Sure.

The whole thing seems to stem from the protesters misinterpreting the display as suggesting that women must have pretty little knickers, when it's actually saying that M&S knickers are must-haves. There is a very real semantic difference. To be charitable to the protesters, it would probably have been tone-deaf for M&S to suggest that women must have lingerie and men must have suits, but the wording doesn't imply that at all. A must-have is just an item of desire or value, whereas must have is more of a command that could be inferred to support. Both M&S's suits and lingerie are must-haves compared to cheaper, less stylish alternatives from competitors, which plays in with M&S's market position as a mid-high end brand, but the campaign isn't at all saying that anyone must actually have any of the products on show.

Hyphens are powerful things.