When States Take Rights Back denationalisation is legal for those faced with terrorism charges and those who joined a conflict abroad and are affiliated with Al-Qaeda, ISIS or associated organisations. 18 Boekestein and de Groot thus distinguish between ‘reactive’ and ‘proactive’ denationalisation in the context of the Dutch law. 19 The first targets convicted terrorists, and the latter aims at preventing the return of foreign fighters. These two approaches have led to the key concern of inequality through discrimination (both direct and indirect), 20 but also other normative concerns, including alienation, radicalisation and terrorist recruitment, 21 as narratives of ‘usvs-them’ may be enhanced. Consequently, the disproportionate targeting of Dutch-Moroccans as primary subjects of denationalisation, Boekestein and de Groot argue, is unlikely to be justifiable under the ECHR. 22 In the fourth chapter, Elke Winter and Ivana Previsic analyse the consequences of the short-lived Canadian denationalisation law. Bill C-24, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, permitting revocation on the grounds of ‘high treason, terrorism and espionage’, 23 was first introduced in 2014 and then repealed in June 2017 by the Trudeau Government. Winter and Previsic examine three discursive sites — political debates, mainstream media and online commentary — to examine the effects of the denationalisation policy. 24 They argue that the ‘specific historical and geopolitical context’ 25 of the Bill — post-9/11, the ‘War on Terror’ and other countries’ justifications of denationalisation policies — have led to the ‘victimisation of Muslims’ 26 and thus the emergence of ‘symbolic boundaries of citizenship’. 27 Muslims are portrayed as being excluded from the symbolic boundaries of citizenship which entails ‘the collective identity shared by most individuals possessing the same status.’ 28 Furthermore, they are presumed to be the main candidates of potential denationalisation by society, in addition to being categorised as a group and not as individual bad apples. 29 In contrast, terrorists who are white are seen as ‘exceptions rather than symptomatic of a group problem’. 30 Winter and Previsic conclude by highlighting that: [t]his additional stigmatising of Muslims is not only unnecessary, citizenship revocation legislation is widely seen as having few tangible security effects — it is also counter-productive, potentially producing or reinforcing the formation of 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ibid 28. ibid 27. ibid 30. ibid 36. ibid 38. Elke Winter and Ivana Previsic, ‘The Politics of Un-Belonging: Lessons from Canada’s Experiment with Citizenship Revocation’ in Émilien Fargues, Elke Winter and Matthew J Gibney (eds), When States Take Rights Back: Citizenship Revocation and Its Discontents (Routledge 2020) 44, 46, citing Bill C-24, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (2014) (Canada). ibid 49. ibid 55. ibid 56. ibid 48. Symbolic boundaries of citizenship refers to ‘the collective identity shared by most individuals possessing the same status’. Muslims are excluded, and thus fall outside of the boundaries of ‘collective identity’. ibid 48. ibid 55. ibid. 171