Women's advocacy and firearms control: The case of Bill C-68.

Abstract

Through an examination of the discourse involved in the gun control debate surrounding Bill C-68, this thesis examines the importance of rhetoric in the claims-making process. In particular, it examines the manner in which women's groups used the rhetoric of violence against women to lobby for further restrictions to Canada's gun control laws. The rhetoric used by women's groups is examined through a social constructionist perspective, utilizing Joel Best's model of claims-making. Major sources of data included House of Commons and Senate Committee submissions and transcripts. Through a descriptive analysis, the rhetoric of women's groups is presented; in addition, a content analysis aids in summarizing the broader findings. The principal finding is that a number of specific claims were commonly used by women's groups. These include: the impossibility of separating criminals from law-abiding citizens; the notion of women as defenceless victims; the concept of power; the notion of guns as inherently dangerous; the long-term implications of gun control; and, the assertion that gun control is only one part of a larger solution. While the Ecole Polytechnique killings served as a catalyst to push for increasing controls on firearms, during the debate over Bill C-68, women's groups unanimously choose to highlight the more common plight of the abused woman. The issue of violence against women saved as the common "ground" for woman's groups, who offered different approaches to the issue, but nonetheless presented a common theme in terms of their definition of the problem. During the debate over Canada's most recent gun control legislation, the gendered discourse of violence against women played a key role in the rhetoric of women's groups.