Group arrested for Woolies protest

[bekdik]

Maybe Woolworths should place a free portion of pork in all customer's bags.

 

[Stochos]

Why did they involve minors? The parents should be arrested for child abuse.

Standard operating procedure: Human shields?

 

[nightjar]

Yeah because the only reason people lie down on the ground is to become fecal matter or rubbish. And they're offensive when they do so. Even if peacefully. Even if they get punished for it. Nice.

RE - fecal matter???

Another red herring?
Not a term I have ever used.
I prefer the word starting with "s" but since the auto censor does not allow it I usually settle for the word "turd".

You are really moving off topic now because fecal matter/turds are a special fetish of the Western Cape ANC and I want to say right now that I reject in the strongest terms any suggestion that I might have any connection with them or that particular kink.

Carrying "fecal matter" around in buckets, playing with it and throwing it at others is not my scene so please take note.

 

[Space_Chief]

RE - fecal matter???

You did not say fecal matter. Rest of the stuff is accurate. Have a nice day.

 

[Grant]

Can't two guys just joke around a bit? OK, thanks for your advice.

sorry, i'm rather ratty at the moment about something unrelated (quite literally, having to steal a car i own). so unfortunately i'm snapping at anything nearby.

Dude, so it's like you can give it but you can't take it?

as a flaming homo, many straight people have asked a similar question of me.
i will quote the only christian-like phrase i know:
the good lord said "tis better to give than to receive"

 

[supersunbird]

It's a protest action, like the protest strike at the Post Office. What the these people want to do is increase public awareness for their cause through making things inconvenient. Does it work, I don't know. But at least some people know something is happening. if they did not make some form of inconvenience for people it would not be much of a protest. People would just ignore it.

Terrorism Light?

 

[Stochos]

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.

Right of admission is reserved
Woolworths store is private property. When workers are strike, they cannot use the company's property to stage a protest. Likewise Woolworths has the right to regulate behaviour within the confines of their store. Hence they were charged with public disturbance.

They cannot rely on right to protest either.

The relevant sections of the Bill or Rights are:

17. Assembly, demonstration picket and petition
Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to
demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.
22. Freedom of trade, occupation and profession
Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession
freely. The practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law.​

By impeding movement of people, the protest was not 'peaceful'. The Oxford English Dict. defines a picket as follows:

picket
n noun
a person or group of people standing outside a workplace trying to persuade others not to enter during a strike.
​

Section 17 cannot be used to impede or restrict access in any way for whatever reason.

The blocking or restricting of access directly impedes Woolworths' right to practice their trade freely. Thus this protest violates section 22. Woolworths is juristic entity and the Bill of Rights applies to it.


It would seem that Woolworths has the stronger case.

Woolworths should get out of the religion business entirely. A number of its products have Halaal or Kosher labels which all customers pay for regardless whether you agree with that religion or not.

 

[Space_Chief]

Terrorism Light?

That kind of trivializes real terrorism. Terrorism lite would be calling in a fake bomb threat.

 

[Stochos]

They move into a Jewish area and wanna make It another fordsburg.. Get arrested and disappear please

This is true but is the usual modus operandi.
A few Muslim families come to an area and then congregate in a certain road. Then they build a mosque; which they ensure causes maximum inconvenience for infidels around it; especially on Fridays. Traffic rules are only meant for the infidels. Parking on pavements is mandatory. Soon the infidels around the mosque move and the vacated property is rapidly filled by more Muslims. Soon the area around the Mosque is Muslims only and the loudspeaker appears at the mosque which further encourages migration of the remaining infidels.

Killarney Mall is up next; it will soon be remained Killarney Plaza!

The larger plan is to introduce Sharia law in South Africa turning it into another backward war-riddled Islamic country.

 

[Space_Chief]

One retarded thing about all this hate towards these protesters, who are protesting illegally, but peacefully (heck as anti apartheid protesters protested, as freaking anti-Communist protesters protested - those were also illegal protests because according to the laws of various peoples' republics) is that treating these people with such disdain one is discouraging peaceful protests and sending a message that violent protests are the only effective way. And that's morally wrong.

Illegal is illegal but these people did get arrested. They will face justice. They protested and paid for it with criminal records which is not a fun thing to have. But at least they did not leave rubbish behind, smash windows, and definitely did not assault anyone.

Maybe legal protests are better and maybe encouraging people to do that rather is good. That also sends a positive message to angry youths.

 

[Paul Hjul]

except that the charge of public disturbance requires the premises to adopt an omnibus character thereby invoking a presumption of lawful presence and this would include a lawful attendance to demonstrate - in which instance the RGA would apply, the demonstration provisions apply whilst the gathering provisions don't - until informed by the landlord or occupant otherwise.

A reservation of the right of admission does not in and of itself amount to causing the person in control of the premises to assume various rights relating to access control and means of premises use in contradiction to the public character of the premises by operation of law -- if it did then the SA government would never have promulgated legislation relating to access control of public premises

In any event the blocking of access can be handled from an entirely different precept even holding protest action embarked on as a demonstration with the consent of Woolworths.
The norms in this country both at common law (before muted by the Suppression of Communism Act) and where it is found in statute (whether the statute is applicable or not) with regard to protest activity (pickets as well) prohibit violence, obstruction of access of persons (but not carriages or trucks) and damage to property.

The case to obtain an interdict or to secure the assistance of the police in removing the individuals from the premises if they refuse is clear for Woolworths. The case to secure a conviction either under statute (such as the Riotous Assemblies Act or the Regulation of Gatherings Act) or under a common law offence of public disturbance is very very different.

 

[Paul Hjul]

One retarded thing about all this hate towards these protesters, who are protesting illegally, but peacefully (heck as anti apartheid protesters protested, as freaking anti-Communist protesters protested - those were also illegal protests because according to the laws of various peoples' republics) is that treating these people with such disdain one is discouraging peaceful protests and sending a message that violent protests are the only effective way. And that's morally wrong.

Illegal is illegal but these people did get arrested. They will face justice. They protested and paid for it with criminal records which is not a fun thing to have. But at least they did not leave rubbish behind, smash windows, and definitely did not assault anyone.

Maybe legal protests are better and maybe encouraging people to do that rather is good. That also sends a positive message to angry youths.

You are assuming a conviction can follow. I very much doubt the State will do anything other than the three postponements and withdrawal of charges routine

 

[Jola]

Well, as soon as they entered the shop to protest they deserved to be arrested. Protesting outside while not obstructing the entrances would have been fine

Nope.

Killarney Mall is not public property, I'm pretty sure that by protesting outside Woolies they would still have been breaking the rules and conditions pertaining to the shopping mall, so they would have been trespassing even while standing outside Woolies.

 

[Space_Chief]

You are assuming a conviction can follow. I very much doubt the State will do anything other than the three postponements and withdrawal of charges routine

I don't know. I am not a lawyer, but it's up to the state to prosecute or not, and it's not as if these people got off scott free. If someone wants to blame their lack of conviction (in the legal sense and not the efforts they put in this protest) they have to blame the constitution, common law and various acts you cited, as well as the prosecutor and magistrate involved. But that's out of control of these protesters themselves even if they get expensive lawyers.

Understandably there will be protests we all won't always agree with. That's part of living in a diverse society. We're vibrant and have to just get to live with each other peacefully. Promoting the good aspects of the protest while criticizing the bad but with civility and respect can only be a good way to approach this rather than dehumanising people from the get go.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Nope.

Killarney Mall is not public property, I'm pretty sure that by protesting outside Woolies they would still have been breaking the rules and conditions pertaining to the shopping mall, so they would have been trespassing even while standing outside Woolies.

It assumes an omnibus character and would have to specifically (as does Woolworths) say sorry you can't do that here rather than simply claim after the fact "well we didn't like what they were doing so it was trespassing" - I am sure you've seen signs outside malls saying "no soliciting" ...

 

[Jola]

It assumes an omnibus character and would have to specifically (as does Woolworths) say sorry you can't do that here rather than simply claim after the fact "well we didn't like what they were doing so it was trespassing" - I am sure you've seen signs outside malls saying "no soliciting" ...

They may indeed have signs like that up. I'll check next time I go there.

 

[Space_Chief]

It assumes an omnibus character and would have to specifically (as does Woolworths) say sorry you can't do that here rather than simply claim after the fact "well we didn't like what they were doing so it was trespassing" - I am sure you've seen signs outside malls saying "no soliciting" ...

Wouldn't a sign "NO PICKETING" even if printed on a cheap printer and stuck on with prestik at the entrance not be valid for this?

 

[Paul Hjul]

I don't know. I am not a lawyer, but it's up to the state to prosecute or not, and it's not as if these people got off scott free. If someone wants to blame their lack of conviction (in the legal sense and not the efforts they put in this protest) they have to blame the constitution, common law and various acts you cited, as well as the prosecutor and magistrate involved. But that's out of control of these protesters themselves even if they get expensive lawyers.

Understandably there will be protests we all won't always agree with. That's part of living in a diverse society. We're vibrant and have to just get to live with each other peacefully.

I am not a lawyer either
This is a subject but the point is that the law relating to protest in this country (on which there is very little written) in my research (to write part of the very little that is written) makes any prospect of a conviction on public disturbance such a remote possibility that the wisdom of arrests should be questioned. Assisting in the removal of persons is one thing but the arrests are an unwelcomed escalation of force by the police.

 

[Space_Chief]

I am not a lawyer either
This is a subject but the point is that the law relating to protest in this country (on which there is very little written) in my research (to write part of the very little that is written) makes any prospect of a conviction on public disturbance such a remote possibility that the wisdom of arrests should be questioned. Assisting in the removal of persons is one thing but the arrests are an unwelcomed escalation of force by the police.

I agree, especially with the very last bit. But speaking for the sake of all the enraged flamers on this thread. The protest resulted in pretty much solid police action which may even be pushing it too far for a democratic and free country such as ours. These people were treated not with kit gloves but with brooms after all

 

[Paul Hjul]

Wouldn't a sign "NO PICKETING" even if printed on a cheap printer and stuck on with prestik at the entrance not be valid for this?

A proper sign saying "Due to acts of intimidation Woolworths exercises its right of refusal for admission to these premises and refuses entry to any person seeking to picket or demonstrate in the confines of these premises" would also do the trick as would an interdict against the BDSI leadership - and there is sufficient precedents and forms that junior counsel can secure same in motion court without batting an eyelid (and costs would fall to the BDSI leadership).

Security guards asking people to leave would also apply, but the point is then that the public disturbance charge is problematic to institute.