Barbaric Cultural Practices and Homonationalism
Responding to Transborder Affective Foreclosures and State Racism, by Athena Athanasiou and Judith Butler
Athanasiou and Butler outline a brief history of state sanctioned and implemented xenophobic policies that were introduced in the past decade. They explain that these policies function as methods of “biopolitical control and regulation” (167).
This reading highlights two salient examples, that of Victoria Arellano and the Dutch Civic Integration Examination. Arellano was a Mexican trans woman with AIDS who died in 2007, in an immigration detention center in the US, due to lack of medical attention. The Dutch Civic Integration Examination was a specifically Islamophobic approach to LGBT conservatism. The latter leverages a homonationalist ideology, which purports to support/defend the rights of the LGBTQ community “in order to justify racist and xenophobic positions, especially against Islam, basing them on prejudices that migrant people are necessarily homophobic and that western society is entirely egalitarian.” (Source: Wikipedia) While this may sound like a shocking abuse of state power, it really should not come as any surprise to us, because it perfectly aligns with the dominant hegemonic order, which requires an underlying deference towards imperialism and white supremacy to maintain the status quo.
It is also easy to witness this type of state racism within the Canadian context. I am reminded of Harper’s “Barbaric Cultural Practices” hotline which was implemented in 2015. This tip line was introduced by the Tory government and spearheaded by Kellie Leitch — former Minister for the Status of Women — and Chris Alexander — former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It was introduced as part of the “Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” of 2015:
Tabled in the Senate on November 5, 2014 as Bill S-7, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (the Act) provides improved protection and support for vulnerable individuals — primarily immigrant women and girls — including:
Creating a new measure under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that will render permanent residents and temporary residents inadmissible to Canada if they practice polygamy;
Strengthening the Civil Marriage Act by codifying existing legal requirements at the national level for “free and enlightened consent” and establishing a new national absolute minimum age of 16 for marriage;
Criminalizing certain conduct related to early and forced marriage ceremonies, including the act of removing a child from Canada for the purpose of such marriages; and
Limiting the defence of provocation so that it would not apply in so-called “honour” killings and many spousal homicides. A new court-ordered peace bond will also be created to protect potential victims of early or forced marriages where there are grounds to fear that a person may commit a forced or early marriage offence.
The Civil Marriage Act amendments are now in effect, as they also came into force upon Royal Assent.
The successful passage of this piece of legislation reaffirms the Government of Canada’s ongoing efforts to end violence against women, and girls and sends a clear message that any form of harmful cultural practices is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in Canada.
Unsurprisingly this act makes no attempt to be reflexive about the violence that happens to women and girls within Canada, a patriarchal and colonized country, by white, cis-straight, male, settlers who were born and raised here. Nor does this act seem to reference the violence inflicted against Indigenous women, who are perhaps the most underserved and underprotected demographic in Canada.
This is not a “one off” example. Kellie Leitch proposed screening visitors, refugees, and immigrants for “anti-Canadian values” before allowing them to enter the country. She has vaguely defined what that means — alluding to abstractions like “freedom and tolerance” — but it is easy enough to read between the lines that this means upholding a pink-washed version of white supremacy. This is one of many examples of the mainstreaming of racism disguised as a concern for “national security”.
This is not a fringe movement. This type of rhetoric has been gaining more momentum in recent years, which shows that this type of state intervention is not only permitted but desired. It is evident in the increased presence of the “alt right” movement across the Western world, for example across Europe, with the Brexit, and in the United States with the election of Trump. There is a large population in these places that wants to see this type of extra surveillance and exclusion, and Canada is no exception. Even within the last week, since Trump was elected in the United States, we have already begun seeing an increase in vocal and violent racist expression/behavior, and encouragement to incite violence and disruption on racist grounds.
We wonder if there is anything potentially positive that could come out of this increasingly divisive and polarizing situation. Perhaps this is the catalyst for people whose politics do not align with these values to speak up, protest, and leverage their “democratic” rights to fight against this movement. Perhaps more coalitions will develop between marginalized and powerful groups. At the very least there is more discussion, and more of an acknowledgement that racist and xenophobic values exist and need to be confronted. Only time will tell.
Related readings:
Abu-Lughod, L. (2015) Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Book. Harvard University Press; Reprint edition.
Abu-Lughod, L. (2013). Maybe Muslim women don’t need saving. TIME.com. Retrieved 17 November 2016, from http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving/
Naghibi, N. (2007). Rethinking Global Sisterhood (1st ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
