The Province

Suu Kyi doesn’t deserve Canadian citizenshi­p

- JAMIE LIEW Jamie Liew is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. She is the daughter of a previously stateless person and researches on legal barriers to statelessn­ess. She is a contributo­r with EvidenceNe­twork. ca based at the

The House of Commons recently voted unanimousl­y to call the killings, persecutio­n, rape, abuse, destructio­n of homes and forced displaceme­nt of Rohingya from Myanmar as genocide. More than 900,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar since 2017.

Last week, the House also voted unanimousl­y to revoke Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary Canadian citizenshi­p, which she received in 2007. These two actions should be applauded.

Revoking the coveted status of citizenshi­p is appropriat­e in this case, given many Rohingya have no citizenshi­p whatsoever. What most people may not realize is that since 1982, Rohingya have been stripped of their citizenshi­p and denied any entitlemen­t to citizenshi­p in Myanmar.

Many Rohingya are stateless as a result of this deliberate change in citizenshi­p law. Overnight, Rohingya became illegal immigrants within their own country. While initially they were given temporary identity cards, such cards were revoked to deny them the right to vote in a 2015 constituti­onal referendum.

Rohingya did not only lose citizenshi­p but also their ability to identify as Rohingya. Rohingya have been denied recognitio­n as one of the country’s 135 official ethnic groups. In a 2014 census, if Rohingya persons wanted to participat­e, they had to identify as Bengali, not Rohingya.

The loss of citizenshi­p is not a benign act, especially for those who have no citizenshi­p elsewhere. My family knows first-hand what being stateless means.

My father was stateless in Brunei and told me it was difficult to plan for the future, that he had difficulti­es finding employment and feared the risk of being removed from his country of residence. He feared his children would not receive education, would be treated differentl­y and would never belong. As a stateless person he never felt safe.

Being stateless means, at a minimum, loss of basic rights such as an identity recognized by the state, access to health care, education, employment and freedom of movement. Even obtaining a bank account, cellphone account or registerin­g birth, marriage or death are difficult if not impossible. Access to venues to protect your human rights, such as the right not to be detained arbitraril­y, becomes more difficult when you are not protected by the state you thought was your home.

For Rohingya, however, it has meant much more. The stripping of citizenshi­p has fuelled discrimina­tion, persecutio­n and violence against them.

The stripping of citizenshi­p has cast the label of outsider on the Rohingya and justified the oppression they have suffered for years. This institutio­nalized exclusion of Rohingya in 1982 and the perpetual rejection and discrimina­tion has allowed hate and violence to simmer and boil over.

Suu Kyi stated in 2012 that she “didn’t know” if Rohingya could be considered citizens of Myanmar. In 2016 she told the U.S. Ambassador to Myanmar that the Rohingya are not among the official ethnic groups in Myanmar. As well, in 2016, Suu Kyi denied ethnic cleansing was taking place.

Many have described Suu Kyi as being silent on the issue of the persecutio­n and violence perpetrate­d against Rohingya. But the few statements she has made on the issue of Rohingya citizenshi­p and belonging, while crimes and violence against Rohingya were widely reported at the same time, cannot be considered silence. It is an endorsemen­t of the ethnic cleansing and genocide that has been allowed to continue.

Her statements frame the primary justificat­ion that Rohingya do not belong in Myanmar.

For a scholar that researches statelessn­ess and abhors any act to take citizenshi­p away from anyone, I find the Canadian government’s decision to strip Suu Kyi of her Canadian citizenshi­p compelling.

First, she has Myanmar citizenshi­p and stripping Canadian citizenshi­p does not render her stateless. Second, Canada is making a powerful statement about her role in denying citizenshi­p from those that, in emerging internatio­nal law, should enjoy such status by virtue of their dominant, genuine and effective links and their past and ongoing habitual residence in Myanmar. Rohingya have been in Myanmar for hundreds of years, even before the country gained independen­ce from British colonizati­on.

Finally, Parliament has given some heft to its recent statement that there is a Rohingya genocide, by taking away Canadian citizenshi­p from a person who plays a role in the creation and perpetuati­on of statelessn­ess in Myanmar. Honorary citizenshi­p should not be held by a person who allows the legal fact of statelessn­ess to be harnessed by others to engage in oppression, violent displaceme­nt and the killing of Rohingya.

 ?? — GETTY IMAGES ?? Canada’s parliament voted unanimousl­y last month to strip Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi of the honorary Canadian citizenshi­p she received in 2007 because of her silence over the atrocities committed by Myanmar’s military against the Rohingya Muslims, which Ottawa declared a genocide.
— GETTY IMAGES Canada’s parliament voted unanimousl­y last month to strip Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi of the honorary Canadian citizenshi­p she received in 2007 because of her silence over the atrocities committed by Myanmar’s military against the Rohingya Muslims, which Ottawa declared a genocide.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada