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.
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’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.