Definitions

Human Security  

Any thinking about "security" is grounded in the relationship between a government and the citizens of a state.  Traditionally, security means "national security" which focuses on the relationship between states in the international arena. In this case, each government is deemed responsible for protecting its own citizens against military threats coming from other states.  Accordingly, as the argument goes, the government spends money on defence in order to keep the state "secure" or safe in the international arena.

With the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and the further spread of democratization throughout the world has come a new optimism in the international arena, specifically in Western states like Canada.  "Human security" has come into being, shifting government thinking away from making the state secure to making individuals and their communities secure.  "Human security" is proclaimed to be a "people-centred" rather than a "state-centred" approach with the Canadian government being one of its ardent supporters.   In this case, each government remains responsible for protecting its citizens but if that government fails, or indeed is itself responsible for violating the rights of its own citizens, then other states - like Canada - have a responsibility to act to stop those violations.  This is why the Canadian government focuses on the five areas of (1) protection of civilians; (2) peace support operations; (3) conflict prevention; (4) governance and accountability; and (5) public safety in its human security agenda.  As the Canadian government states, "human security is about putting people at the centre of what Canada does internationally."

The problem, however, is Canada's conception of "human security" does not include references to what Canada is to do domestically because the assumption is made that Canadians - all Canadians -- feel "secure" both in terms of "freedom from fear" (i.e., political violence) and "freedom from want" (i.e., economic needs).  In essence, the government does not regard any of its policies as contributing to the insecurity of Canadians.

Moreover, human security as conceived by the Canadian government is narrower in focus than that first articulated by the United Nations Development Report (UNDP) in 1994.  Indeed, human security is more broadly defined to include economic security (freedom from poverty or homelessness), food security (freedom from hunger), environmental security (freedom from degradation, pollution or natural disasters), personal security (freedom from physical violence or crime), community security (freedom from oppression) and political security (freedom from repression, torture, disappearance, or human rights violations).

Citizenship 

At its most basic level, citizenship is a legal and political concept. Its origins can be traced back to the ancient Greek city-state of Athens which granted the privileges of citizenship to only a select few. When the word citizenship is used today, the civic status or legal membership in a country, and rights and obligations of citizens often come to mind. People tend to think of citizenship in terms of holding a certain passport, or being able to participate politically by way voting in an election. However, citizenship encompasses much more. T.H. Marshall saw it as an evolving process which required first, civil rights, such as the freedom of thought or religion, then political rights such as the ability to run for office, and finally the achievement of socio-economic rights, e.g., the right to work or to have a minimum standard of living. Citizenship involves rights and responsibilities on the part of citizens and on the part of states. More recent writing on citizenship highlights the cultural domain. Here citizenship is about membership in a community and it includes social, symbolic, and even emotional/psychological dimensions. Feelings of belonging, values, principles, stories, myths, real and imagined communities, as well as personal and state-societal connections are critical. This also means that citizenship entails more than individual rights, but it involves collective identities and their political struggles. These identities can include: gender, race, ethnicity, class, language, ability, sexual orientation, nation, region, and religion, among others. Women, people of colour and other disadvantaged groups have been instrumental in pointing out how citizenship produces and affects insiders and outsiders; how it engages the included as well as the excluded; and how it can work towards a society that respects and accommodates people of all origins. Struggles over citizenship can challenge exclusion and promote access, rights, recognition, representation, and social justice.  Citizenship, then, is both a nodal concept that is defined by gender, age, sexuality, migrant status, class, states and so on, as well as a construct that is negotiated and contested, not simply bestowed by states on citizens.

Citizenship encompasses so much more than the passport holding sense of citizenship. It covers symbols and representations, feelings of belonging, identities and attachments that are about both inclusion and exclusion in the Canadian polity and society. Beyond rights, responsibilities and entitlements, citizenship is about social and political community in a country that recognizes multiple identities, difference and diversity. For instance, Canada's Multicultural Program (1971), its Charter of Rights (1982) that affirms Canada's multicultural heritage and its Multicultural Act (1988), are all expressions of a multicultural policy heralded around the world, and one that has recently moved from stressing respect and recognition to promoting active citizens.

Finally, while T. H. Marshall's analysis identifies certain developmental stages of citizenship, this reflects more of an ideal than a reality. The stages of citizenship have not necessarily been realized in all places for all people. What is more, nowhere is Marshall's rights progression inevitable. Indeed there can be backsliding when it comes to the goals of citizenship. Clearly, because citizenship is a complex concept and a construct that is always in the process of change, vigilance is required.

In sum, considerations of citizenship are central to analyses of participation, empowerment and the kind of society Canada wants to be. Its claims of citizenship are important not only in terms of how Canada is perceived on the world stage, but perhaps how it can help shape a better world.

Rights and Freedoms 

Rights and freedoms are often categorized as follows: fundamental freedoms, legal rights, equality rights and economic rights. One can also classify rights in terms of being negative or positive. Negative rights are those protections that prevent actors like the state from acting in certain ways or from limiting certain freedoms. They ensure that the state does not transgress basic rights. For example, many fundamental freedoms, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association are all examples of negative rights in that these rights keep the state from interfering with these actions or behaviours. In contrast, positive rights, also called positive entitlements are rights that provide specific goods, services or resources. Positive rights would compel the state to act to provide certain standards such as the right to social assistance, the right to shelter or the right to food. Canada's constitution contains more negative rights than positive entitlements.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects numerous freedoms from state transgressions or freedom from discrimination, and thus these are considered to be negative rights. Neither the federal government nor provincial governments can pass laws that violate these freedoms. If they do, given that the Charter is Canada's supreme law, legislation that contravenes the Charter will be struck down by the courts and such laws deemed unenforceable. The fundamental freedoms enumerated in the Charter are found in Section 2 and include the following rights: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including the press and other media; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.

There are also rights in the Charter that are not listed under the fundamental freedoms section, but nonetheless pertain to considerations of freedom. For example, there is the distinctively Canadian section that deals with Mobility Rights. Section 6 provides every Canadian citizen with the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. In this section, every citizen or permanent resident also has the right to take up residence and pursue a livelihood in any province. The Supreme Court has held, however, that Section 6 does not guarantee the "right to work" and it has ruled that each province has the right to establish its own professional qualifications.

Beyond these Fundamental Freedoms (s.2) and Mobility Rights (s.6), Sections 7 to 14 of the Charter outline various Legal Rights. Section 7 deals with the right to "life, liberty and security of the person".  Sections 8, 9, 10 guarantee the following: the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure (S.8); the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned (S.9); and, on arrest or attention: to be informed promptly of the reasons, to be able to retain or instruct counsel without delay, and to be released if the detention is not lawful (S.10).

It is also important to point out that there are two limitations clauses in the Charter. Section 1 of the Charter makes it possible for the state to uphold laws that are considered to be in violation of the Charter, "subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In addition, Section 33 allows Parliament or legislatures to override three parts of the Charter: fundamental freedoms (section 2); legal rights (sections 7-14); and equality rights (section 15), but they cannot violate mobility rights, democratic rights or linguistic rights. The override ceases to have effect after 5 years. This controversial provision is rarely used, but it does allow democratically elected legislators to have the final say over an appointed judiciary, the Supreme Court.

Equality 

The concept of equality may seem straightforward, and studies show that the majority of Canadians believe that equality is alive and well in this country.  In part, this stems from the fact that equality is entrenched in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 (1) of the Charter states that: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability". What is more, Section 15 (2) ensures that 15(1) does not preclude the establishment of affirmative action programs to advance the cause of disadvantaged groups.

Yet, the reality is that equality is a complex concept and, for minorities and even some majorities (i.e., women) its existence is contested. For example, what equality entails is disputed: it can be about gaining equal access to the political sphere, or to the benefit of law, or to social entitlements.  For some, equality of opportunity is a goal, for others equality of condition. Diverse citizens have sought equality in Canadian political institutions and in society. Racial and ethnic minorities, for example, have fought for equality through various policies including those of multiculturalism, employment equity, immigration and citizenship.

Canadian women have been active in trying to broaden and deepen our understanding of equality through their activism, and through the scope of the equality provisions in the Charter. For instance, they wanted to ensure that the wording in Section 15 did not reproduce the wording in the legislation that preceded the Charter, the 1960 Bill of Rights. The latter did little to protect women from sexual discrimination; while it expressed a loose commitment to formal equality it did not, in effect, promote real, substantive equality. And so, in the early 80's, women mobilized to tighten up section 15 to allow for substantive equality, also known as equality of condition, or equality of end result. They were successful in improving the definition of equality in section 15(1), i.e., beyond a promise of equality "before the law," adding "under" and "with equal protection and benefit of the law". They also contributed to 15 (2), as well as a new clause in the Charter, section 28 which states: "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." 

Since the 1980s, and especially after the equality provisions came into force in 1985, equality seekers of all kinds have worked to broaden the nature and scope of equality.  As a result, with the Andrews case the Supreme Court established a two step process for interpreting equality rights. Courts must first determine whether a case demonstrates inequality in law, or in treatment, in line with section 15 (or comparable rights), and then they must consider whether the effect is harmful or prejudicial.  The equality rights sections have been used by various disadvantaged groups to make gains in the courts when their progress has been stymied in legislatures. For example, gays and lesbians mobilized to ensure that sexual orientation became a prohibited grounds for discrimination and to have same sex relationships recognized. In the Eldridge case, equality rights of deaf people were championed as the Supreme Court held that their rights were violated when sign language interpreters were not provided in a hospital.  However, these more expansive interpretations of equality were made by a "liberal" Supreme Court, but the composition of the appointed judiciary cannot be considered a given.

Finally, it is important to underscore that sometimes equality is about sameness, treating people the same (e.g., everyone should be treated as equals in the eyes of the law), and sometimes equality can only be achieved through difference. That is, by treating everyone the same, you may be ignoring the fact that all people do not have access to the same opportunities and resources, and do not begin the race of life at same starting point given past and present discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, class, disability, sexual orientation, age and so on. Thus, failing to consider difference may discount the systemic nature of discrimination, or disregard real needs. Put simply, treating everyone the same way may actually work against equality. And so, equality can require accommodating difference and diversity.

In sum, more comprehensive understandings of equality take into consideration the following: formal versus substantive equality; equality of opportunity and equality of condition; and finally, not only individual but also group based equality claims.

Gender 

Gender may be defined as a category of analysis of the human experience. Gender serves as a lens and a framework to approach reality in a way that unveils women's and men's experiences, their relationships and power inequalities. We owe our discovery of gender as an analytical tool to feminist analysis.

Gender is a social construction of the biological reality of being female or male. Being woman or man shapes a person's position in this world, their identities, roles and relationship between the two of them and the world in general. Gender defines ways of accessing power for both and the realities considered important in the decision making process on every human issue. These identities, roles, relationships, positions, ways of accessing power, and realities are embedded in social institutions, such as the family, education, law and the economy. Thus gender permeates all areas of social life. In this sense, gender is institutionalized in society and it is part of the social structure of society. 1

The gender category recognizes that women and men don't constitute homogenous groups. In contradiction with the male perspective that presents realities as uniform and solid, a gender perspective acknowledges differences between women's and men's experiences and identities as well as ideological, historical, religious, ethnic, economic and cultural determinants in the social construction of experiences and identities. Sophisticated feminist analyses not only recognize difference in men's and women's experiences and identities but also acknowledge women's inequality and subordination to men (or oppression by men) within societies. In addition, some of these analyses make the interconnection between gender, class, ethnicity, race, age, and sexuality in establishing an interlocking system of domination. Post-modernist theory has deconstructed the concept of gender and acknowledged that the binary category, no matter how culturally variable, does not capture the experiences of all human beings.

By using gender as an analytical category in a research field, researchers uncover interests and needs that otherwise remain invisible under the solo discourse of the masculine experience. The gender category is not just one area to be explored.  It is an analytical tool integral to the overall research process from the definition of the topic to search, the methodology to use and the outcomes to expect. A gender approach in social sciences privileges methodological approaches that guarantee men's and women's participation in the definition of the areas of concern. It fosters equal opportunities for women and men in bringing out their own experiences. It pays special attention to the way every research decision and tool affects women and men and the way those issues are able to capture the female and male realities. Data is disaggregated by gender and this data is used at every level of analysis. Women's inequality in social institutions and everyday experiences is demonstrated and recommendations support gender equity in a credible and practical way. 2

A gender approach problematizes dichotomies that separate human experience between the realm of the private and public world. It allows seeing the interconnections between public decisions and lives of individuals, revealing new categories of analysis.

1 Andersen, Margaret L., Thinking about Women. Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993, Third Edition.
2 Status of Women Canada. Gender - Based Analysis (GBA) Reference Guide. 2002

Terrorism 

Terrorism can be government or state sponsored, it can be domestic or international, it can be politically motivated from any end of the political spectrum, it can be nationalistic, revolutionary or religious.  Its victims are innocent, its perpetrators nebulous, its effects capture the public's attention.  It causes and is caused by deep-seated discontent: social, economic, psychological or political.  Since 9/11, its definition has generated public, media, academic and political debate. 

In Canada the Criminal Code defines several specific terrorist acts (such as seizing a plane) and describes the nature of other acts that will be considered terrorism under Canadian law.  Legally, a terrorist act has a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and threatens (or aims to) the public's security.  The act must intentionally cause death/bodily harm, endanger a life, cause serious risk to public health/safety, cause substantial property damage OR seriously interfere with an essential service (excluding strikes, protest).  This includes conspiracy, attempts or threats, being an accessory after the fact, or counseling.  This excludes acts committed during an armed conflict in accordance with international law.  The law also outlaws terrorist groups, facilitating the work of a terrorist group.  In its effort to outline the nature of a terrorist act, rather than definitively delineating the acts themselves, the law moves beyond the typical criminal statute. 

More sociologically, we may focus more on the effect of terrorism in society -- increased fear.  Terrorism brings about a heightened sense of insecurity and apprehension that affects people's day-to-day activities as well as their psychological well-being.  Terrorism erodes human security. 

Governments may also define terrorism and in the post 9/11 context, they are increasingly making efforts to do so.  The US Department of State defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant, targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence an audience."  This type of definition excludes many of the types of terrorism perpetrated by states, governments or other "legitimate" institutions.  Politically, the definition of terrorism usually applies to "outsiders."

Immigrants and Refugees 

The "Immigrant" and "Refugee" Definitions used in this project are the following:

Immigrant: For the purposes of this project, the term "immigrant" refers to men and women who: 1) have permanent resident status or have acquired Canadian citizenship (i.e. naturalized Canadians) and 2) belong to a racialized group, do not speak English (or French in French speaking areas) well or speak English (or French in French speaking areas) as a second language. The term "racialized" is that used in the literature to refer to those systematically discriminated on the basis of a social, and historically variable, construction of "otherness."

"Refugee" is more narrowly used to refer to "Persons in Canada Who Have Claimed or Have Obtained Refugee Protection",  such as

  1. a Convention refugee or person needing protection selected at a visa office abroad; or
  2. a person in Canada accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board as Convention refugee or person in need of protection; or
  3. a person who has made a claim for refugee protection and has been determined eligible by an immigration officer or has been referred to the IRB, or
  4. a person in Canada granted protection under a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The PRRA is available to:
    • claimants for refugee protection rejected by the IRB;
    • persons found ineligible for consideration by the IRB
    • repeat claimants; and
    • other persons found inadmissible and ordered removed. Or,
  5. People who are not eligible for a PRRA because:
    • they are ineligible for a refugee hearing by the Refugee Protection Division because they came directly or indirectly from   a safe third country;
    • they are repeat refugee claimants returning to Canada less than six months after departure;
    • they have been recognized as Convention refugees by a country to which they can return; and
    • they have been named in a security certificate that the Federal Court has deemed reasonable.