Comment

Comment on On trial for protesting against Woodside

She herself raised the issue of the art gallery and complained she was being called a vandal. I was saying that yes: she literally vandalised a piece of art. She’s a vandal by definition.

As to the raid itself, it’s clearly in response to the attack on the Woodside CEOs private residence. Showing up at someone’s home, inviting the media to film you as you allegedly damage the house, scare a family inside at 6:30 in the morning and attempt to lock yourself to the house are acts that take you into unlawful territory if found guilty. That’s what she is on trial for.

Nobody had a problem when they were standing out the front of the Woodside building holding signs. That’s peaceful protest.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Marsupial@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
And that achieved nothing.

This is only more signs that peaceful protests are simply a tool for government to ignore.

Direct action is needed, and hero’s like this are starting to lead that change.

The criminals are those killing us all under the protection of a system they designed to protect them from repercussions.

source
- Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  So, now we’re acknowledging that she wasn’t protesting peacefully like she claims? That indeed she crossed the line into unlawful territory?
  
  I agree.
  
  That’s why the police are involved. Not because she protested Woodside.
  
  source
  - Marsupial@quokk.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Nah, we’re acknowledging they “lawful” is a bullshit metric.
    
    It’s lawful to kill the planet and us along with it, it’s illegal to bring attention to those who are doing it.
    
    Clearly one cannot operate under such a deeply flawed system.
    
    source
    Nath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    As I said at the outset: I’m sympathetic to the cause. I have grave concerns about the planet and how as a species, we are causing immeasurable damage with our reckless treatment of resources. Nobody is defending the company nor denying she has a worthy goal at heart.
    
    But all of that is beside the point. The point is her central premise is deeply flawed: she is simply not on trial for protesting Woodside.
    
    source