Between a Hunch and a Hard Place: Making Suspicion Reasonable at the Canadian Border

Abstract

This article examines how suspicion is made reasonable at the Canadian border. It examines in local and empirical terms the ‘moment of decision’ on the frontline of border control, and the translation of this moment in the courts. It begins with a sketch of the legal regime that governs the discretion of border officers through the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’ before considering the variety of low-level risk knowledges that coincide to make suspicion reasonable on the frontline. The ‘objectivity effect’ of the language of risk indicators (Rose, 1988) effectively obscures the multiplicity and hybridity of the ‘low-level’ knowledges at play, enhances the discretion of border officers and protects their decisions from serious scrutiny. By asking ‘who uses what knowledges, in what ways and with what effects?’ (Valverde et al., 2005: 115—116), this study responds to scholars who have appealed for the empirical specification and elaboration of risk knowledges. In so doing, this investigation also begins to unsettle the quasi-scientific representation of suspicion that prevails in the courts and urges that more specific, empirical attention be paid to how suspicion is made reasonable on the frontline.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 67 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.