada are unable to make an asylum claim. In fact, over the past few years, there has been a movement to “push the border out.” I conclude that the Conservative defense is not only fallacious, untenable, and prejudicial but designed to portray asylum seekers are criminals, fraudsters, and security threats. This thesis adds to the extant literature on Critical Discourse Analysis from a Canadian parliamentary perspective and describes how politics is constituted by, and through, language. Moreover, it offers a sociological understanding of how parliamentary debates help to produce and reproduce social inequality and prejudice. iii Acknowledgements I firmly believe that writing the acknowledgement section of my PhD thesis is perhaps the most difficult process simply because someone – quite unintentionally – might be left out. I want to begin by stating unequivocally that the order that my acknowledgements appear in no way reflects a line order of importance. Each of you named here specifically, and the many more that are not, have helped me complete this almost Herculean task. But alas I have to begin with someone… My supervisor, Stephen H. Riggins, has been a shining light throughout this process and I have no doubt that without his support and guidance I would not be writing this section at all. I also want to doubly thank my supervisory committee, Mark Stoddart and Arthur Sullivan, whose input and direction, has made this thesis a much stronger document. I also want to thank Karen Stanbridge and Luke Ashworth who graciously allowed me to use a room in the Sociology and Political Science Departments to help expedite the writing process. It is greatly appreciated. Perhaps equally as important are Bridget Foster and Megan Morris, the two most important women in my life save for my mother. Both these individuals took a chance and hired me at the Association for New Canadians and, despite their better judgement, did not fire me! It truly was this fortuitous encounter that spurred my interest in immigration, migration, and refugee studies. Bridget, who at this writing is retired after nearly forty years serving the immigration and settlement sector, has been extremely supportive of my PhD and always found some way to send me to a conference. I especially owe a significant debt of gratitude to Megan, who has made me a much better iv writer and critical thinker (despite me being obstinate!). I also want to thank my ANC colleague Ken Walsh, who was always a good sounding board for my grievances. I also want to thank all my colleagues, past and present, at the ANC, who had to put up with my sometimes (all the time) sourpuss demeanour over the years. I also want to thank Chris Martin and April Lee whose Saturday night board games helped to maintain my sanity throughout the latter part of this process. You have no idea how much these nights helped me relax enough to tackle the next set of edits for my Ph.D. Perhaps finally – though not last and certainly not least – my mother, Helen Baker, whose love and support ensured I would succeed. I still remember that September day back in 1993 when you refused to give in to my fear and apprehension – you have no idea how important that decision would be to my life and career. As a sign of my love for you, I am dedicating this thesis to you. v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x Chapter One: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Politics as Talk and Text .................................................................................................. 3 Rationale for the Study .................................................................................................... 5 The Legislative Process in Canada .................................................................................. 7 Placing the Study in Context: Social and Political Events, 2010-12 ............................... 9 Political Parties ............................................................................................................ 9 Polling Support: 2009-2010 ....................................................................................... 11 Polling Support: 2011-2012 ....................................................................................... 12 Public Attitudes: Refugees and Immigration ............................................................. 13 Immigration Policy .................................................................................................... 15 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 17 Conceptual Definitions .................................................................................................. 19 Case Study Approach ..................................................................................................... 20 Limitations of the Research ........................................................................................... 21 Outline of the Thesis ...................................................................................................... 23 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter Two: Methodological Framework ....................................................................... 26 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 26 Discourse Analysis versus Critical Discourse Analysis ................................................ 27 Critical Discourse Analysis ............................................................................................ 31 Political Discourse ......................................................................................................... 35 Argumentation, Legitimation, and Othering .................................................................. 37 Argumentation ..........................................................................................................