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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.