Here it comes – anti-Union company ban workers for ‘gang patch’ T shirts
I’ve said that aside form the fact that the Gang Patch ban won’t work (and is counter productive), I’ve also argued the danger here is the State misusing these powers against Environmentalists and Protestors.
Well, here we have already had anti-Union company AFFCO banning workers from wearing Union T-Shirts because apparently the T-Shirts were gang patches…
AFFCO blasted over ‘petty’ t-shirt dispute
The Council of Trade Unions is blasting AFFCO’s decision to stand down five staff for wearing campaign t-shirts, as completely ridiculous.
AFFCO said the t-shirts, with the slogan ‘Jobs that count’ on the front and ‘Meat Workers Union’ on the back…resemble gang insignia.
CTU President Richard Wagstaff said it shows a pattern of authoritative behaviour…and the company has been found to have unlawfully locked staff out in the past.
…FFS
This bullshit Gang Patch law hasn’t even been passed yet we’ve already had the Right wings Business goons trying it on by banning Union workers for supposedly wearing gang insignia.
Every week that passes under this hard right racist climate denying beneficiary bashing Government, I hate this country a little bit more.
This is the Rights way to shut us out of public life by claiming anything we wear intimidates them.
AFFCO are just the start, watch these bastards try it on everywhere they can.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media.
Ah yes, AFFCO, owned by Talley’s, also a part owner of a Mr. Winston Peters…
Yes, that looks to be true, yet people still claim that there is low corruption in NZ. I guess all that means is that it is only corruption if it goes against the ruling class.
And yet a PM can decline to live in the house which goes with his job and get paid more by the tax payer for doing so.
Talley’s might own part of Winston Peters but I own his soul.
Talleys brother are fucking arseholes and have been for years .Watch all their meat plants close when all the gang members walkout
Well, well, well…I have written a bit online about the Natzos “snatch the patch” plan, and to local papers. My argument is that whatever you think about Mangu Kaha or Mighty Mongrel Mob it is an attack on freedom of association, assembly and speech for all.
What next will be banned I asked…union badges, TPM signs, GreenPeace Banners, Rainbow T shirts? predictably some said…no, surely not, that won’t happen. And now filthy Talleys/AFFCO have suspended workers for their union clothing.
This Govt. is likely to develop a ‘proscribed’ list of acceptable patches and apparel, Tribesmen, MMM, etc. out…Destiny Church in…and what about the grey beard bikers…HOG–Harley Owners Group and Ulysses Riders?
It is a farce, the only people that have ever regularly threatened me have been suits and blue belly uniform wearers.
Just pointing out, that the above story was from 2015. Im not too sure what the situation is now though.
But, I agree AFFCO and Talleys have form in this.
Notice we never hear the hells angels mentioned in all the hysteria about gangs do we .Oh thtas right they are only white fellas so they must be ok
A soupcon from Gordon Campbell on patches.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2403/S00003/on-the-flaws-in-anti-gang-laws.htm
But here’s the thing. According to Luxon, we’re naturally bold, inventive and self-reliant. Yet according to him, we’re also “wet, whiny and inward-looking”. In fact, we’re so fearful and so easily intimidated by the sight of a gang patch, or by seeing a group of big Maori bikers riding down the road… That we tend to be reduced to a state of gibbering helplessness, such that the state must intervene to protect us from these horrors.
Here’s another paradox. The coalition government is a staunch defender of us being able to say what we like, but is happy to decree what we can wear. In the past, ACT Party leader David Seymour has defended free speech, and (specifically) the right to be “insulting” “abusive” and “offensive.” Seymour’s message to those verbally affronted or abused? Suck it up. But clothing that offends? The onus will be on the wearers to disrobe and disperse,or face criminal penalties.
Basically, Seymour and his colleagues are supporting the state’s right to dictate what people can wear in public – or even (presumably) on their own private property, if a gang patch should be visible to a member of the public who happens to be passing by on the street. The fact that the “display” of gang insignia in this Western Australia case occurred on private property – and consisted of tattoos with which the accused had freely chosen to decorate his own body –proved to be no defence:
Three Perth-based outlaw motorcycle gang members have received landmark convictions under strict new gang laws after being caught showing their club tattoos while shirtless at a pool party… Defence lawyers argued as the pool at the Rendezvous Hotel is not public, no laws were broken. Though that was to little avail, with the magistrate rejecting the argument.
This judgement isn’t an aberration. As lawyers in Western Australia have advised their clients:
It does not matter whether the person who is displaying the insignia is in public or private, the law merely requires that the insignia would be able to be viewed by a person in a public place. For example a person who is lying by a pool on a sundeck at a beachfront home and a tattoo containing insignia on their shoulder would be visible to persons driving or walking past along the footpath or roadway, the person would be committing the offence, regardless of the fact that they are on private property. (Can there be no end to the stupidity of authority when trying to crush people who aren’t properly amenable!)
Thankfully, our government has already changed its tune on the issue of tattoos. After initially claiming that gang members would be required to use cosmetics to cover up their tattoos, Justice Minister Mark Mitchell has recently conceded that since tattoos are of cultural significance to Maori, tattoos will not be banned under the legislation he has in train.