MYTH MAKING, JURIDIFICATION, AND PARASITICAL DISCOURSE: A BARTHESIAN SEMIOTIC DEMYSTIFICATION OF CANADIAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE ON MARIJUANA DANIEL PIERRE-CHARLES CRÉPAULT Thesis submitted to the University of Ottawa in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy degree in Criminology Department of Criminology Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa © Daniel Pierre-Charles Crépault, Ottawa, Canada, 2019 ABSTRACT The legalization of marijuana in Canada represents a significant change in the course of Canadian drug policy. Using a semiotic approach based on the work of Roland Barthes, this dissertation explores marijuana’s signification within the House of Commons and Senate debates between 1891 and 2018. When examined through this conceptual lens, the ongoing parliamentary debates about marijuana over the last 127 years are revealed to be rife with what Barthes referred to as myths, ideas that have become so familiar that they cease to be recognized as constructions and appear innocent and natural. Exploring one such myth—the necessity of asserting “paternal power” over individuals deemed incapable of rational calculation—this dissertation demonstrates that the processes of political debate and law-making are also a complex “politics of signification” in which myths are continually being invoked, (re)produced, and (re)transmitted. The evolution of this myth is traced to the contemporary era and it is shown that recent attempts to criminalize, decriminalize, and legalize marijuana are indices of a process of juridification that is entrenching legal regulation into increasingly new areas of Canadian life in order to assert greater control over the consumption of marijuana and, importantly, over the risks that this activity has been semiologically associated with. Although the government’s legalization decision seems to be a liberalization of drug policy at odds with processes of juridification, it is shown that legalization’s transformation of irrational and criminal marijuana users into legitimate consumers subject to a strict regulatory framework is entirely compatible with a neo-liberal perspective that is saturated by the myth of irrationality and the necessity of paternal power. The reaching of this counterintuitive conclusion helps demonstrate this dissertation’s primary contribution: the illustration of the value of Barthesian semiotics as a means of producing new and alternative insights into seemingly familiar criminological issues. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people without whom writing this dissertation would have been impossible. I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jonathan Frauley, for his guidance and mentorship over the course of the last five years. I have greatly benefited from the depth and quality of the feedback that Dr. Frauley offered at every stage of this project’s development, which always challenged me to broaden my thinking, refine my ideas, and make conceptual connections. It has been a privilege to work with Dr. Frauley on this project and the experience has taught me a great deal about the process of theorizing, scholarship, and intellectual production. I am very grateful to the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Justin Piché and Dr. Chris McCormick, for always being timely, thorough, and thoughtful in their feedback on my work. I want to thank my brilliant wife Charissa for all of her invaluable support. Her continual encouragement helped me get through the difficult periods of self-doubt, discouragement, and procrastination that often punctuated my writing process. She has been an important sounding board and her suggestions and feedback greatly contributed to the improvement and refinement of the ideas that appear in this dissertation. Thank you for all that you do. I also want to thank Rev. William Main for providing me with encouragement, support, mentorship and much-needed accountability throughout the years. It is thanks to his ministry at Harvest House that I am sober and enjoying my life today. Rev. Main believed in my academic potential long before anyone (including me) had any reason to. Without his help and encouragement I would not have completed high school, much less attend university and earn a PhD. Special thanks for introducing me to the concept of “rapid writing”, without which I would probably still be stuck on chapter 2. I owe a debt of gratitude to Nicole Boucher, Leslie Main, Katherine Main, Gary Wand, and all of my other friends at Harvest House for their support. I would also like to thank my parents and siblings for the love and the laughs we share. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1—Punitive Turn or Penal Intensification? Assessing Explanations of Tough- on-Crime Politics and Policies in Canada…………………………………………………………………10 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 The New Campaign Politics of Crime…………………………………………………………………...13 Into Action: Turning Tough Promises into Tough Policies……………………………………16 Practical Outcomes of Harper’s Tough-on-Crime Agenda and their Critical Reception…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 Political and Ideological Transformation of Canadian Criminal Justice………………….26 Contemporary Strategies of Crime Control………………………………………………………….34 The Punitive Turn Thesis……………………………………………………………………………………42 Dissenting Opinions: Regional Dynamics and Other Limitations of the Punitive Turn Thesis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..47 The Canadian Case: Punitive Turn or Penal Intensification?................................................58 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………65 Chapter 2—The Search for Meaning: Radical and Critical Criminological Approaches to Signification………………………………………………………………………………………………………...69 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………69 Radical and Critical Criminologies………………………………………………………………………72 Marxism, Radical Criminology, and Ideological Mystification…………………….75 British Cultural Studies and the Birmingham School……………………………………………85 The Birmingham School’s Origins and Influences……………………………………...86 Signification and the Birmingham School………………………………………………….90 Dick Hebdige and the Meaning of Subcultural Style…………………………………104 From Radical to Critical Criminology: Extending the Borders and Purging Marx………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..107 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….111 iv Chapter 3—Criminological Approaches to Myth and the Critical Work of Demystification……………………………………………………………………………………………………..115 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….115 John Crank – The Mythology of Policing…………………………………………………………….119 Victor Kappeler, Mark Blumberg, & Gary Potter – The Mythology of Crime…………123 David Garland – The Myth of State Sovereignty over Crime Control……………………131 Peter Fitzpatrick – Law’s Mythology………………………………………………………………….134 Civilizing the Savage by Mastering Truth?.................................................................................140 Roland Barthes – Myth as Naturalized Signification…………………………………………...146 Peter K. Manning – The Police Myth…………………………………………………………………..152 Mariana Valverde – Myth and Cultural Representations of Crime……………………….155 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….159 Chapter 4—Canada’s History of Parliamentary Discourse on Marijuana as Myth- (Re)Making……………………………………………………………………………………………………………164 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….164 The Age of Innocence (1891-1937)…………………………………………………………………...167 The Reactionary Period (1938-1960)………………………………………………………………..178 The Social Decay Period (1961-1969)……………………………………………………………….182 The Anti-Criminalization Period (1970-1979)…………………………………………………...188 The Communication Period (1980-1989)………………………………………………………….197 The Re-Evaluation Period (1990-2000)…………………………………………………………….202 The Reform Period (2001-2012)………………………………………………………………………210 The Legalization Period (2013-2018)………………………………………………………………..218 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….229 Chapter 5—Exercising Paternal Power and Protecting Children: Examining the (Re)Making of Myth through Canadian Political Discourse……………………………………231 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….231 Denotation, Connotation, and Myth: Clarifying Barthes’ Orders of Signification…..233 Reading the Mythology of Marijuana Consumption……………………………………………235 v Humour, Heckling, Jeers, and Boasting: Examining the Peccadilloes of Parliamentary Debate as Rhetorical Strategies…………………………………………………………………………248 The (Re)Production of Myth……………………………………………………………………………..258 The Politics of Signification: Examining Canadian Political Rhetoric as Myth- (Re)Making……………………………………………………………………………………………………...264 Conclusion: Examining the Function of Myth……………………………………………………..277 Chapter 6—Extending Law’s Empire: Juridification and the (Re)Making of Myth….282 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….282 Criminalization: The Default Position………………………………………………………………..289 Decriminalization: The Failed Project………………………………………………………………..293 Legalization: The More “Balanced” Approach…………………………………………………….297 Law as Governance: The Value of Embracing a Broader Perspective…………………..306 Regulation and Signifying Practices…………………………………………………………………..311 The Seeming Contradictions of Neo-Liberal Forms of Regulation, Juridification, and Paternal Power………………………………………………………………………………………………...327 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….334