Search results

While the privatisation of public space has been the subject of considerable research, literature exploring the shifting boundaries between public and private law, and the role of those shifts in the expansion of neo-liberal social relations, has been slower to develop. This article explores the use of fire safety regulations to evict political occupations in the context of these shifts. Two examples from the UK student occupation movement and two from the US Occupy movement demonstrate how discourses and logics of both private and public law are mobilised through fire hazard claims to create the potent image of a neutral containment of dissent on technical grounds in the public interest – an image that proves difficult to contest. However, the recourse to the public interest and to expert opinion that underpins fire hazard claims is inconsistent with principles governing the limited neo-liberal political sphere, which underscores the pragmatic and continually negotiated implementation of neo-liberal ideas. The article sheds light on the complexity of the extending reach of private law, on the resilience of the public sphere and on the significance of occupations as a battleground on which struggles over neo-liberal social relations and subjectivities play out.

The social movement tactic of occupying land, factories, and other workplaces has regained popularity in Latin America over the past decade. These occupations have garnered international attention due to the direct confrontation with neoliberalism that they embody, whilst less attention has been drawn to the particular use of law that underpins this confrontation. Through an examination of the use of law by the Landless Peasants' Movement in Bolivia and by the factory occupation movement in Argentina, this paper explores how these occupation movements have combined both an eschewal and embrace of law in what can be understood as a creative 'radical legal praxis'. The paper sketches the contours of what a theorisation of this approach might look like and suggests that this particular engagement with law challenges traditional understandings of occupation movements and contains important possibilities for emancipatory resistance to neoliberalism.

AbstractSeveral recent reports seek to evaluate the impact of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Canadian democracy by documenting his government's efforts to curtail established democratic processes and mechanisms for public debate. However, this article uses examples of the Harper government's changes to legislative and parliamentary norms to demonstrate that this government's efforts to curtail multi-directional public debate were importantly accompanied by efforts to amplify unidirectional communication of the government's partisan messages. The paper finds that this corresponding emphasis on communication exemplified a "photo-op" approach to democracy, which highlights points of compatibility between the seemingly contradictory authoritarian-populist "publicity state" and neoliberal democratic ideals. This research demonstrates the necessity of attention to government communication in analysis of the Harper government's impact on the Canadian public sphere. It also illustrates the pragmatic rather than doctrinaire nature of New Right politics in Canada and the affinity between neoliberal and authoritarian-populist approaches to governance.