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.
There has been no suggestion that these protestors were practicing, or threatening anything near vigilantism or lynching. Ot was a protest, that inder the law, crossed into intent to do criminal damage. Its probably an exorbitant description to align with the protestors.
There has been no suggestion that these protestors were practicing, or threatening anything near vigilantism or lynching
with these protesters yeah
The Disrupt Burrup Hub group members had planned to splash paint on the garage of her home, while Lane-Rose was to use a bike lock to secure herself to a gate.
They’re probably vegan and about as aggressive as a dimmer switch but not everyone will be, think about if Nazi’s decide it’s now cool to start targeting left wing business owners at their own personal homes, will they stop at just paint or take it further?
Imagine these lovely fellas show up to your house:
I’s never arguing the legality of the paint, handcuffs or the protestors. I think the Judges decision was quite fair.
I’s arguing the lack of accountability that we have when we don our ‘employee’ hats and whether thats more damaging to the public good than we have considered to date.
The language adopted around Meg O’Niel as a meer CEO, an employee of the company, therefore direct your anger at the company your perceive to be doing wrong.
But this accepted and legal separation removes so many of us from the full responsibilities of our actions. And in this case the decisions Meg O’Neil makes are an exemplary example of this. Where her actions can have huge negative consequences, but the convention is to blame the company not the person. My problem is the company is made up of people, and in that heirarchy the CEO is functionally top.
By targetting her in her personal life, the protestors have implicitly rejected the hard separation between personal and professional lives. They probably haven’t realised this themselves.
We’ve had decades of inaction on the back of nice friendly sign-holding. Our politicians and the uber-wealthy like O’Neill have kept destroying the planet regardless.
If they have their property damaged or their access inconvenienced, too fucking bad. That’s about the least they deserve. You won’t find any pity from me.
My only question, does this level of violence extend towards regular people as well?
Eg. people who go out and buy the heaviest co2 emitting yank tank they can? what about people who are using the gas the company produces to heat their hot water and can go electric but choose not to?
Well now they are public figures by virtue of being prats
There’s a reason we don’t do vigilantism and lynching anymore
There has been no suggestion that these protestors were practicing, or threatening anything near vigilantism or lynching. Ot was a protest, that inder the law, crossed into intent to do criminal damage. Its probably an exorbitant description to align with the protestors.
with these protesters yeah
They’re probably vegan and about as aggressive as a dimmer switch but not everyone will be, think about if Nazi’s decide it’s now cool to start targeting left wing business owners at their own personal homes, will they stop at just paint or take it further?
Imagine these lovely fellas show up to your house:
Hundreds swarm LGBTQI protesters at MP Mark Latham’s event in Sydney https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTj5YhJC5s
No ty
I’s never arguing the legality of the paint, handcuffs or the protestors. I think the Judges decision was quite fair.
I’s arguing the lack of accountability that we have when we don our ‘employee’ hats and whether thats more damaging to the public good than we have considered to date.
The language adopted around Meg O’Niel as a meer CEO, an employee of the company, therefore direct your anger at the company your perceive to be doing wrong.
But this accepted and legal separation removes so many of us from the full responsibilities of our actions. And in this case the decisions Meg O’Neil makes are an exemplary example of this. Where her actions can have huge negative consequences, but the convention is to blame the company not the person. My problem is the company is made up of people, and in that heirarchy the CEO is functionally top.
By targetting her in her personal life, the protestors have implicitly rejected the hard separation between personal and professional lives. They probably haven’t realised this themselves.
I don’t know, i hope i’ve made myself clearer.
Ah yeah I get ya, I can see a bit of a link between what you’re saying and the old excuse “I was only following orders”
Yep, thats it. Thats where i’m at with it.
We’ve had decades of inaction on the back of nice friendly sign-holding. Our politicians and the uber-wealthy like O’Neill have kept destroying the planet regardless.
If they have their property damaged or their access inconvenienced, too fucking bad. That’s about the least they deserve. You won’t find any pity from me.
My only question, does this level of violence extend towards regular people as well?
Eg. people who go out and buy the heaviest co2 emitting yank tank they can? what about people who are using the gas the company produces to heat their hot water and can go electric but choose not to?
Where is your line drawn?