Race, ethnicité, peuples autochtones et politique

L14 - Contentious (Identity) Politics

Date: May 31 | Heure: 03:45pm to 05:15pm | Location: Classroom - CL 418 Room ID:15761

Chair/Président/Présidente : Nisha Nath (University of Alberta)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Nisha Nath (University of Alberta)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Erin Tolley (University of Toronto)

Terrorists & Gunmen: The Framing of Perpetrator Identity in News Coverage of Stephen Paddock and Abdulahli Hasan Sharif: Meagan Auer (University of Alberta)
Abstract: Over the weekend of September 30, 2017, two ruthless acts of violence were perpetrated in Edmonton, Alberta and Las Vegas, Nevada. The perpetrator of the attack in Edmonton, Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, was described in the press as a Somalian Muslim man with refugee status who had been radicalized by ISIS. The perpetrator of the much deadlier attack in Las Vegas, Stephen Paddock, was characterized as an older male, addicted to gambling, and both mentally and physically ill. While ISIS claimed responsibility for both attacks, police quickly dismissed the organization's role in Las Vegas. Why was Sharif labelled a terrorist but Paddock a lone gunman? Why was Sharif so quickly deemed radicalized, but Paddock’s connection to ISIS so quickly rejected? Informed by profiling practices of law enforcement and other political elites, media subtly asks the question: Who is likely to perpetrate terrorism? These examples show that when stories are framed in response to this question they reproduce stereotypes and injustices. Terrorism gets misrepresented as a problem with particular individuals, or social groups, and elides structural critique. The purpose of this paper is to understand how the identities of the perpetrators were framed by news media. In this paper, I employ a critical discourse analysis to representations of Sharif and Paddock in two local, and two national, newspapers: The Edmonton Journal, The Globe and Mail, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, and The New York Times.

The Plan Nord and Indigenous Peoples: The Contentious Politics of Natural Resource Development in Northern Québec: Isabelle Côté (Memorial University of Newfoundland), Matthew Mitchell (University of Saskatchewan)
Abstract: In 2011, Québec Premier Jean Charest announced an ambitious plan to develop the province’s northern regions. Covering an area nearly twice the size of France, the Plan Nord proposed a sweeping set of projects over 25 years related to energy development, mining, infrastructure, tourism and conservation. Though largely shelved by the Parti Québécois who came to power in 2012, the return of the Liberals in 2014 reinvigorated (in a scaled-down version) this plan. A centerpiece of the Plan Nord is to engage and integrate the province’s Indigenous peoples in the sustainable development of the north. Yet despite efforts to reorient the plan to better integrate and promote the wellbeing of such communities, there are early warning signs of the potential for future conflict as some have already mobilized opposition against proposed developments. This paper explores the contentious politics surrounding the Plan Nord. In so doing, it builds on recent literature on Indigenous contentious collective mobilization to examine how this plan could serve to strain Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. The paper begins by introducing the Plan Nord and related provisions for consulting Indigenous communities. It then draws upon primary and secondary documents to determine the scale and scope of both resistance and support amongst various Indigenous communities for the plan. We then review relevant theories from the literature on contentious politics, which provide a framework for assessing the prospects for collective mobilization. This provides a theoretically grounded analysis of the Province of Québec’s evolving and deeply politicized natural resource development landscape.

Reconfiguring the Refugee Policy Community under Harper: Dagmar Soennecken (York University), Chris Anderson (Wilfrid Laurier University)
Abstract: This paper will report on the second stage of a research project (jointly undertaken with C. Anderson, Laurier, Political Science) that is aimed at assessing the changes made to Canada’s inland refugee policy under Stephen Harper’s conservative government between 2006 and 2015. Most experts agree that major changes were made to all areas of immigration policy but we are still in the early stages of understanding their significance. In the first stage of the project, we examined the role that courts have played as sites of resistance and mobilization for refugee claimants and their supporters. Using the example of the mobilization around the 2012 cuts to the Interim Federal Health program for refugees, we suggested that it is more fruitful to view litigation as part of a broader mobilization strategy by refugee advocates. For the next stage of our project (i.e. for the purposes of this paper), we will be focusing on the changes that the Harper government’s refugee policy changes had on the refugee advocacy community itself. Understanding changes to the refugee “policy community” during this time is important not only for migration scholars but also for those interested in broader questions of democratic governance. What can we learn about resistance and opportunities for policy change when examining the relationship between an advocacy community and rights-restrictive policy makers? The paper will detail changes to the refugee advocacy community, their aims and motivations vis-à-vis changes in government.