There is a tradition within geography of calls for inclusivity gained by the “cry-and-demand” by marginalized people to claim rights in and to public space. However, the utility of rights as a tool for gaining social justice bears closer inspection. Using as an example debates around the Safe Streets Act in British Columbia, I interview panhandlers to test the convergence between their lived-experiences and the dominant rights-discourse used in debates around the law. This reveals a gap between the reality of being marginalized on the street, and dominant rights-based narratives. Furthermore, panhandlers question whether they can assert even the limited forms of rights available to them. I suggest that the problem is deeply inherent in rights themselves: specifically, in a strong liberal-ontology present in rights-discourse, which views individuals as isolated monads and limits discussion of alternative strategies for social justice while masking the everyday realities of oppression.
Copyright is held by the author.
Member of collection