format_quote Originally Posted by
MuslimAgorist
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point, and what violence is. "enforced -yes indeed- by force" IS violence.
What you write here is for public readership and therefore, your expressions need to abide by public use of language, not have language be warped to fit whatever it is that you are trying to express as a point.
Violence is physical force that can cause physical damage, and is thus shunned by society and is only legitimate in stopping similar violent physical actions. Enforcement through fines or legal action or administrative officers closing down the office is NOT violence. Please don't claim that others have misunderstood when you are failing to communicate properly.
To say that A&F "took away" her livelihood is a fundamental misapprehension of who owns what. You don't own your job. You're job is a transaction. You own your labor. She still owns her labor.
Jobs are regulated exchange of labour/application of knowledge for money and other benefits, it is based on conditions set in employment law and the contract written in between, and the CONTINUITY of this employment based on merit and delivery of the labour/application of knowledge is not only implied, but is explicit in the agreement and presents a basis for agreeing to work. If there was mention in the contract that she will NOT be able to work if she is abiding by religious beliefs and a dresscode, she would have opted for another job and another company. So yes, it IS a loss of livelihood and earnings for the time it takes to find another job, go through its training, and become normalized in it, which could take many months.
Even by "Eye for an Eye" all this crime legitimizes is discrimination against the company, i.e. a boycott.
Ok, first you said that. But later on you said: "Boycotting is not violence, it is ostracism." I am glad however Muezzin called it and you admitted to miscommunicating. However:
Legal activism doesn't lead to boycotting, it leads to legal orders, usually paying a settlement.
That is just nonsense. Every person knows that a legal action against a big company in the States is about drawing publicity to a company's practice, and that it will reduce its business. Which leads us to the last main call you were actively making:
I wrote "put down the gun and pick up the megaphone." What part of that says "keep their mouths shut." I am actively calling for market activism.
Even if it does work, it is still force, or what you like to call "violence". An institution willingly and knowingly fired that woman will only stop such a practice when the "market activism" delivers business losses, and will only fix the situation because their business analysts tell them they are losing enough money to consider the reversal in position
Nothing different from the fines that can be awarded by a judge, because the only way to enforce those civil lawsuits is just more fines that affect their profits and produce income statement losses, and just like before they will only fix the situation when their business analysts tell them they are losing enough money to consider the reversal in position.
So your whole claim that "market activism" is better than "legal activism" because legal is violent but market is non-violent, is actually non-existent. Add to that the fact that boycott and market activism is STILL discrimination against the company, your whole article is not making sense.
I really did't have much interest in all these thoughts you were talking about (law enforcement is violence and all that), maybe it is part of your "Agorist" philosophical views. I responded however because you made statements that suggested muslims should behave in a certain way, and I was informing you that such behaviour is actually unislamic or goes against Islamic concepts of struggle. So although you are free to believe what you wish to believe, since you write under this name "MuslimAgorist" then we will at least address the "Muslim" part. So should you by the way, that is think and address judgement as a Muslim first and foremost.