Group arrested for Woolies protest

A better protest would be for these people to muster the whole Muslim and pro-Palestinian community to not shop at Wooworths and let as many customers let Woolies know by sending emails to Woolies HQ. However as most Muslims seem to be happy shopping at Woolies I don't think this protest action will do much.
 
Space_Chief said:
A better protest would be for these people to muster the whole Muslim and pro-Palestinian community to not shop at Wooworths and let as many customers let Woolies know by sending emails to Woolies HQ. However as most Muslims seem to be happy shopping at Woolies I don't think this protest action will do much.
Click to expand...

And then direct their anger at the Syrian embassy that is wiping out there brothers. Oh wait.........:rolleyes:
Bunch of idiotic radical ass holes that deserve what they get
 
marine1 said:
Its intimidation which is a criminal offense and these ass holes deserve jail.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's intimidation unless someone is actually physically threatened. Otherwise every protest is intimidating and no protests can occur because if someone stands with a placard chanting slogans people may feel frightened.
 
marine1 said:
And then direct their anger at the Syrian embassy that is wiping out there brothers. Oh wait.........:rolleyes:
Bunch of idiotic radical ass holes that deserve what they get
Click to expand...

Actually lots of Muslims are happy with Assad.
 
Space_Chief said:
I don't think it's intimidation unless someone is actually physically threatened. Otherwise every protest is intimidating and no protests can occur because if someone stands with a placard chanting slogans people may feel frightened.
Click to expand...

If I was there I would have sprayed them with tear gas and then laid a charge of intimidation against them Its intimidation if you feel threatened. They went there looking for a fight and as usual with these types they got their bums handed to them
 
marine1 said:
If I was there I would have sprayed them with tear gas and then laid a charge of intimidation against them Its intimidation if you feel threatened. They went there looking for a fight and as usual with these types they got their bums handed to them
Click to expand...

If you sprayed them with teargas it would be assault you'd be charged with unless you were defending yourself. But it would have to be a serious threat and the magistrate would have to agree with you.
 
MickeyD said:
Wrong. The one is protected by law. The other is not.
Click to expand...

Freedom of Expression would apply in both instances and labour disputes have no greater right of protest than political ones.

There are really two issues at play here:
[1] The right to protest as regulated by various statutory provisions (the RGA being one, although it is entirely not applicable in this instance) and common law principles and rules which balance freedom of expression and political activity as against nuisance and violence.

[2] Trespass and the right of an occupant to expel persons off the property which they occupy (most stores are occupants without being the landowner).

In my view (and IANAL) the charges are unsustainable in criminal proceedings due to the de minimis doctrine. Woolworths should obtain a judicial interdict from the High Court as against the individuals that make up the leadership of the BDSI, and the ANCYL as against further entry into their stores with the intent to cause injury or harm to Woolworths. At this juncture Woolworths would be able to charge such leadership with contempt of court - and should in my view adopt an attitude of civil committal to gaol. The sustainability of public disturbance charges on a blanket basis against protesters raises far to many problems for the State in a private property context and the moment a riot ensues would have a whole heap of problems which makes treating protests in stores in a similar vain to outdoor gatherings a bad idea operationally.
 
Space_Chief said:
If you sprayed them with teargas it would be assault you'd be charged with unless you were defending yourself. But it would have to be a serious threat and the magistrate would have to agree with you.
Click to expand...

Nope, a mob moved in and you feared for your life. Its self defense and instead of shooting them you used a non lethal force. Perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law. You want to illegally enter a premises for the sake of intimidation and accosting patrons, thats what you get.
If they were just lying down, I would have walked on them.
Its time citizens take a stand against this or it will escalate
 
I personally am boycotting all Syrian goods.... I know a good few Muslims who are too :p
 
Space_Chief said:
It was a peaceful protest at least. And surely one can stand anywhere on public property. Obstruction of entrances, if one stands on public land is not illegal per se. It's not trespassing.
Click to expand...

It was trespassing as soon as they decided to enter the store.
 
imranpanji said:
I personally am boycotting all Syrian goods.... I know a good few Muslims who are too :p
Click to expand...

you could also help organize a cover band to perform a concert of You're Too Awful For This Earth ...

[video=youtube;3lKYPp2Kp6s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lKYPp2Kp6s#t=53[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X