Search

Canada has recently emerged as a hotspot in a burgeoning global surrogacy bio‐economy. On the grounds that any commercial trade in reproductive capabilities would result in the exploitation of marginalised women willing to sell their eggs and wombs, Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) bans commercial surrogacy, allowing only for altruistic arrangements. Drawing together analysis of the AHRA and related legal, regulatory, and policy documents, feminist political economic theory, and a growing body of critical social scientific scholarship on surrogacy, this paper troubles altruism as a means of insulating surrogacy from market‐based exploitation. It contributes to the extant literature an explicit focus on the law as a key site in the reproduction of the gendered division of labour. Acknowledging the serious concerns that dog commercial markets in reproductive biology, it argues that the legal constitution of gestational work as altruistic is part of a broader juridico‐economic apparatus that has systematically devalued reproductive labour under capitalism. Efforts to insulate surrogacy from the market by legally designating it as a gift freely given facilitate the ongoing appropriation of reproductive labour, which is assigned, once again, to the realm of non‐value. A feminist political‐economic critique of altruism, this paper does not forward an argument in favour of commercialisation. Rather, its aim is to upend the commercial/altruistic binary that has circumscribed so much of the thinking and legislating around surrogacy. This paper explores the role of the law in devaluing reproductive labour under capitalism. It does so via an examination of Canada's burgeoning surrogacy bio‐economy and the legislation – the Assisted Human Reproduction Act – designed to regulate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does the digitisation of the ocean reconfigure capitalist, colonial, and environmental relations? What analytic tools allow us to trace their intersecting dynamics? These are the central questions that we take up through an examination of smart oceans governance along the west coast of Canada, where the state is developing new institutional partnerships to manage the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure across unceded Indigenous lands and waters. In this context, laden with environmental risks and resurgent anti‐colonial politics, state actors are implicating smart oceans governance in efforts to harmonise capitalist growth with sustainability mandates and the 'recognition' of Indigenous self‐determination. Our analysis draws on environmental state theory, critical indigenous studies, and human geographies of the ocean, to analyse interviews, Access to Information requests, scientific studies, and policy reports. Our findings suggest that smart oceans governance poses novel risks to Indigenous peoples and their distinctive 'seascape epistemologies'. At the same time, we observe in this medium new limits to the state's ability to consolidate settler colonial authority and extend possessive colonial entitlements to Indigenous lands and waters. First Nations are also engaging with smart oceans governance in ways that assert 'Indigenous data sovereignty', help chart their own political and territorial ambitions, and carve out meaningful spaces of Indigenous marine stewardship. A comprehensive overview of the politics of smart oceans ‐ that is, ensembles of data intensive sensing tools and associated marine governance practices. The paper draws examples from the west coast of Canada where it finds new risks to First Nations governance but also moments where smart oceans governance is being leveraged by communities to support their political goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transformations in global capitalism increased rates of international migration at the turn of the twentieth century, a period also marked by the widespread popularity of scientific racism, integral nationalism, and vaunted notions of state sovereignty. This paper considers how the intersection of these factors influenced migration and citizenship policymaking in Canada and Germany. In both cases, migration was harnessed to further economic objectives while groups deemed a threat to national integration because of their putative racial or ethno-national characteristics were excluded. The resultant policies would come to define Canada and Germany’s approaches to the migration-membership dilemma for the much of the twentieth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]