The privatisation of public space is harming our ability to protest

Alex Hern argues that the creeping privatisation of areas which used to be private is leading to more and more difficulties in protesting peacefully and legally.

One of the most common responses to Occupy London is to question why exactly they are camped outside St Paul’s Cathedral. After all, aside from its location, the Cathedral has little to do with the issues that the protesters are campaigning against. Shouldn’t they be somewhere else?

The answer of course is that they should; they wanted to; and would be if they could. The original plan was to occupy, not St Paul’s, but the London Stock Exchange based next door in Paternoster Square. Although this would hardly have resulted in fewer complaints (as we have seen, some people will find any excuse to condemn a protest) it may have made it easier for Occupy London to gain support in those crucial first few days.

So why didn’t they? Because Paternoster Square, despite appearances, is not a public square. It is a private development that is owned by the Mitsubishi Estate Company and is open to the public 24 hours a day, which just so happens to be on the site of a previous public square. When the protesters came along Mitsubishi Estate Company, as is their right, decided to close the square indefinitely, and obtained a high-court injunction preventing anyone from entering.

Occupy London then found themselves with nowhere to Occupy. Since St Paul’s Churchyard is one of the biggest truly public spaces left in the City, it’s as good a place as any to set up camp.

Their options are just as curtailed further afield, as well. Canary Wharf, which is almost as big a centre for finance as the City is, has a lovely big park in the centre of it. Unfortunately, that park, as with 99 per cent of the land in Canary Wharf, is owned by the Canary Wharf Group. Again, access is conditional; the company may choose to allow a protest, or they may not.

Boris Johnson – and Ken Livingstone before him – has been instrumental in making London the home of international finance. Want to camp outside City Hall? Unfortunately, More London Estates is unlikely to allow that.

Occupy a major shopping district, so as to draw attention to the problems of consumerism!? It had better not be Carnaby Street, Westfield Stratford or Westfield White City, although if you’re lucky and the police permit, you may be able to march down Oxford Street or Regent Street.

All of these areas were once public land and therefore the public were free (within reason) to protest on them. A private company on private land can deny any person access at any time for almost any reason. That is fine if that private land is, for example, a shop or an office block. But when it is a street, square or park, and when it is indistinguishable from the private land around it, it creates problems.

Concern over this privatisation of public space isn’t new. Naomi Klein highlighted it ten years ago in No Logo, although then her prime concern was its link to the growing ubiquitousness of advertising. And whenever a new corporate development uses words like “town hall”, “village green” or “central park”, there is always someone arguing that whatever they may be called, these private replacements for public spaces cannot fulfil the same role.

But it is only now that we really see what that difference means in practice. If all you do in shopping centres is shop, why would the owners try to stop you? When you are making the owners money, then of course there is no problem. It is when you try to do other things – busk, sleep rough, or protest – things which don’t earn a profit for the owner of the space, that you learn what is and isn’t allowed.

Occupy London have filled up St Paul’s Churchyard. They have mostly filled up Finsbury Square, which is across boundary lines in Islington. Unlike some, they have had the good sense not to go to the war memorials in Tower Hill. Public space is running out. The answer to “can’t they go somewhere else?” is becoming “no”, and the command “go somewhere else” is becoming “stop protesting”.

I think it’s a travesty that St Paul’s chose to close its doors just as I have a deep sympathy for the employees of the Sainsbury’s in Paternoster Square, who have not been allowed to work for nigh-on two weeks. However, the fact that Mitsubishi Estate Company would rather shut up shop than put up with some tents is their decision, not the protestors’. They merely want to exercise their right to protest.

As the cases of Maya Anne Evans and Brian Haw show, that is not too easy in the seat of political power. Occupy London is demonstrating that it is no easier in the seat of economic power.

See also:

Occupy London needs to catalyse a new Left Ben Mitchell, October 27th 2011

The Mail’s rent-a-rev called for gays to be tattooed with health warningsAlex Hern, October 27th 2011

Top five reasons why you can’t protest (according to the right)Alex Hern, October 26th 2011

The “occupy” protests come to the City this SaturdayShamik Das, October 12th 2011

Are “Occupy Threadneedle Street” protests on the way?Shamik Das, September 19th 2011

79 Responses to “The privatisation of public space is harming our ability to protest”

  1. Aaaaargh!

    RT @leftfootfwd: The privatisation of public space is harming our ability to protest http://t.co/YqCQFJmg

  2. JD

    Wow, I had to see it to believe it!

    Never visited this site before as I was told not to bother due to the dogmatic mantra that passes for open minded current political affairs. That and the as blatantly biased censorship that goes on here.
    I have to say they weren’t wrong.

    Five comments too eh! They should be cobwebs all over this sorry excuse for a blog, I’m guessing this comment will be modified to fit the current left-wing paradigm or deleted all together.

    Good luck with that, cheerio!

  3. JD

    Don’t forget to spam my e-mail with your pointless “vote for me propaganda” too.

    Tatty bye!

  4. treborc

    Land owners the church, religion at it’s best money makes god happy Jesus would be a banker and we own the land out side the church which just happens to charge £14.50 for people to enter.

    Jesus will save you at a price. Amen

  5. James Daniel Fisher

    Privatisation of public space: http://t.co/UvMglXHi #OccupyLSX

  6. Jose Aguiar

    RT @leftfootfwd: The privatisation of public space is harming our ability to protest http://t.co/X4oQoroF

  7. herminio soares

    RT @leftfootfwd: The privatisation of public space is harming our ability to protest http://t.co/X4oQoroF

  8. agata pyzik

    against privatisation of the public land http://t.co/MsIDU1ZD

  9. Leon Wolfson

    @4 – Ah yes, can’t have any dissent in Little England, can we.

  10. Ed's Talking Balls

    On the contrary, Leon, dissent is fine. Breaking the law isn’t, however, and history is littered with examples of societies which didn’t (and plenty which still don’t) enforce property laws. That’s not a path I’m keen to tread.

    I’m actually supportive of at least one message the protesters are conveying. Capitalism which rewards failure so handsomely is utterly wrong: directors of companies which are posting losses and laying off staff shouldn’t be getting obscene pay rises. I’m appalled that some on the right actually believe this to be defensible. I don’t.

    And if anyone wants to protest outside Justine Greening’s house against HS2 or if anyone wants to march by Lib Dem HQ reminding Clegg and co of their manifesto commitment to have an in-out EU referendum, then they have my full support. I’d even be tempted to join in.

  11. Andy

    If what you say is true, it’s actually good news. If the City of London or St. Paul’s actually try to evict the Occupy camp and the case ends up in court, then the judge is going to have to balance the Cathedral’s right to property with the protestors’ right to protest- and if the Occupy camp can reasonably argue that they have nowhere else to go, then it is much more likely that the court will balance the competing rights in the Occupiers’ favour.

  12. Richard Shear

    Maybe the fact that public space is becoming scarce thanks to immigration.

  13. Laura Gordon

    This issue was raised in 2003 by the Appleby case at the European Court of Human Rights – it was turned down, but the dissenting opinion by Judge Maruste articulated a lot of the same problems you’re talking about here, and the difficulties of balancing freedom of expression and property rights. He argued that goverments had a positive obligation to allow freedom of expression (including protest) – something that has also come up with regard to policing, but less so in relation to private property. This is definitely an issue to keep an eye on for the long term – see my post on it here: http://pro-99.net/?q=content/privatisation-public-spaces-issue-long-term

  14. Leon Wolfson

    @6 – Hence, dissent is impossible since the government (and this isn’t just the Tories!) just make it against the law to dissent. This is precisely what this article is about.

    Have you actually read the proposals to criminalise “squatting”, for example? If you’re told to leave private land and don’t IMMEDIATELY for ANY reason, you’re a criminal.

  15. Roddy Martindale

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  16. David Marsden

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  17. SpaceBon 3

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  18. John Edginton

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  19. bigtatty

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  20. ralph brown

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  21. Barry Jones

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  22. David Gillon

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  23. See below

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  24. David Gillon

    #Bankers can party at a war memorial http://t.co/xntf6aeJ but ordinary ppl can't protest in their spaces http://t.co/T5oov4FC Hmm! #occupy

  25. How we sold off the right to protest to the one per cent | Left Foot Forward

    […] Sunday, we wrote: Paternoster Square, despite appearances, is not a public square. It is a private development that […]

  26. Chris Tindall

    Canary Wharf takes out an injunction banning protest; the privatisation of public space continues to hurt free speech. http://t.co/UWvG5qzp

  27. ursulariches

    RT @leftfootfwd: The privatisation of public space is harming our right to protest, writes @alexhern: http://t.co/flfW2bdp #occupyLondon

  28. Parliament square gets evicted (again) | Left Foot Forward

    […] Foot Forward has reported before on the crackdown on protest in London, which previously has been largely done by abusing the extent […]

Leave a Reply