Far from belonging: Race, Security, Dissent and the Canadian Citizenship Story after 9/11 by Nisha Nath A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Alberta © Nisha Nath, 2016 Abstract Have Canadian citizenship discourses and practices fundamentally changed after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? This is the question driving this study. While dominant accounts suggest that 9/11 was wholly transformative, there is no clear consensus both in and outside the academy as to whether we can characterize 9/11 as a fundamental rupture in time. Moreover, amongst those who do posit this moment in time as causally transformative, there is no firm consensus as to the nature of that transformation. To answer the question, this dissertation draws on print media accounts as well as Canadian Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada decisions between 1980 and 2010. These are used to track three key areas in which the assumptions around governing and citizenship were subject to intense contestation in the post-9/11 context: 1) discourses of multiculturalism, the issue of reasonable accommodation, and the anxiety over the veiling practices of some Muslim women; 2) discourses of civil liberties and the suppression of academic freedom in the context of organizing for Palestinian rights at Canadian universities, and; 3) discourses of security and Canada’s controversial security certificate program. By identifying parallels and continuities across the pre- and post-9/11 periods, this project challenges the dominant understanding that 9/11 constitutes a fundamental shift in politics. I argue that empirically, the historical lineage of each case study demonstrates that the intense forms of regulation non-normative, marginalized and dissident citizens are subject to in the post-9/11 period are not unique to this period. Put differently, these forms of regulation were not made possible by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the 9/11 moment does not fully give us the tools to make sense of these cases, and the case ii studies are literal reiterations of discursive and regulatory moments that significantly predate this moment in time. Second, I argue that in the Canadian context, liberal theories of differentiated citizenship do not help us analytically understand this continuity, and instead suggest that the 9/11 attacks interrupted a presumed trajectory of liberal progression. The study’s findings have broader theoretical implications for citizenship and change. In Canadian Political Science, liberal theories of differentiated citizenship have dominated academic accounts. By and large, these approaches understand citizenship as a status, an institution or an assemblage of rights and responsibilities. Drawing on the work of David Theo Goldberg, Giorgio Agamben, Holloway Sparks and Rita Dhamoon, this dissertation treats citizenship as a form of regulation, and demonstrates how processes of racialization, securitization and ideas of ‘dissidence’ are integral to how we are governed as citizens. By focusing on these processes, this research offers an alternative understanding of citizenship that accounts for the experiences of marginalized groups, and in doing so exposes how accounts of time, crisis and change are deeply political. Moreover, the account offered here disrupts the presumption that 9/11 interrupted a history of uncomplicated liberal progress. This has several consequences for how Canadian political scientists theorize citizenship including: re-evaluating the conventional ‘cues’ or signals used to measure or assess citizenship and progress; accounting for the differential nature of citizenship regulation; complicating how we theorize the relationship between citizens and non-citizens; taking account of the transnational nature of the regulation of citizenship; and, ultimately, reconsidering the value of frameworks of belonging in analyzing citizenship. iii To Emil and Celia ii Acknowledgments I’ve imagined writing my acknowledgements more than a few times. And, now that I am here, this process signals not just the opening of a new window in terms of my research, but a ‘closing’ as well. These ‘thankyous’ are indelible; a permanent way of acknowledging the rich intellectual and emotional nourishment I’ve received over the past number of years. This permanence is daunting and admittedly a bit paralyzing. But, if this dissertation is in fact about disrupting how we think about time, then certainly my release from this paralysis is that these ‘thank yous’ should be seen as works in progress, or as an ongoing practice I will be committed to. With that, I owe infinite thanks to my supervisor Dr. Yasmeen Abu-Laban. Yasmeen, the best way for me to acknowledge what you have done for me is to commit to carrying out critical, honest and empathetic work, and to approach students and their work with kindness, generosity, excitement, and interest. This and more you have shown me, and I remain in awe of your own practice as a scholar, as well as with your dedication, your demonstrated capacity for collegiality, and the restraint and skill you show in providing real guidance while simultaneously standing back and encouraging your students to carve out their paths. Enduring thanks are also owed to my supervisory committee members, Dr. Lois Harder and Dr. Rob Aitken. Lois, you have always taken me, my commitments, my writing and my analysis seriously. Your generosity in treating me as a peer is profoundly humbling and transformative. This I will owe to those students who fear or hesitate to take up space, because those are the students that end up participating in their own silencing, and those are the students whose voices and analyses need to be elevated. Rob, thank you for the gentle guidance and encouragement you’ve also offered me during this process. In particular, the care and diligence you showed in really considering and grappling with this work was incredibly meaningful. These are all people you want to know, and people whose work you need to read. Thank you to Dr. Jennifer Kelly, Dr. Siobhan Byrne, and to my external examiner, Dr. Peter Nyers, all of whom have turned ‘hoops’ that I have had to jump through into profoundly formative moments in terms of where my work ended up, and in terms of where my work will now take me. Your astute interventions and questions of genuine curiosity have been nourishment for me – thank you. Without a doubt, this page would be incomplete without specific mention of Dr. Rita Dhamoon. I count myself so incredibly personally and professionally lucky to have been in conversation with the brilliant Dr. Dhamoon. Rita, I have not simply been continually inspired by you and your work, but I have survived this because of you. I look forward to a long reciprocal friendship with you – what a gift of infinite proportions it has been to have met you. iii To my friends, Ashley Hunka, Mariam Ibrahim and Mariam Georgis – your levity, full-on brilliance, strength, wit, support, humour, affirmation, and willingness to rage alongside me have helped to sustain me and remind me that there is an ‘outside’ to this. Thank you. Support has come in so many forms from a wide range of scholars – thank you to Dr. Judy Garber, Dr. Steve Patten, Dr. David Kahane, Dr. Abigail Bakan, Dr. Linda Trimble, Dr. Kiera Ladner, Dr. Lori Thorlakson and Dr. Cressida Heyes. Thank you to my amazing friends and peers, some of whom remain near while others have scattered far and wide – Dr. Ghada Ageel, Dr. Lyubov Zhyznomirska, Maya Seshia, Dr. JD Crookshanks, Dr. Ethel Tungohan, Dr. Kyla Sentes, Dr. Stephanie Martens, Jurgita Kornijenko, Dr. Caroline Hodes, Dr. Megan Mackenzie, Dr. Nermin Allam, Dr. Siavash Saffari, Evelyn Hamdon, the Palestine Solidarity Network – Edmonton, Ayesha Basit, Hajar Amidian, Nicole Lugosi, Elim Ng, Shaista Patel, Dr. Debra Thompson, Dr. Janice Williamson, Saleh Alzaghari, Dr. Lynette Shultz, Dr. Erin Tolley, Dr. Dana Olwan, Dr. Davina Bhandar, Dr. Radha Jhappan, and Dr. Sujith Xavier. Some of you will be surprised to find yourself on this list, but you are here because at some point, beers we’ve shared, mutual commiserations, your personal courage, and/or the strength of your analysis and your convictions have left a permanent imprint on me. A great thanks is due to the administrative team at the Department of Political Science – over the years Donna Coombs-Montrose, Caroline Kinyua, and Cindy Anderson have been particularly invaluable to me – generous with their time, not simply with respect to administrative matters, but also when it came down to simply talking about life, children, and families. Thank you to Dr. Emily Merson, who was my on-the-ground research assistant collecting data from the offices of The Excalibur on York University campus. This would not have been possible without your impeccable work. Thanks are also owed to Anna St. Onge, Archivist at the Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections at the Scott Library at York University, as well as Miguel Angus from The Excalibur. This research has been generously funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, the University of Alberta, the Canadian Political Science Association, and the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta. How does a dissertation get written without steaming hot carafes of chai, unconditional love, packed lunches, notes of encouragement written on napkins, paratha, loving and safe childcare, tearful conversations, endless patience, emotional and financial support and gentle encouragement? It doesn’t. Thank you to my dear sisters, but most especially, thank you mom and dad. Whether directly or indirectly, your lives, your stories, your histories, and your values are woven into every single page of this dissertation. I am brought to tears thinking about what you have done to bring me to this point – the tears deepen when I reflect on all your acts of selflessness and generosity that I know you will never disclose to me.