I have recently been subject to some peculiar form of harassment: Very often leaving a shopping centre I am being asked to open my bags or show dockets of goods purchased. This often happens just after having passed through the cashier, despite CCTV cameras littering the shop, staff having a watchful eye on customers and goods detectors guarding the exit. As this has gone a bit overboard I have become quite angry at that - refusing to open my bags. I sought legal advice about what my rights and duties are in this respect - the bottom line is, that the shop has basically no rights to search my bags or hinder my exit in any way (in Australia). So they rely on the naivety and goodwill of the people to comply to their wishes. I came to a head at a few occasions with the staff involved in the searching.
I have been pondering my feelings and action in this respect for a long time - and haven't reached a conclusion, as to what could be described "appropriate behaviour". I have formed a lot of arguments for opposing and complying to these requests, but haven't been able to balance these. I would like to ask my fellow forum members, what their thoughts are in this respect. Of course, these situations are relatively benign or even unimportant, but are symbolic for a trend in our society. So the answer to this question may hold more than just knowing what to do exiting a shop ...
On one hand I find, that shops, the government, the police etc. is getting more and more confident in violating our private sphere. Even though the legislation on paper protects the customer or citizen, in reality very little can be felt of that protection. As to the situation in the shops, the staff often hasn't got a clue of the rights of the customer and the lack of authority of their part - they wear an uniform, and that puts them on an even keel with law enforcement officials - in their view. These individuals often are not the most pleasant or positive, that opt for this job. So to resist and invoke the rights of the individual is sort of a duty of the citizen, unless we let our rights slip away unopposed.
On the other hand, I am not advocating violence at all, or organizing people to fight these trends - I regard it more as a duty towards myself. But then there is strategic enclosure (SE) and external considering (EC). By defending my rights, do I not leave SE and EC behind? Do I not "violate" the right of the person fulfilling this job? Then also, do I fight on the wrong plane, with the wrong weapons - as the enemy is different, hidden - and as the C's say: knowledge protects from all negativity, and all we need is to have the faith that acquiring knowledge is all we need. So instead of fighting the poor bloke at the exit, should I not externally consider him and further my own development, kind of not wasting energy on a side issue?
or the following quote I read from the SOTT editors:
So now I have given you my thoughts - some pro, some contra resisting - and I would be very grateful for your insight into what has had me preoccupied for the last few months.
I have been pondering my feelings and action in this respect for a long time - and haven't reached a conclusion, as to what could be described "appropriate behaviour". I have formed a lot of arguments for opposing and complying to these requests, but haven't been able to balance these. I would like to ask my fellow forum members, what their thoughts are in this respect. Of course, these situations are relatively benign or even unimportant, but are symbolic for a trend in our society. So the answer to this question may hold more than just knowing what to do exiting a shop ...
On one hand I find, that shops, the government, the police etc. is getting more and more confident in violating our private sphere. Even though the legislation on paper protects the customer or citizen, in reality very little can be felt of that protection. As to the situation in the shops, the staff often hasn't got a clue of the rights of the customer and the lack of authority of their part - they wear an uniform, and that puts them on an even keel with law enforcement officials - in their view. These individuals often are not the most pleasant or positive, that opt for this job. So to resist and invoke the rights of the individual is sort of a duty of the citizen, unless we let our rights slip away unopposed.
On the other hand, I am not advocating violence at all, or organizing people to fight these trends - I regard it more as a duty towards myself. But then there is strategic enclosure (SE) and external considering (EC). By defending my rights, do I not leave SE and EC behind? Do I not "violate" the right of the person fulfilling this job? Then also, do I fight on the wrong plane, with the wrong weapons - as the enemy is different, hidden - and as the C's say: knowledge protects from all negativity, and all we need is to have the faith that acquiring knowledge is all we need. So instead of fighting the poor bloke at the exit, should I not externally consider him and further my own development, kind of not wasting energy on a side issue?
or the following quote I read from the SOTT editors:
So now I have given you my thoughts - some pro, some contra resisting - and I would be very grateful for your insight into what has had me preoccupied for the last few months.
