A new report from The Australia Institute has shown that potential Government plans to outlaw so called โsecondary boycottsโ would require significant legislative reform, could threaten the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution and ignores a long history of consumer choice protests in Australia.
โAttempts to outlaw consumer choice amount to a clamp down on freedom of expression and personal liberty in Australia,โ said Ben Oquist, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.
โHistorically, secondary boycotts have been used in Australia in relation to important issues such as the sale of steel to Japan during World War II and in opposition to apartheid in South Africa.
โToday, consumer freedom is critical for Australiaโs market economy to function efficiently. All Australians โ whatever their political persuasion โ should be able to advocate for and against products and companies of their choice.
โMatt Canavanโs previous call for Queenslanders to desert Westpac should be protected. David Littleproud should be free to continue to advocate for boycotts of Aldi and Coles over milk prices and George Christensenโs proposed ban on Ben and Jerryโs ice-cream should be allowed in a free country.
โThe fact that Government MPs call for boycotts themselves shows us that they are an essential part of the political debate.
โOutlawing consumer protests in the way the Government has suggested will more than likely require the creation of entirely new offences and/or the removal of a range of consumer protections from the Competition and Consumer Act.
โSuch wholesale redrafting of the rights to communication and protest in Australia would be an unfortunate overreaction and an affront to the free speech on which Australian democracy is built.โ
#่จ่ ๆ #pressconference
ๅคงๅๆฐไธป่ฏ็่จ่ ๆ ๅฐฑ9ๆ2ๆฅๅคงๅๅฏๅ้จไธไธญๅญธๅ ๅญธๆ ก่็็ฝท่ชฒๅญธ็ๅ้ก๏ผๅผ็ผๅ ฌ็พ่้่ฒๆด๏ผๆ็ตๅผ่ด่ญฆๆนๅบๅ้็พ้ฒๆด่ญฆๅฏๆธ ๅ ด๏ผ่ๅไปๆฅๆฉไธ๏ผๅคงๅๅฏๅ้จๅฆไธๆไธญๅญธๅญธ็ๆท็ๅ ้ฒๆด่ญฆๅฏๆชๆฅๅๅฎณๆ่ขซๆ่่ทๅๅๅท๏ผๆๅ่ช็บ่ญฆๆน้ไปฝๆๅฃ๏ผๆฟซๆฌใๅคงๅๆฐไธป่ฏ็ๅฐๆผไปๅคฉไธๅ4ๆๅฐๅคงๅ่ญฆ็ฝฒ่ซ้ก๏ผ้่ซๅๅณๅชๆฉๆงๆดพๅกๆก่จช๏ผ ๆฅๆ๏ผ2019ๅนด9ๆ3ๆฅ (ๆๆไบ) ๆ้๏ผไธๅ4ๆ ่ฏ็ตก๏ผๅคงๅๅ่ญฐๅก้ๆฐธๆฅญ66958176 / ๅคงๅๅ่ญฐๅกไปปๅ้ฆ92154319
This morning, students from another secondary school in Fu Shin Estate were allegedly injured while running away from riot police who stopped them, in fear of being arrested. We believe the police has abused their power. The Tai Po Democratic Alliance will voice their concern outside Tai Po Police Station at 4pm today. We invite the press to attend. Date: Sep 3, 2019 (Tuesday) Time: 4pm Contact: District Councillor of Tai Po Kwan Wing Yip 66958176 / Yam Kai Bong 92154319
A student secretly films the conversation in a classroom
Dialogue: "[Teacher] The Education Bureau has given us instructions that we must tell them then number of students who are on strike. So we need to tell them this number. ... Actually, every school will do the same. If you want freedom, the only way is for you to not be a student here. You have come to this school, you may say that you don't want to learn, I wouldn't know if students really learn in class or not. That is your own free will.
But when you come into this school, do you have a right to choose your teacher, to choose which class you're in?
You have never had this choice. Now, you're allocated(by the school) which classroom you are in, but now you're saying, "I choose to go there(said classrooms) instead."
This is not your freedom. This has never been your freedom. Why would you think you have this freedom now? You've never had this freedom.
[Student] So there's no freedom.
[Teacher] No, you do not have absolute freedom. If you want to have freedom, the only way is for you to not be a student here. I'm sorry, but if you choose when and where you will sit, which teacher you will face... ... Sorry, we've arranged that you will sit here today.
[Student] What's the point of sitting there(classrooms)? We cannot voice our views there.
[Teacher] You're only on strike.
[Student] But striking is voicing our views.
[Teacher] How is striking voicing your view? A strike is just a strike. ... Striking is not voicing your view, it's an expression. Striking and expressing your views are two different things. ... [Student] Just now, you spoke about the list of students on strike.
[Teacher] To be honest, the Education Bureau has given us instructions that we must tell them the number of strikes who are on strike. So we need to tell them the numbers. ... Every school is doing the same thing"
https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cyoabn/secondary_school_principal_admits_that_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
to break away from culture war shenanigans lets talk about ethics for a change!
A secondary boycott is boycotting a business that has no dispute with those boycotting in an attempt to force the primary boycotted business into an action. So basically its GG boycotting advertisers of websites.
In nearly ever first world country secondary boycotts by labor organizations are illegal. They are illegal because they leverage more power and force than the unions actually have to force unfair deals also the secondary boycotts create unnecessary "victims" by forcing a company that has done nothing to wrong the workers into a lose/lose situation.
Are secondary boycotts ethical for non-union organizations and groups?
Do movements and organizations have any obligation to be ethical?
Is using unethical or questionably ethical tactics to end ethical breaches a legitimate strategy?
