Magistrate Heath said he was concerned at the precedent of targeting an employee of a corporation, rather than the corporation itself.
“Are you saying if you’re unhappy with the policies of the government it is legitimate to protest at the residence of the premier?” Magistrate Heath asked Mr Davey’s lawyer Anthony Elliott.
At an earlier hearing, Mr Heath questioned: “At what point do we stop? … Where do we draw the line?”
We aren’t silos. This individualist, siloed/walled mentality society has regards different aspects of our lives is a convenient fiction. Enabling us to dissociate ourselves and our personal values from our conduct in our professional lives undermines the value of our professional accumen and judgement at work. We are giving ourselves and each other permission to act against the interests of the rest, and for what? Self enrichment? Self interest? For the sake of corporate ease?
I’ve been guilty of this myself, at a much smaller and insignificant scale than the likes of a Woodside CEO, but i know the times i’ve suspended my knowledge i’m doing something wrong, because “i’m at work”. I’d argue almost all people do.
These protestors attempted to hold someone accountable for the actions she has taken in the course of her life.
The fiction Meg O’neil, and many of us, have deluded ourselves into thinking that the 8, 10, 15, or whatever, hours a day we spend at work is somehow not your life, has been rejected, even if not explicitly, as a fallacy by these protestors.
Our lives are a whole, we can segment for ease of ordering daily events, but what we do each day matters and we have to be accountable to ourselves and those around us for our actions whether in the right or not.
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.
Another inspiration for my thoughts on this is the intentional legal gaps regarding tariffs around freeports, and concealing of wealth internationally, covered well in the link below,
The Hidden Globe, How Wealth Hacks the World, with Atossa Abrahamian
“Are you saying if you’re unhappy with the policies of the government it is legitimate to protest at the residence of the premier?” Magistrate Heath asked Mr Davey’s lawyer Anthony Elliott.
Yes.
Next question?
Small problem, would you be ok with people counter protesting at the houses of these protesters?
“Protesters are going ignored and simply we’re running out of time to act,” she said.
It’s fascinating to see how high the concern is but this is like the house being on fire and you’re running around freaking out trying to throw water on a piece of paper that happens to be nearby.
Even if all of Australia went net zero tomorrow, we’re just not that big an impact, India will add an Australia’s worth of co2 on top of its current output this year just as they have for the last 15:
imo the best course of action is to continue to reduce our own reliance on fossil fuels, far more subsidises for heat pumps/solar batteries (especially heat pumps in Victoria to get rid of gas reliance) and far more investment in renewables, we’re not the heroes of the world and we shouldn’t try to be, leave that for the big boys EU/USA/China/India
would you be ok with people counter protesting at the houses of these protesters?
No? That’s an insane false equivalency. They are not public figures by virtue of being the CEO of multibillion dollar public companies.
It’s fascinating to see how high the concern is but this is like the house being on fire and you’re running around freaking out trying to throw water on a piece of paper that happens to be nearby.
What’s your proposed solution then? We just…don’t do anything? We don’t worry about it? Not our problem?
Other countries use the lack of action by rich western nations as an excuse to not act themselves. Not to mention the amount of emissions that result from all the fossil fuels that we export to them. That’s all reflected on other countries on that graph, not against us. But it’s something we could do something about. And before you excuse it by saying “they’d buy it somewhere else”, maybe. But basic supply and demand dictates that the price would go way up if one of the two largest exporters of coal were to cease those exports, providing more incentive for other countries to switch to cleaner methods.
But anyway, that graph is highly misleading. We’re a country of 26 million people. But those 26 million use way more than their fair share of carbon dioxide. Here’s a better graph, using the same basic data source and showing the same countries.
imo the best course of action is to continue to reduce our own reliance on fossil fuels, far more subsidises for heat pumps/solar batteries (especially heat pumps in Victoria to get rid of gas reliance) and far more investment in renewables
All great ideas. Not sure what it is that you’re actually opposed to, in that case.
No? That’s an insane false equivalency. They are not public figures by virtue of being the CEO of multibillion dollar public companies.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Is there a version of this that covers emissions per capita? Because while I agree that Australia is negligible in this picture, you need to balance it against our small population. I dislike this picture, because it breeds futility. Why should we even try to reduce our carbon footprint? We are a fart in the gale of climate change. But Australia is in the company of France and the UK here, both nations with 2-3 times our population. Yes, the vast size of our nation is a factor here, but we aren’t even trying.
The second problem with this graph is that unless we are taking carbon emissions seriously ourselves, we can’t exactly stand up on the world stage and point at China/USA/India for their actions. This issue needs to be driven by all of us. It needs to be the hot ticket issue that buys our votes. We need to be willing to elect people who will address this matter and enable us all to reduce our carbon emissions.
It’s fascinating to see how high the concern is but this is like the house being on fire and you’re running around freaking out trying to throw water on a piece of paper that happens to be nearby.
It’s worse than that. One of the biggest things the electorate wants is an increase in housing supply. Not just any housing though, we all want our 4x2’s in the suburbs. We want to produce carbon building houses in the suburbs so that we can produce carbon every day driving to and from those suburbs.
So it’s like throwing water on a paper while intentionally setting fire to another piece of paper each.
Is there a version of this that covers emissions per capita?
Here:
Not just any housing though, we all want our 4x2’s in the suburbs
Fuck that. I can’t think of anything worse. I wish we were building medium density 2–3 storey row houses and 3–4 storey apartment buildings (nice roomy apartments with 2–3 bedrooms and good amounts of spare space) as the default form of housing. Low density is so incredibly wasteful.
Thank you for providing this. It’s a depressing and not-at-all surprising picture.
I like to hope that my family is well below this figure - more like what France/UK is at. But, this website combined with some finger-in-the-air ballpark guesses said we used 17.9 tonnes last year, and that an average household used 15-20 (per this chart). Even accounting for a 2,000km road trip holiday in the past twelve months (half a tonne by itself), I can’t reconcile that we might be an above average household. 9.5 tonnes of it came from spending about $250/week on groceries - that’s not excessive for a family of four, is it? Half of our footprint is in groceries.
and that an average household used 15-20 (per this chart)
Uhh, careful now. That’s the average person. A household of 4 would multiply that number by 4!
Only, not really. It’s difficult to try to make a comparison between the per capita emissions of a country and the direct emissions by an individual. Many of the biggest emissions will not be captured by an individual’s footprint, even in a calculator attempting to capture as much as possible. It’s why the entire notion of individuals’ “carbon footprint” (a concept created specifically by BP as a way to shift blame onto individuals and stall real action on climate change) is mostly bs.
Also worth noting that this chart specifically says that land-use change is not considered. That’s a big problem with agriculture, especially beef and dairy production. Aside from the ecological and other environmental issues it creates, it also releases a lot of carbon.
Yep less of the burbs. I’ve been really captured by human scale streets and centres surrounded by houses lately.
Decentralising the car from our lives could save so much wasted energy, and therefore CO2 equivalent emissions.
I always like the idea of the Barcelona style blocks, but their cars are still more central than i think would make a more desirable neigjbourhood, for all kinds of reasons but first among them is emissions.
I used to like Not Just Bikes videos they were always very informative.
covers emissions per capita
tbh I’ve never taken that seriously, it implies that like tiny islands are contributing far more than they do, I’ve always argued that if you have a billion people your share and responsibility is a billion times higher than everyone else’s
Also because
we can’t exactly stand up on the world stage and point at China/USA/India for their actions
I don’t really think they care at all what we say tbh, COVID was proof, when push comes to shove they won’t admit to anything even if the whole world is looking at them…
Inline with:
I dislike this picture, because it breeds futility
In a lot of ways it is futile, we are a tiny island nation with 25,000,000 people vs 3,000,000,000 Chinese and Indians
and on top of that… most people don’t give a shit about the climate which you noticed:
One of the biggest things the electorate wants is an increase in housing supply. Not just any housing though, we all want our 4x2’s in the suburbs.
and even better! there are loads of people who fill out forms saying climate change is a top priority! but then the moment there’s any sort of inconvenience at all, they turn around and suddenly detest climate action, look at the amount of hate paper straws get and they don’t even have anything to do with climate change :))
And now in Queensland I have to put up with the liberal party taking us back 10 years with renewables :|
But… there’s still plenty of good things happening, I still thank MastoFeed.org for making running this account a pinch: https://mastodon.au/@RenewEconomyRSSFeed
Just today:
Brown coal hits new low in Victoria as wind and battery records tumble and renewables peak at 95.2 pct
To me I’d far prefer it if those 4 people had good jobs making good money and spent it on solar installs, battery installs, EV’s, heat pumps, even donating to https://corenafund.org.au/ because the money goes directly to climate action
CORENA offers zero interest loans and technical assistance to eligible non profits for climate projects which are repaid using their energy cost savings.
I still use ecosia.org every day etc, I just think that protesting like this and blocking roads is silly when you can actually implement change yourself so effectively, just do the best that you can do, vote for climate friendly political parties and your job is 99% done
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.
These protestors attempted to hold someone accountable for the actions she has taken in the course of her life.
I don’t agree with this take. If they wanted to send a message to the CEO directly that they didn’t like what her company was doing, the media and police wouldn’t have ever heard about it and not been there. The message would have been delivered and maybe a dozen people in that street would have seen it. Instead, the protestors were trying to ante-up their protests to a new level. They weren’t getting enough attention with splashing paint on artwork in the city, or holding rallies. They hoped that they’d draw more attention to their cause by attacking someone’s home.
In some ways, they have succeeded. We are still talking about that incident several months later. But, I think they’ve diluted their message in the process. Instead of talking about the environmental impact of Woodside, the debate has been about whether it is cool to target an individual at home.
For the record, I don’t think it’s cool. I’m all about protesting Woodside at their offices, through the streets of the city, I’d even be fine with a march that went through City Beach and ended up outside the property of the CEO’s home. But not breaching the property line / damaging or painting the house. That was the line that was crossed.
the media and police wouldn’t have ever heard about it
Well, from memory, the media were told by the protestors, but i don’t think the protestors or the media told police about it. I’m not sure how they found out. The journalists got in hot water for not passing on the info as well.
I know disrupt burrup was being watched fairly closely though, so maybe the cops found out through good old detective work and surveillance? I don’t know though.
They hoped that they’d draw more attention to their cause by attacking someone’s home.
This is my problem. That language pre-supposes a sacredness of ‘home’ that can’t be crossed. As if peoples personal and professional lives are separate and disconnected.
The decisions made by all people in a work situation however cross that, agreed upon but imaginary line, or home border, impacting others personal lives all the time and aren’t held to account. These protestors have attempted to call time on that as a construct.
they’ve diluted their message
So true. Look at this conversation, the issue the protest was about is forgotten. We haven’t addressed it once, the ABC article paid scant attention to it. Disrupt Burrup has kind of failed to build any sort of popular support after this. So i think it not only diluted their protest, i think it completely undermined their message.
The interest i’ve developed is about the question the Judge asked. I think i’ve come to a different assessment than the Judge, but that could be because the arguments made in the case took a different direction. In that case its not the Judge’s fault, but more a failure of the lawyer presenting the argument.
I’d even be fine with a march that went through City Beach and ended up outside the property of the CEO’s home
Thats an interesting thought. I think part of the reason protests are less effective in Aus, is due to how spread out we are. A central and busy location can be disrupted more easily by central protests, as well as being great for distributing communication, Forrest Place isnt that. Maybe protest marches thrpugh local suburbs should be utilised more in the way you’re suggesting.
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?
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.
-
We haven’t addressed it once, the ABC article paid scant attention to it. Disrupt Burrup has kind of failed to build any sort of popular support after this. So i think it not only diluted their protest, i think it completely undermined their message.
This is a fair and valid point. Believe it or not: while I think that their actions in this case are not cool, I am at heart a tree-hugging hippy who genuinely does try to minimise his personal environmental impact. So, I went to their website. I downloaded their pdf and read what they’re all about. And I’m not really all that moved. 32 pages of noise can be summed up by a single sentence on page 10: “Our aim is to halt industrial expansion on the Burrup Peninsula to protect climate and culture.”
I read the document. I skimmed it a second time in case I missed it the first time. But nope, they don’t propose any sort of alternative to extracting gas. Even Twiggy Forrest is spending serious money and effort trying out new technologies to replace our reliance on digging up and burning fossil fuels. These guys think everyone would be cool with just stopping all that and living without electricity or something. That’ll never fly as a cause.
It’ll never fly as a cause, and the path Twiggy is on is the only path to follow for now, as you say, the others are untenable for various reasons ranging from we have to do something to we have to take people less interested with us on this journey and hey, electricity is kinda nice to have.
Don’t link it, you have thoroughly dissuaded me from being interested in reading the Disrupt Burrup manifesto now. Sometimes well intentioned people need to slow down and think things through before they put those sorts of documents together.
I read an interesting guide the other day, its on c/environment, Make a noise or Work with the system
The quote below, i found interesting pertaining to when and when not to be disruptive, [email protected] might also be interested in this perspective,
We’re going to put on the suits […] and we’re not going to scale their buildings and release confidential information that they’ve given us to the media […] I don’t judge those that have that theory of change, because we need both, we need the really extreme advocacy to make us look mainstream and medium and reasonable.
Where does the Judge live?
