Counter-Hegemonic Citizenship: LGBT Communities and the Politics of Hate Crimes in Canada

Abstract

Relying on a case study in which violence targeted at lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered (LGBT) individuals and strategies used to counter this violence is examined, this paper argues that public policies and laws that aim to protect groups cannot guarantee access to substantive citizenship. They can, however, be used as a resource by oppressed groups to force a shift in the boundaries of the citizenship regime. Considering that violence targeting LGBT people (hate crimes, discrimination, etcetera) is an indicator that they are denied access to substantive citizenship, this paper examines how the citizenship of LGBT people can be extended in ways that allow this group to enjoy substantive citizenship. Citizenship is a useful lens to assess power relations, understand situations of oppression and develop strategies to challenge this oppression. Relying on the concept of citizenship regime and informed by work on radical democracy, the author introduces the Gramscian notion of hegemony. In doing so, she proposes a new way of thinking about citizenship. Her model, counter-hegemonic citizenship, brings us to consider citizenship as a process, rather than a status or a set of rights, and to focus on meaningful struggles that can lead to the redrawing of the boundaries of the citizenship regime for all oppressed groups. This paper inscribes itself in a body of literature concerned with struggles for equality and the role of laws and public policies for achieving this end.

Notes

¹ Bill C-41, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Sentencing) and Other Acts in Consequence Thereof, 1st Session, 35th Parliament, 1995 (assented on 13 July 1995).

² In order to not exclude transsexuals and transgendered people, it is necessary to mention “gender identity” and not simply “sexual identity” and “gender” (Namaste, 2000, pp. 140–141).

³ This is inspired from Carl Stychin's work. Stychin speaks of nation, nationalism and national identity, in conjunction with citizenship. I have purposely defined counter-hegemonic citizenship in terms of the state and citizenship, rather than nation (1995, p. 105). For a discussion on the separation of citizenship from nation, see Kathleen B. Jones (1990) and Nira Yuval-Davis (1997).

⁴ According to Young, “… oppression designates the disadvantage and injustice some people suffer not because of tyrannical power coerces them, but because of everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society” (1990, p. 41). She identifies five faces of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence (1990, pp. 53–63).

⁵ This paper presents partial findings from a broader study on citizenship, hate crimes and the safety of LGBT people. The fieldwork consisted primarily of formal and informal semi-structured interviews with LGBT individuals and individuals affiliated with LGBT organizations, police officers, crown attorneys, and policy-makers mostly in Ottawa. I conducted 53 in-depth interviews in the period from 15 February 2002 until 4 March 2003.

⁶ The committee has a permanent membership that includes the representatives of the Ottawa Police Services, the Gatineau police, Carleton University Safety, University of Ottawa Security Services and the Crown Attorney's Office. The list of community organizations that are represented are: Pink Triangle Services, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PLAG), Gender Mosaic, Sage, AIDS Committee of Ottawa, Ottawa Knights, GLBT Centre (Carleton University), Pride Centre (University of Ottawa), Pride Committee of Ottawa, and Victim Assistance Services of Ottawa–Carleton (VASOC).

⁷ Discussions on social control suggest that regardless of our sexual identity, we are all controlled by the same gender norms that are not to be transgressed if violence, harassment, discrimination is to be avoided (Carabine, 1992; Rubin, 1993; Connell, 1994; Smith, 1994).

⁸ The Ottawa Police and Liaison Committee actively lobbied for such a change. See: Ottawa–Carleton Regional Police Bias Crime Unit and the Liaison Committee for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Communities (1995) Brief Submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs respecting Bill C-41 (February).

⁹ I purposely insist on the fact that the Liaison Committee has to make the police more accessible to the community. Other Liaison Committees exist in Canada. Some of them have been established to focus on the problem of police repression towards the LGBT communities, rather than for working around the issue of targeted violence as is the case in Ottawa. The dynamics in a number of these committees may not be conducive to challenging the boundaries of the citizenship regime. It could be argued that some of these Liaison Committees have been co-opted by the police and therefore are not conducive to pushing for the kind of change discussed here.