Three climate activists have been fined for attempting to spray political messages on Woodside boss Meg O'Neill's home, after a Perth magistrate told the trio they had crossed a line by targeting her personally.
Not sure i’ve articulated the knub of the issue i have with this case yet. I think i’m close, but apologies if this seems a bit indecipherable.
No doubt someone’s said it in a pithier way, but you get the point across!
If I can’t leave work at the end of the day and escape the consequences of climate change, why should Meg O’Neill be able to leave work and escape that she is causing it?
No surprise that a judge would work to reify the legal abstractions used to insulate powerful people from their own actions. You get the feeling that when they say “the premier”, they’re thinking about themselves 😆
I’m causing climate change. You’re causing climate change. We are all causing climate change.
Woodside could go away tomorrow and it would not make a sliver of difference to climate change. Whatever Woodside is doing would be taken up by another company and we’d all continue to go about our day.
No surprise that a judge would work to reify the legal abstractions used to insulate powerful people from their own actions.
Um, This is a very clear case of trespass and intent for criminal damage. You’re talking like they got 30 year prison sentences.
"Emil Davey, 24, and Matilda Lane-Rose, 20, were given $2,000 fines, while their co-accused Jesse Noakes, 36, was fined $2,500 at their sentencing hearing at the Perth Magistrates Court on Monday."
Given that supporters are paying these fines, there are essentially no personal consequences to the protestors. What’s the issue, here? This judgement is very middle of the lane for the crime committed.
I thought the judgement was fair in the end considering our current state of laws. But the legal question Magistrate Heath threw up, “how far is too far” is the bit i find interesting.
If I can’t leave work at the end of the day and escape the consequences of climate change, why should Meg O’Neill be able to leave work and escape that she is causing it?
This is my point, in this case, but i feel like this point has a wider application.
Below i’m trying to develop a broader meaning.
So a persons life is a whole. We can divide it into sections for ordering, or organising the different aspects of that life, but it is one continuous set.
If we accept that, then a person’s decisions in their work and private life should have the same weight.
Except they don’t, because conventions such as, acting in capacity as an officer of a company, Employer-Employee relations including up to situations of duress, as well as the most basic, reasonable expectations of carrying out the work, et al.
So as an employee you have less rights, but also less responsibilities because the employer takes on those on your behalf.
The current system has developed out of the Negligence Tort, but has developed so far that it is rare for someone to be held liable, personally, for their actions while in the position of employee.
But you can’t punish an entity like a company cery easily.
So i suppose my question is, has the legal system given too much weight to the employers responsibilities and rights in association to its employees. Therefore rendering the employees dangerously less concerned about repercussions for behaviour they would be more considerate of in their private lives.
No doubt someone’s said it in a pithier way, but you get the point across!
If I can’t leave work at the end of the day and escape the consequences of climate change, why should Meg O’Neill be able to leave work and escape that she is causing it?
No surprise that a judge would work to reify the legal abstractions used to insulate powerful people from their own actions. You get the feeling that when they say “the premier”, they’re thinking about themselves 😆
I’m causing climate change. You’re causing climate change. We are all causing climate change.
Woodside could go away tomorrow and it would not make a sliver of difference to climate change. Whatever Woodside is doing would be taken up by another company and we’d all continue to go about our day.
Um, This is a very clear case of trespass and intent for criminal damage. You’re talking like they got 30 year prison sentences.
Given that supporters are paying these fines, there are essentially no personal consequences to the protestors. What’s the issue, here? This judgement is very middle of the lane for the crime committed.
I thought the judgement was fair in the end considering our current state of laws. But the legal question Magistrate Heath threw up, “how far is too far” is the bit i find interesting.
This is my point, in this case, but i feel like this point has a wider application.
Below i’m trying to develop a broader meaning.
So a persons life is a whole. We can divide it into sections for ordering, or organising the different aspects of that life, but it is one continuous set.
If we accept that, then a person’s decisions in their work and private life should have the same weight.
Except they don’t, because conventions such as, acting in capacity as an officer of a company, Employer-Employee relations including up to situations of duress, as well as the most basic, reasonable expectations of carrying out the work, et al.
So as an employee you have less rights, but also less responsibilities because the employer takes on those on your behalf.
The current system has developed out of the Negligence Tort, but has developed so far that it is rare for someone to be held liable, personally, for their actions while in the position of employee.
But you can’t punish an entity like a company cery easily.
So i suppose my question is, has the legal system given too much weight to the employers responsibilities and rights in association to its employees. Therefore rendering the employees dangerously less concerned about repercussions for behaviour they would be more considerate of in their private lives.