Neo-conservative racist discourse: A Canadian case study

Lillian, Donna L.

doi:10.1080/00437956.2006.11432559

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is also seen in several of the comments analysed, where one commentator writes: 'Funny that she knows her age when there are grown men who do not know if they are 16 or 40 (laughing smiley).' 6 Asylum seekers are also accused of lying about other things, such as their sexuality (Parker, 2015) or their religious beliefs (Lillian, 2006). This adds up to a violent discursive construction of asylum seekers as liars.…”

Section: Moral Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

(De-)legitimation of migration

Sundström¹,

Obenius²

2020

Refugees and the Violence of Welfare Bureaucracies in Northern Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

De-)legitimation of migration: a critical study of social media discourses 'She is old and sick and will not live for many more years, you have to be humane by letting her stay and not be so damn bureaucratic (two angry smileys)'. 1 The quote comes from a comment adding to a discussion on Facebook about the case of Sahar, a 106-year-old woman whom the Swedish Migration Agency denied a permit to remain in Sweden. 2 The Agency argued that despite Sahar's old age and poor health, there was no reason for her not to return to the province of Kunduz in Afghanistan, which used to be her home. According to the Agency, this province was safe for Sahar to return to. That she was blind, partly paralysed, unable to speak, and had no one who could look after her in Afghanistan did not make her a 'particularly vulnerable person' 3 in need of refugee protection on humanitarian grounds, in the eyes of the Agency. The decision of the Agency was later overturned by the Migration Court, who argued it would be objectionable from precisely a humanitarian perspective to deport Sahar and that the deportation would amount to an inhumane and degradable treatment in violation of Article 3 (the right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Instead, the court granted Sahar a temporary permit to remain in Sweden for 13 months. As this chapter reveals, the case of Sahar and the court's decision came to be much debated by the public in Sweden, especially on social media. The chapter provides a critical analysis of the debate about this particular asylum case, using Van Leeuwen's analytical tool for analysing discursive (de-)legitimation, which is inspired by Habermas' understanding of public discourse and legitimacy. The aim of the analysis is to explore how social media users (de-)legitimised the decision of the court while they were discussing it on the Swedish evening paper Expressen's Facebook page. The collection of data followed recommendations on collecting data online by Sveningsson et al. (2003). Firstly, a broad search was conducted, followed by a progressive limitation of the material. The keywords used when searching on Facebook were the Swedish word for 'Migration Court' (Migrationsdomstol) and 'Migration Court of Appeal' (Migrationsöverdomstolen).

show abstract

Section: Moral Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

(De-)legitimation of migration

Sundström¹,

Obenius²

2020

Refugees and the Violence of Welfare Bureaucracies in Northern Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Utilizing CDA to analyze the works of a prominent Canadian writer, Lillian (2006) found that all forms of racist texts identified in other societies were also present in Canadian society. In a related study, McElmurry (2009) examined a single column published in the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper on the Arellano controversy and the reactions of other columnists in the Hoy Spanish newspaper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Pravda’s Communicative Intentions Regarding the War in Ukraine: A CDA-Based Study of the Website’s Opinion Articles

El-Astal,

Al-Mutawa

2024

JICC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research paper, based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), aimed to uncover how the opinion articles published on Pravda.ru discursively depicted the war in Ukraine and the parties involved. To achieve this, two elements of CDA analysis, namely presupposition and structural opposition, were examined. The first element was scrutinized to determine how Pravda.ru depicted the war in Ukraine (RQ1), while the second element was analyzed to understand how Pravda.ru portrayed the parties involved, whether directly or indirectly, in the war (RQ2). For this study, 83 articles were subject to critical discourse analysis, covering the period from February 25, 2022, to February 24, 2023, the first year of the war. The results obtained from this study indicated that Pravda.ru employed various techniques to construct presuppositions and structural oppositions. Pravda.ru portrayed the war as a 'special military operation' and a 'proxy war.' The former, characterized as a euphemism, aimed to mitigate the impact of the word, presupposing that the events did not constitute aggression against Ukraine. The latter presupposed that Russia was a victim of a conspiracy. Furthermore, the results revealed that Pravda.ru used stigmatization and religious affiliations and terms to construct structural oppositions.

show abstract

A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech

Lillian

2007

Discourse & Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarship on hate speech usually addresses racist and ethnicist discourses, and less often homophobic discourses. This article opens a conversation about sexist discourse as hate speech. In arguing that sexist discourse should be considered hate speech, I review several definitions of hate speech, one of which I use in analyzing the texts of neoconservative author William D. Gairdner. I argue that, although Gairdner's sexist discourse does not meet the legal definitions of hate speech, it is consistent with linguistic criteria for hate speech and that, since Gairdner's discourse is representative of mainstream sexist discourse, all such sexist discourse counts as hate speech. I conclude by asking why, amid all the published works on hate speech, the question of sexist discourse as hate speech is rarely even addressed. Since society still operates as if `male' and `female' were simple, self-evident categories, we, as feminists, must still respond to and challenge the sexist discourses that perpetuate and reproduce such dichotomies. One way to do that is to recognize sexist discourse as a form of hate speech and to challenge it on that basis.

show abstract

Neo-conservative racist discourse: A Canadian case study

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

(De-)legitimation of migration

(De-)legitimation of migration

Online Pravda’s Communicative Intentions Regarding the War in Ukraine: A CDA-Based Study of the Website’s Opinion Articles

A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About