. The criminalisation of squatting is a deeply political act | Ceasefire Magazine

The criminalisation of squatting is a deeply political act Comment

On Saturday, squatting in a residential building in England and Wales became a criminal offence punishable by jail or a fine. Tony McKenna argues this move by the government has nothing to do with upholding the law and everything to do with capitalist ideology.

New in Ceasefire, Politics - Posted on Monday, September 3, 2012 22:19 - 5 Comments


In 2010-11 the number of people sleeping on the streets in London rose 8% to 3975 while in the same geographical space there were over 6000 council homes left unoccupied (photo: BBC)

Having offended the Gods, Tantalus was condemned to spend eternity squatting in a pool of water which would recede whenever he went to sip from it, while just above, luscious fruit dangled forever out of reach.  This myth, of course, has given us the verb – ‘to tantalize’ – but it also provides us with an illuminating parable on modern day capitalism.

In 2009 it was revealed that 2 million people living in the UK were undernourished and yet a recent estimate suggests supermarkets waste up to 300 000 tonnes of food each year. You might be forgiven for thinking maybe that’s because the food is mouldy or otherwise past its sell-by-date, however that assumption would prove faulty because, as eco chef Tom Hunt points out, more often than not the food is still viable and, more shockingly still, sometimes – ‘the quality of the ingredients are second to none’.

This kind of wastage is not simply confined to the production of food. In 2010-11 the number of people sleeping on the streets in London rose 8% to 3975 while in the same geographical space there were over 6000 council homes left unoccupied (a third of which required repairs). Perhaps more importantly still, 60% of all newly built properties in central London were bought up by foreign investors, many of whom had no intention of living in them, so they were simply left to sit empty.

Consequently, in one of the world’s greatest cosmopolitan and commercial centres there are ever increasing numbers of people who experience the pangs of hunger while everywhere a superabundance of mass-produced food overflows into landfills; in the same moment, there are growing numbers sleeping rough on the streets – sometimes only yards from the most luxurious abodes;  those swanky properties with the kind of mod-cons which make life so much more comfortable – only with nobody in residence to take advantage of them.

But perhaps the most perverse thing in all of this is how – to the current government – none of it appears as in any way perverse. For Cameron, Osborne and their cohorts the real nightmare is not the spectre of the almost Dickensian poverty which now stalks our streets, but rather the shrill, petulant fear that any of these empty spaces might be claimed by people whose wellbeing could depend on it. For this, parliament has passed a bill which criminalises squatting from September onwards.

One of the reasons why the bill is likely to pass with little more than a whimper on the part of the general population is because of the media image which has been so meticulously cultivated against the squatting phenomenon; squatters are nearly always portrayed as dirty follicley-challenged layabouts ready to swarm and colonise a house the moment its occupants take an extended weekend in the Costa Del Sol. The media is riddled with stories about how home owners return home from holidays only to be barred from entering their own premises by a group of straggly haired malingerers.

In reality, however, the image of some woolly liberal government, full to the brim with pc largesse, prepared to exile people from their homes in order to facilitate the whims of vagrants – is little more than a reactionary myth. The squatting laws were always specific on this point; those who squatted would be protected by certain rights against eviction only with the proviso that nobody was living in the property in the first place, and that there was no possibility of it being occupied by its owners in the imminent future.

The law to criminalise squatting is about something else entirely. Supermarkets are often compelled to destroy food because they are caught in the unrelenting vortex of competition; if they give away the leftover surplus, the value of future sales is damaged. Likewise, in the case of the property market, houses are sometimes left empty by landlords and investors in order to drive prices up.

Inevitably a conflict emerges between genuine human need – the need for food, the need for shelter – and the imperatives of a social system driven by competition and the accumulation of profit. For this reason we should understand squatting not as some arbitrary phenomenon but as a profoundly political act; i.e. the endeavour to assert the priority of human need in the geo-political space – over and against the incursions of the market.

And, in essence, hasn’t squatting always been about this?  The squatting phenomenon traces its roots to the agrarian communists ‘The Diggers’ who, in 1649 when food prices spiked at an all-time high, made the move to resist the enclosures and occupy common land so they could plant vegetable crops – no doubts with the rather humble agenda of ensuring their own survival. They were forced from the land by the threat of army intervention, but not before being branded amoral and promiscuous (charges regularly levelled against the squatters of today).

More recently, in the aftermath of the Second World War many ex-service men and their families, tens of thousands of people, occupied sites across the country, because of an acute housing crisis – though the image of heroic servicemen as squatters is, of course, one which has been airbrushed out of the conventional historical narrative.

Nevertheless, squatting has been at the heart of British political struggle for centuries which is why its hard-fought for rights made the transition into law in the first place. Its criminalisation does not only threaten up to 50.000 people who are currently squatting in (empty) properties across the UK.  It also represents a triumph of a market imperative.

Like Tantalus, the drive for profit can never be sated, for it expands inexorably, feeding on itself, driven to limits which are unbound by considerations of genuine human needs. But, while it may never be satisfied, it will always be resisted.

Tony Mckenna

Tony Mckenna is a writer based in the UK. His work has appeared in The Huffington Post, New Statesman, ABC Australia, The United Nations, The Progressive, New Internationalist, Adbusters, In These Times, The Philosopher’s Magazine, New Humanist, Counterpunch, Open Democracy, Znet, Monthly Review, and Marx and Philosophy Review of Books, among others. His short stories have appeared in The Ranfurly Review and The Penniless Press. @MckennaTony


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Sep 4, 2012 18:53

I hear what you are saying but whatever,

If you own property, just because you do not use it, does not give the right for someone else to use it.

How would you feel if someone ‘squatted’ in your apartment while you went to work during business hours? Bet that’d go down a storm when you go home after a day of work.

Sep 5, 2012 15:56

Nobody seems to be framing this as a politicians’ response to the anti-foxhunting legislation – while both may be equally ineffectual this one provides the opportunity for the powerful to pick on the powerless, ignoring the squatters whose parents are out foxhunting of course.

Such a polarity of groups, as you seem to imply, does not exist – Those deeming themselves ‘homeless-needy’ rarely deem themselves ‘squatters’, and vice versa…

Oct 3, 2012 17:45

Attack of the trolls.

TA: being out at work during business hours, or on holiday for a few weeks, does not stop you being “resident” in or “occupying” your house or apartment. Nobody is going to squat your home because you’re not there 24/7, and if they did, they would not have squatters’ rights, not in 2011, not in the 1970s.

(On the other hand, you may well be driven out by little Hitlers from the council who want to steal your land or who take exception to you living how you want instead of how THEY want, or who use gentrification to drive you out. Look up Albert Dryden, Margaret Jaconelli, Dale Farm, and the Save the Counihans campaign for a few examples, and look up “social cleansing” in London).

As regards UNUSED buildings you are wrong both ethically and in law. Ethically, the human need for housing is obviously more important than some rich person’s “right” to keep a house empty for financial or spurious reasons. It is also more important than the law. If there was widespread famine, and someone started hoarding food in order to make profits, wouldn’t you consider this immoral?

However, it is also the case that the state can seize empty houses under an Empty Dwelling Management Order. In other words, you have no legal right to keep a home empty, any more than you have a moral right to do so.

Try to think about this rationally, and set aside the invented and irrelevant issue of people occupying temporarily vacant homes. Some rich landlord owns dozens of homes and decides to keep some of them empty – maybe to hold out for higher rents, maybe to create scarcity and push up rents, maybe because he can’t be bothered making them fit for habitation. Meanwhile, some people are too poor to rent or buy. Why shouldn’t the poor people take over the empty building? It’s justified on deontological grounds (it respects the poor people’s right to housing as people), on consequentialist grounds (it increases the general welfare), on virtue grounds (keeping houses empty without good reason is greedy and should not be encouraged), on anti-oppressive grounds (it helps the poor against the rich), on equality grounds (it redistributes empty homes from rich to poor), on welfare grounds (it meets a pressing welfare need) and on grounds of maximising freedom (it increases the range of ways of life which are possible).

The only possible reasons to oppose it are an absurdly rigid belief in property rights to the exclusion of all other rights, or a form of class/lifestyle hatred against squatters and/or poor people in general.

Sears Promo Code
Jul 17, 2013 10:21

One of the most effective methods to perform couponing successfully
would be to follow the suggestions of other
people. It may be your friend, family, or even the web evaluations.
Carrying out a trend, where the involved people are being benefited is definitely reliable.
It saves your time and effort as well, as you can very quickly get
data for employing a discount with sears promotion code.

This can also work vice-versa, where you can assist others while sharing your knowledge
on the internet or during socialization.

Because it happened, Richard Sears was a lot in song towards
the progressions in his nation and used them along with his new organization.
Mail request buying became still another routine, as
individuals we are just starting to move west and more railroads were being
made. Consumers from within the area were remarkably empowered to truly have the ability
to obtain such exemplary things while never the need to leave their houses.

At sears discount may be used on automotive products, apparels, jewelries, and masses more.

You can acquire a coupon which can be employed
on any particular brand or product class. You’ll find coupons which is often used in a specific quantity of purchase. In this case, there might not be any limitation for choosing these products. Therefore, it can be easily comprehended that how valuable the deals can be in terms of your purchase from Sears is anxious. Beginning the ladies shoes to the conditioning gadgets and even the mattresses, the said coupons could be acquired in a number of products, as mentioned earlier.

The coming decline of London | thenextwave
Oct 21, 2013 9:04

[…] behind the veil of “commercial confidence”. No wonder that the government felt the need to criminalise squatting, to protect absentee owners from any […]

Leave a Reply


More Ideas

More In Politics

More In Features

More In Profiles

More In Arts & Culture