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.
That language pre-supposes a sacredness of ‘home’ that can’t be crossed.
Yes. It can’t be crossed. It’s literally what the court case was about. Crossing that line is against the law in the same way as assaulting the CEO would be against the law.
I don’t know her home situation, but for my part, I have kids at home. If you decide you have issues with me and attack my home, you’re attacking my kids more than me. You’re taking their safe space away from them, and frankly at that point, I don’t care what your issue/cause is. You become the bad guys.
Yes, this is the key issue for the case and is the issue i’m talking about.
Because for me its an interesting question whether we are drawing that line, which undoubtedly exists, too broadly in favour of peoples private lives, to the detriment of the countrys public body.
These protestors have accidentally hit on a problem i think exists, but as i haven’t articulated this problem fully yet. I have two problems i’ve identified, so far, with my argument
As you’ve rightly stated, there is undoubtedly a line that is a necessary separation for the ordering of each other’s individual lives otherwise we are no better than a Stasi-like State. My question is where, i think, there are many egregious examples of professionals crossing that very same line in the course of their work, and how this protest has highlighted the problematic nature of work lives impacting on personal lives without any censure.
I can’t think, off the top of my head, of examples where the actions of people in their professional lives impact others in the personal lives. Without an ongoing series of examples of this nature, i can’t indicate the structural issue i think i see with the broad and hard boundaries we are drawing between personal and professional lives.
I don’t know, as i say, my views here are in flux, because its a question of emphasis and weight of values we put differing between our work lives and our personal lives. I’ll jave to come back and read through peoples thoughts later on tonight though.
I can’t think, off the top of my head, of examples where the actions of people in their professional lives impact others in the personal lives.
My entire industry (IT) does this. We build things that make work more efficient, which leads to entire job sectors going away.
I’ve helped build systems that led to work being so much easier that 80% of the workforce was redundant. Think of all the cashier’s that are gone, replaced by self service checkouts etc.
Lately AI has been disrupting people. I don’t work in this field, but you could call it sorta IT.
It’s happening soon™️: I can’t find the stats on how many people drive for work, but I’m pretty sure it’s in the double-digits. Self driving vehicles are close to reality - what happens to all those workers?
So, my point is a question about whether employees hiding behind the ‘corporate veil’ of legal protection who have taken actions to the detriment of others aren’t held to account the same way they should be, if they had taken those actions in their personal lives.
Workers who take positive actions, or what could loosely be described as not negative in the aggregate, in their professional lives are often, not always, recognised for their actions in the form of pay, bonuses, time off, promotions, public endorsements such as local business awards and more.
While the positive work they have performed for a company is retained and owned by the company, the reputation and rewards for that work go with them personally.
What i’m questioning is whether the protection of the corporate veil has gone so far that the approbium for negative actions isn’t attached to individuals personally. And whether that is a detriment to our society.
IT could work as an example, in the privacy space. There have been some questionable ethical actions there. Problem is, as you rightly say the massive changes, largely positive, to our society by IT has sort of swamped these negative actions for the majority of people.
Yes. It can’t be crossed. It’s literally what the court case was about. Crossing that line is against the law in the same way as assaulting the CEO would be against the law.
I don’t know her home situation, but for my part, I have kids at home. If you decide you have issues with me and attack my home, you’re attacking my kids more than me. You’re taking their safe space away from them, and frankly at that point, I don’t care what your issue/cause is. You become the bad guys.
Yes, this is the key issue for the case and is the issue i’m talking about.
Because for me its an interesting question whether we are drawing that line, which undoubtedly exists, too broadly in favour of peoples private lives, to the detriment of the countrys public body.
These protestors have accidentally hit on a problem i think exists, but as i haven’t articulated this problem fully yet. I have two problems i’ve identified, so far, with my argument
As you’ve rightly stated, there is undoubtedly a line that is a necessary separation for the ordering of each other’s individual lives otherwise we are no better than a Stasi-like State. My question is where, i think, there are many egregious examples of professionals crossing that very same line in the course of their work, and how this protest has highlighted the problematic nature of work lives impacting on personal lives without any censure.
I can’t think, off the top of my head, of examples where the actions of people in their professional lives impact others in the personal lives. Without an ongoing series of examples of this nature, i can’t indicate the structural issue i think i see with the broad and hard boundaries we are drawing between personal and professional lives.
I don’t know, as i say, my views here are in flux, because its a question of emphasis and weight of values we put differing between our work lives and our personal lives. I’ll jave to come back and read through peoples thoughts later on tonight though.
My entire industry (IT) does this. We build things that make work more efficient, which leads to entire job sectors going away.
I’ve helped build systems that led to work being so much easier that 80% of the workforce was redundant. Think of all the cashier’s that are gone, replaced by self service checkouts etc.
Lately AI has been disrupting people. I don’t work in this field, but you could call it sorta IT.
It’s happening soon™️: I can’t find the stats on how many people drive for work, but I’m pretty sure it’s in the double-digits. Self driving vehicles are close to reality - what happens to all those workers?
Are IT workers evil for doing this sort of work?
So, my point is a question about whether employees hiding behind the ‘corporate veil’ of legal protection who have taken actions to the detriment of others aren’t held to account the same way they should be, if they had taken those actions in their personal lives.
Workers who take positive actions, or what could loosely be described as not negative in the aggregate, in their professional lives are often, not always, recognised for their actions in the form of pay, bonuses, time off, promotions, public endorsements such as local business awards and more.
While the positive work they have performed for a company is retained and owned by the company, the reputation and rewards for that work go with them personally.
What i’m questioning is whether the protection of the corporate veil has gone so far that the approbium for negative actions isn’t attached to individuals personally. And whether that is a detriment to our society.
IT could work as an example, in the privacy space. There have been some questionable ethical actions there. Problem is, as you rightly say the massive changes, largely positive, to our society by IT has sort of swamped these negative actions for the majority of people.