Thresher's Nottingham boycott over attack, racism
Stop Corporate Bigotry! | 22.06.2006 14:38 | Anti-racism | Repression
Local activists are stepping up a campaign against a local store with authoritarian policies, after the store manager launched a physical attack on a local activist. Threshers, of 167 Derby Road, Nottingham, is facing a consumer boycott after an individual appearing to be the store owner or manager brutally attacked an activist in the street. The store has been the focus of a campaign against no headwear policies which attack lifestyle choice and persecute religious minorities.
stickers
Activist attacked at Nottingham store – campaign launched
Local activists are stepping up a campaign against a local store with authoritarian policies, after the store manager launched a physical attack on a local activist
Threshers, of 167 Derby Road, Nottingham, is facing a consumer boycott after an individual appearing to be the store owner or manager brutally attacked an activist in the street.
“He physically assaulted me twice”, said the activist concerned, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He grabbed me from behind and tried to drag me into the store. When I grappled with him to get him off me, he let go. But then he attacked me again because he was offended by something I said. He thinks he saw me writing slogans on one of his signs. Yet for all his love of legality he is prepared to commit assault and attempt wrongful imprisonment. He was hysterical – yelling ‘get your hands off me’ because I tried to remove his arm, even though he was the one who attacked me. It was like something out of the Wild West, this vigilante attacking people he doesn’t like to impose his own view of justice”.
Luckily the activist did not suffer serious injury, but he was left with sprained muscles and emotional damage.
The assault is an escalation in a hate campaign against the socially excluded waged by the store. The store has previously been targeted with written slogans on its outside signs and walls, in protest against a discriminatory “policy” banning all headwear such as hats and hoods. Critics accuse the policy of discriminating against religious minorities, demonising youth subcultures and attacking lifestyle choice, and allege that this latest incident expands their intolerance from the store itself into the street.
The “policy” is probably intended to impose vulnerability on customers and staff, so as to make them afraid of the CCTVs which cover the premises and intimidate them into conformity with the wishes of managers. Its effect is to perpetuate social discrimination against nonconformist subcultures and religious minorities. It also takes away the basic freedom to choose what to wear, imposing a degree of social uniformity on people wishing to use the store. Given the overwhelming power held by corporations, this kind of attack on lifestyle choice is only marginally less damaging than similar attacks by state agencies.
It is a form of social cleansing (seizure of social space for the included) at the expense of youth culture in particular – youths and young men wearing hoodies are one of the major targets of the ban (though of course, it equally affects elderly women wearing shawls). It is part of a broader, state- and media-led assault on people identified as poor, socially discontented, and potentially nonconformist. Instead of combating social exclusion, this campaign of persecution exacerbates it. It has also been demonstrated to increase social problems by labelling people as villains.
Possible racist implications can also be drawn. Since some religious groups such as Sikhs are required to wear head coverings for religious reasons, the policy also amounts to religious discrimination. It would also raise an outcry over Islamophobia were it not for the fact that devout Muslims are unlikely to use the store. Some orthodox Jewish people also wear head coverings as a matter of principle. The policy is thus an example of systematic discrimination against religious minorities – all the more sinister for its specific impact on religions associated with ethnic minorities. Indeed, it could be viewed as a repetition of the old “no dogs, no Jews, no blacks” signs which preceded race relations legislation. It amounts to a systematic ban on certain religious groups.
The manager has gone to absurd lengths to victimise activists, even posting a spotter outside the store in an attempt to identify people involved in writing slogans. The manager also claims to have called the police over the incident – though since police wear hats, it would be hypocritical for them to be permitted to enter the store. Thus the store is wasting resources gained from customers, as well as draining funding from taxpayers.
A boycott call has been put out, and a corresponding series of stickers unleashed exposing the store as “critic bashers” and as promoting discrimination and opposing lifestyle freedom. The aim of the boycott is to persuade the store to reverse the restrictive headwear “policy”, as well as to retaliate economically against the assault on a campaigner.
“They might think twice about this kind of authoritarianism if they’re hit in the pocket”, said one activist. “It’s important that they don’t get away with this kind of thing – pursuing intolerant policies and then brutalising people for criticising them. They will soon realise that they’ve taken the lid off a can of worms with this. There are ways to deal with these kinds of corporate criminals who think they can get away with persecution”.
The boycott will continue until the headwear “policy” is repealed. Campaigners are also urging people to complain to race relations bodies about the situation.
Local activists are stepping up a campaign against a local store with authoritarian policies, after the store manager launched a physical attack on a local activist
Threshers, of 167 Derby Road, Nottingham, is facing a consumer boycott after an individual appearing to be the store owner or manager brutally attacked an activist in the street.
“He physically assaulted me twice”, said the activist concerned, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He grabbed me from behind and tried to drag me into the store. When I grappled with him to get him off me, he let go. But then he attacked me again because he was offended by something I said. He thinks he saw me writing slogans on one of his signs. Yet for all his love of legality he is prepared to commit assault and attempt wrongful imprisonment. He was hysterical – yelling ‘get your hands off me’ because I tried to remove his arm, even though he was the one who attacked me. It was like something out of the Wild West, this vigilante attacking people he doesn’t like to impose his own view of justice”.
Luckily the activist did not suffer serious injury, but he was left with sprained muscles and emotional damage.
The assault is an escalation in a hate campaign against the socially excluded waged by the store. The store has previously been targeted with written slogans on its outside signs and walls, in protest against a discriminatory “policy” banning all headwear such as hats and hoods. Critics accuse the policy of discriminating against religious minorities, demonising youth subcultures and attacking lifestyle choice, and allege that this latest incident expands their intolerance from the store itself into the street.
The “policy” is probably intended to impose vulnerability on customers and staff, so as to make them afraid of the CCTVs which cover the premises and intimidate them into conformity with the wishes of managers. Its effect is to perpetuate social discrimination against nonconformist subcultures and religious minorities. It also takes away the basic freedom to choose what to wear, imposing a degree of social uniformity on people wishing to use the store. Given the overwhelming power held by corporations, this kind of attack on lifestyle choice is only marginally less damaging than similar attacks by state agencies.
It is a form of social cleansing (seizure of social space for the included) at the expense of youth culture in particular – youths and young men wearing hoodies are one of the major targets of the ban (though of course, it equally affects elderly women wearing shawls). It is part of a broader, state- and media-led assault on people identified as poor, socially discontented, and potentially nonconformist. Instead of combating social exclusion, this campaign of persecution exacerbates it. It has also been demonstrated to increase social problems by labelling people as villains.
Possible racist implications can also be drawn. Since some religious groups such as Sikhs are required to wear head coverings for religious reasons, the policy also amounts to religious discrimination. It would also raise an outcry over Islamophobia were it not for the fact that devout Muslims are unlikely to use the store. Some orthodox Jewish people also wear head coverings as a matter of principle. The policy is thus an example of systematic discrimination against religious minorities – all the more sinister for its specific impact on religions associated with ethnic minorities. Indeed, it could be viewed as a repetition of the old “no dogs, no Jews, no blacks” signs which preceded race relations legislation. It amounts to a systematic ban on certain religious groups.
The manager has gone to absurd lengths to victimise activists, even posting a spotter outside the store in an attempt to identify people involved in writing slogans. The manager also claims to have called the police over the incident – though since police wear hats, it would be hypocritical for them to be permitted to enter the store. Thus the store is wasting resources gained from customers, as well as draining funding from taxpayers.
A boycott call has been put out, and a corresponding series of stickers unleashed exposing the store as “critic bashers” and as promoting discrimination and opposing lifestyle freedom. The aim of the boycott is to persuade the store to reverse the restrictive headwear “policy”, as well as to retaliate economically against the assault on a campaigner.
“They might think twice about this kind of authoritarianism if they’re hit in the pocket”, said one activist. “It’s important that they don’t get away with this kind of thing – pursuing intolerant policies and then brutalising people for criticising them. They will soon realise that they’ve taken the lid off a can of worms with this. There are ways to deal with these kinds of corporate criminals who think they can get away with persecution”.
The boycott will continue until the headwear “policy” is repealed. Campaigners are also urging people to complain to race relations bodies about the situation.
Stop Corporate Bigotry!
Comments
Display the following 48 comments