Revocation of Citizenship in Canada: A Criminological Reading of a Tension Between Rights and Obligations in Conceptions of Citizenship

Abstract

This research explores the political debates surrounding changes in the law regulating citizenship revocation in Canada and how they reflect the tensions in the meaning of citizenship for dual national citizens. Borrowing from citizenship studies and critical criminology, the main argument in this thesis is that Bill C-24 seems to be an attempt on part of the Conservative Party to recalibrate the meaning of citizenship from a more liberal understanding (based on civic rights) to one that is more republican (based on civic duty). This research also demonstrates how this recalibration in the conception of citizenship from a more liberal notion to a more republican one parallels the shift in crime control policies of the state that were geared more toward prioritizing the welfare and equality of all citizens under the law in the 1960s-70s to ones that are presently oriented toward punishment, control and management of “dangerous groups”. The scholarly literature suggests that the modern conception of citizenship tends to draw from the republican and liberal traditions that are complementary but are also in tension, and the recent political discussions surrounding citizenship involves arguing for the best balance between rights and responsibilities of citizens. The analysis of the parliamentary debates surrounding Bill C-24 reveals that, in light of Canada’s current political landscape that is heavily influenced by penal-populist notions of punishing the offender populations and making “responsibilized” citizens, the pendulum of citizenship is generally being tilted toward the republican model (based on restoration of civic duties of citizens to the state and their fellow citizens) more so than the liberal model (based on preserving the welfare, liberty and equality of all citizens under the law).