The Good Citizenship Award |
The past 14 months have been a living nightmare for
Egyptian-Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy. In December 2013, the Al
Jazeera English Cairo Bureau Chief and two colleagues were arrested on
terror-related charges. The three were later sentenced to seven years in
prison after
a farcical trial, at which the evidence included “footage of
trotting horses, […] a BBC documentary about Somalia, a song by the
Australian musician Gotye, a programme about sheep farming, a Kenyan
press conference, and photos of the family of Australian Peter Greste,
one of the defendants.”
Unfortunately for Cairo, the initial uproar
over the arrests did not subside with time. If anything, the combination
of a baseless verdict and a manifestly unjust sentence only fanned the
flames of international outrage. Even Egyptian President Abdul Fattah
al-Sisi
publicly regretted that the trio had been put on trial rather than
simply expelled.
Presumably looking for a face-saving way
out,
al-Sisi issued a decree last November granting himself the power to
deport convicted foreigners.
Peter Greste benefited from this new mechanism when he was flown to
Australia on February 1st. In the hopes of getting the same
treatment, days later Fahmy
renounced his Egyptian citizenship. Regrettably, that drastic step
has not yet resulted in his being sent to Canada, although a retrial has
been announced, pending
which the court granted bail. While Fahmy can at least cling to the
hope that he will eventually be deported, the future looks grim indeed
for his co-defendant Baher Mohamed. Mohamed, who has no dual
citizenship, has nowhere to be deported to and can only hope, against
all odds, that justice will prevail and he will be found not guilty the
second time around.
There is much to say about the terrible
wrong done to Fahmy, Greste and Mohamed. The trial clearly had nothing
to do with justice and everything to do with anti-al Jazeera hysteria in
Egypt and Cairo’s frayed diplomatic relations with the TV network’s
patron,
Qatar. But rather than dwell on the obvious, I prefer to focus on a
much greater scandal—one so deeply rooted that we take it for granted:
the very notion of citizenship itself. As a legal concept (as opposed to
a philosophical idea), citizenship is deeply repugnant to individual
freedom. It fetters human beings for no reason and infringes upon their
rights and basic dignity.
So just what is citizenship?
According to the dictionary, it is “the state of being vested with
the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen,”
who in turn is “a native or naturalized member of a state or nation
who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its
protection.” For example, to be a Canadian citizen is to enjoy
privileges ranging from visa-free travel to
173 countries and territories to the simple right to live and work
in one of the most peaceful and prosperous countries on Earth, all with
virtually no concomitant obligations. In fact, other than jury duty it
is difficult to think of any legally-binding duties of Canadian
citizens (as opposed to obligations of anyone who happens to be in
Canada, such as paying taxes). In other countries, such as
Kuwait or
Saudi Arabia, citizens enjoy lavish economic benefits. Conversely,
to be a Syrian citizen is to enjoy virtually no rights or privileges
whatsoever. The Syrian state offers its citizens precious few services
or benefits. Its passport grants entry without prior permission to a
scant 38 jurisdictions. And Syrians have at least one crushing
obligation:
18 months of military service in the midst of a gruesome civil war.
|
“As a legal concept (as opposed to
a philosophical idea), citizenship is deeply repugnant to individual
freedom. It fetters human beings for no reason and infringes upon their
rights and basic dignity.” |
Citizenship, then, is a bundle of rights and
obligations whose content depends on the country that issues it. Which
bundle a person happens to possess is largely up to random chance; while
some acquire another citizenship as immigrants, for most, citizenship is
purely a function of either
where
or to
whom we are born. What’s more, given the world’s division into
nation-states, citizenship of some kind or another is a virtual
prerequisite for people to live their lives. Indeed, to be
stateless is to be bereft of the right to exist almost anywhere on
Earth. Statelessness is what stranded
Mehran Karimi Nasseri at Charles de Gaulle Airport for 18 years,
as no country was obliged to take him in. In other words, even the most
worthless rights bundled with even the most onerous obligations are
often preferable to the lot of the stateless person: to have no place
where one can live by right and not solely at the state’s pleasure.
A more honest title for the concept of
citizenship would be an “Existence Permit” since, properly construed,
citizenship is a virtual pre-condition to existing on planet Earth—or at
least to existing anywhere worth living, given that the only remaining
unclaimed scraps of land are largely uninhabitable. Accordingly, the
“rights and obligations” of a citizen are really just the conditions
attached to one’s Existence Permit.
For those of us lucky enough to have
obtained our permits from a Western government, life is relatively easy.
But for those cursed, through no fault of their own, with a permit
issued by, say, Somalia or North Korea, their fates are largely written
at birth. And even those who, like Mohamed Fahmy, acquire a second
permit may find that their first one still subjects them to obligations
that are entirely unfair: in Fahmy’s case, an ineligibility to be
expelled to a more hospitable location. And for Fahmy to renounce the
permit that tied him down, it took nothing less than a presidential
decree—a reminder that citizenship has at least as much to do with the
state asserting its ownership of the person holding it as it does with
bestowing rights and privileges upon the individual. In extreme cases,
where it is used to keep someone in jail or to force him to fight in a
war, citizenship can actually start to resemble slavery.
When the concept of citizenship comes up in
the public discourse, it is typically to extoll its virtues and its
nobility. Citizenship ties us together and defines our common existence.
Often, we are exhorted to think of ourselves not as mere “taxpayers” or
(even worse) “consumers,” but as holders of the most exalted status of
all: “citizens.” And while there is something uplifting about being a
citizen in the civic or moral sense, there is nothing lofty about
citizenship as a legal concept. The legal notion of citizenship
contributes nothing to the human experience. It can bestow immeasurably
valuable benefits and impose unthinkably onerous costs, without regard
to merit.
The abolition of citizenship—and
international borders—would have immediate salutary effects. People
could come and go as they please. No one would receive unearned wealth
due solely to the circumstances of his birth (unless someone freely
chose to bestow a gift upon him). And it would be much more difficult to
forcibly place a person in a situation where he had to kill strangers,
on pain of being killed himself. We would do well to abolish it and the
artificial divisions that it creates among us.
|
|
From the same author |
▪
Onward to Victory: Why Freedom Will Win
(no
328 – January 15, 2015)
▪
The New York Police Department: Striking Against the
Public Safety?
(no
328 – January 15, 2015)
▪
Another Year, Another War: How (Not) to Save the
Middle East
(no
325 – October 15, 2014)
▪
Living While Black
(no
324 – Sept. 15, 2014)
▪
The Great War's Legacy, a Century On
(no
323 – June 15, 2014)
▪
More...
|
|
First written appearance of the
word 'liberty,' circa 2300 B.C. |
Le Québécois Libre
Promoting individual liberty, free markets and voluntary
cooperation since 1998.
|
|