Climate protesters targeted an oil and gas CEO at her home. This is the inside story of what happened

www.abc.net.au Climate protesters targeted an oil and gas CEO at her home. This is the inside story of what happened

The battle over the climate is escalating, and nowhere more than in Western Australia, where a new generation of protesters is prepared to break the law to make their point.

When this happened Meg O'neil ran around town exclaiming how fearful she'd been. But the cops were there, at her house, waiting for the activists.

And whats happened since? Has the Woodside exec been hassled? I haven't heard about anything more. The activists have though. Who should actually be afraid of who in this situation?

40 comments

Hi all. Really glad this has provoked a robust debate. But there have been some Rule violations. I'll leave them up but a more civil tone needs to be struck from here on.

That seems like a retaliation to the people saying they weren't targeting the right people when protestors blocked traffic - well now they're targeting the right people!
- They've done something similar and Redditors still got mad because they said it was going too far. The reality is that a lot of people don't like protests and will continue to shift the goal posts until you're nothing more than an easily ignorable group holding signs on the side of the road.
- Yeah but now it doesnt affect them so they dont give a shit.

Idiots. Fucking idiots.
It's great that they want to take action on climate change but it's daft to think that these sorts of actions are going to achieve anything at all.
What were they actually planning to do? Throw some paint balloons and someone lock themselves to a gate and "say something profound" ?!
Even if they dissuaded whoever from doing whatever, woodside would just appoint someone else to do it?
Gerard the strategy guy should be relegated to handing out the kombucha .
- When they glued themselves to the streets it was broadly criticized that the protesters were not targeting the ones responsible for climate change. That was already bs because people who choose a car for mobility are responsible for a part of climate change. Now when they are protesting against people who are even more responsible, like in this case, people like you criticize them for that. It seems like you would prefer if they would not protest at all.
  
  I'm criticising them for being completely ineffective. Worse than that even - counter productive, because they undermine effective climate change activism.
- You may well ask: ‘Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?’ You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation
  
  Who is this quote from? Whoever they are, they put their case very well.
  
  My whole point, is that the "activists" in question were completely unsuccessful in creating any "tension" whatsoever.

40 comments