By Paul Daquilante • Staff Writer • 

Amity Market workers claim repeated abuse

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .



Someone needs to tell Deedar Singh he is in a civilized country and to act like it or leave.


How about boycotting the Amity 7-Eleven?


Lulu, it isn't a 7-11.

I have lived in Amity for years and there has never been a situation like this. The market has always supported the schools and community. With this situation it does explain the high turnover they have had in the last year. It is sad these ladies had to endure this. Boycotting a small store, because of one bad employee, is more harmful to the local owners of the store and their employees. If we were to boycott all small stores and restaurants that had bad employees, there would be no place open.


In this case, boycotting is taking a stand against illegal, perverted behavior. Feeling morally indignant doesn't alter someone's bottom line. Economic sanctions, sadly, remain the more persuasive tactic.


Lulu, if he owned the business that would make sense. Since he is only an employee, it hurts the owners (who didn't have anything to do with his actions) and the other employees, creating a loss of wages and income to them on top of the other issues with his being associated with that business.

There is also this small thing of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You assume he is guilty, what if he is not? Then, following your line of reasoning, when/if he was to return to work there may not be a spot for him due to lack of customers.