No remorse

Lucy Lawless has declared her sentence for boarding a drilling ship a total victory.

She shows no remorse.

Perhaps the $650 fine and 120 hours community service, which is a pretty light sentence, just reinforces her apparent conviction that doing wrong is justified if you think you’re Regard regardless of the risks and costs to others.

About these ads

92 Responses to No remorse

  1. robertguyton says:

    Lucy stuck to her principles. This is very admirable. What remorse ought she have shown, do you think? Upsetting Shell? She’ll be thinking that her discomfort and risk-taking was worth it. I believe it was too. Do you reckon she should say “sorry”? To whom?

  2. Andrei says:

    For Lucy Lawless $650 dollars is just small change, unlike the poor buggers who have to earn a living to feed their families.

    Principles my arse Robert Guyton, she is a contemptable, over indulged, self absorbed ninny whose only virtue is to look good, something in this world that is over valued

  3. robertguyton says:

    But deep down, Andrei, you fancy her (I can tell) :-)

  4. Andrei says:

    Beauty is only skin deep, Robert Guyton, and ephemeral.

    Beauty of the soul however is enduring regardless of the packaging and never fades

  5. robertguyton says:

    I think the soul of someone willing to risk their earthly security to protect a distant, threatened, special environment like the Arctic (a jewel in God’s Creation, you might say) is beautiful.
    Why do you despise the holder of such a soul, so?

  6. Brown says:

    Risk her security my arse. She knows they won’t sail with her sitting up there. I would have. She’s not so tough.

  7. robertguyton says:

    Her financial (the Police were seeking $648,000 in “reparation costs” – Shell’s claim was astronomical) and her career prospects amongst other things. She’s brave enough, Brown.

  8. Andrei says:

    A real heroine?

    Get a clue Robert – Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya

  9. Andrei says:

    I’ll tell you something else Robert, the so called “carbon footprint” of Lucy Lawless almost certainly exceeds that of me, my wife and our four children combined and that she a wealthy woman thinks that the poor should be made poorer, with less opportunities to advance their situation in life to keep the “carbon footprint” of humanity as low as possible.

    When she moves into a grass hut without running water, I may be tempted listen to what she has to say but until then …….

  10. robertguyton says:

    I’ve stirred your hornet’s nest, Andrei.
    I’ll call you on your claim, “When she moves into a grass hut without running water, I may be tempted listen to what she has to say but until then ……”
    You would not. Your claim is frothy nonsense. If an environmentalist moved into a grass hut and cut themselves off from ordinary life, you’d dismiss them as extremist and mock them. This claim by you and so many other rightwingers, is tripe. “I’d take notice of what the Green politicians say about fossil fuels if only they didn’t fly in jets and didn’t use computers…” is dribble. You wouldn’t. Non-argument.

  11. Viv K says:

    Here’s what has since happened to the ship Lucy and the others boarded – “The Noble Discoverer slipped anchor and caught fire, it’s spill containment capacity was shown to be faulty, another rig ran aground off the coast of Alaska and in January 2013 Shell were cited by the US Environmental Protection Agency for violating its air pollution permits for both drill vessels! All of which has prompted the US Government to launch a review of Shell’s drilling plans in the Arctic. ”
    Drawing public attention to things that are wrong needs to be done. Drilling for oil in deep water here in NZ or in the Arctic is wrong, because the oil, when burnt, adds to climate change and also because of the risks associated with oil spills.
    You diss Lucy because she is a famous actress, but she has chosen to use her profile to publicise something that she believes in. If I boarded an oil rig, I doubt I’d get the publicity that Lucy did, she is effective at getting the message out there, after all, how many other community service sentences made the news this week?

  12. Denny says:

    There are plenty of examples of people breaking laws, being put in prison, punished for protesting … Suffragettes, Rosa Parks. I’m stoked that Lawless uses her profile to draw attention to issues that need to be debated. She could just be living a cosy lifestyle, insulated by her money.

  13. Andrei says:

    You know Viv, the worst ever oil spill was the one created by the late and unlamented Saddam Hussein in 1991 along with his blowing up of hundreds of oil wells setting off hundreds huge fires.

    The hand wringers at the time did their thing, wrung their hands and predicted dead oceans, nuclear winters and other doom and gloom.

    T’was a heck of a job to deal with it all but while the hand wringers were wringing their hands, the doers were rolling up their sleeves and doing their thing which was to sort it all out – which they did and there was no nuclear winter, the oceans didn’t die and the sun continues to rise in the East as ever.

  14. robertguyton says:

    “The Noble Discoverer slipped anchor and caught fire, it’s spill containment capacity was shown to be faulty…”

    Oh dear, oh dear! I know, let’s point fingers at Lucy Lawless and rubbish her actions! Then no one will notice the uncomfortable news about the ship she protested on…perhaps.

  15. robertguyton says:

    I wonder is Shell have expressed remorse over the incident involving their ship?
    Ele? You might know?

  16. Mr E says:

    Come folks. She broke the law. If she murdered someone whilst standing up for her principles, would that be ok. If she has no remorse for breaking the law I have no respect for her. And those who support her in such endeavors, should in my opinion, be ashamed.

  17. robertguyton says:

    Mr E talks murder. Hyperbole much?

  18. TraceyS says:

    So well put, Andrei.

  19. Mr E says:

    Indeed. But describes the point well. What say you Mr Guyton. Do you support her law breaking?

  20. Viv says:

    No it isn’t well put, it’s a non-argument. One doesn’t have to leave modern life to comment on the system. The world must rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions to try and avert the worst of climate change which will increase droughts and floods and add to the stresses on farmers. It is wrong to go drilling off shore here or in the Arctic for a fossil fuel which will add to the problem. People who, due to a lack of altenatives, still use some fossil fuels are allowed to talk about it.

  21. Mr E says:

    Do you support her law breakin Viv?
    Lack of alternatives????? You make me laugh.

  22. TraceyS says:

    She is as free as anyone to talk about it. She is not, however, free to break the law.

  23. Andrei says:

    No she is free to break the law, but she must accept the consequences for so doing.

    And in her case the consequences of so doing are not particularly painful, more symbolic of societies displeasure than anything else.

    Breaking laws can be patriotic sometimes, a good thing to do when the laws are wrong.

    The people that make the laws do not rule by divine right, though our current politicians seem to think they do and behave accordingly – but that is for another time

  24. robertguyton says:

    And do you equate occupying the rigging of a ship, with murder, Mr E?

  25. robertguyton says:

    Three cheers for Andrei!

  26. Viv says:

    Occupying a drilling ship to try and prevent environmental damage, yes I support Lucy and the others who did that, even though it did break the law. No one was hurt.

  27. TraceyS says:

    Where does it end Viv? OK as long as nobody gets hurt? Is that what you tell your kids – feel free to trespass as long as nobody gets hurt?

    It is better to make your point without breaking the law. That is not impossible. Laws are there for a reason and one of them is to protection from harm and damage.

  28. TraceyS says:

    “a good thing to do when the laws are wrong” is to protest against the LAWS and not those who are trying to work within them.

    Goodness knows if I had been free to break the law for a good cause over this past year then I would have! But we are not free to break laws in practice. If an authority has the right to stop you then you are not free!

  29. robertguyton says:

    These authoritarians don’t like your naughty talk, Viv.
    Obey the Rules. Stay on Track. Toe the Line. Know your Place.

  30. TraceyS says:

    Are you not also an authoritarian by virtue of your elected position to a regional authority?

  31. Viv says:

    Another essay question from Tracey and here I am blanching runner beans and trying to answer in 1 paragraph. I used to go out on Saturday nights in the olden days. I have not told my children that it’s ok to break the law, but I notice that they are prepared to question authority if they think something is unfair or wrong. Sometimes waving a placard or marching up the main street isn’t enough to change things and non violent civil disobedience is required. I presume you have heard of Mahatma Ghandi.

  32. Mr E says:

    Trespassing Viv. If someone turned up at your place and refused to leave on some moral high ground, would it be acceptable to you. Say it stopped you from doing work. Say it risked health and safety at you home or work place. Still ok?
    Or say a farmer polluted and laughed after conviction. Still ok?

    She was not protesting the trespass law. Something else. Yet she trespassed in a premeditated manner with no admission of remorse. This worries me. Laws that change behaviour are important.
    Those who support law breakers are, in my eyes, disgraceful.

  33. Mr E says:

    Was she protesting the trespass law?

  34. TraceyS says:

    After facing one or two difficult issues with trespassing last year, I have little patience left for those who do it. The same deal goes for those who ‘protest’ and in doing so generate hazards in a workplace or public place (we had this problem also). People frequently do not realise how silly and dangerous their stunt is.

    As a business owner I cannot take reckless actions and just hope like heck that no customer, employee or member of the public will get hurt. I must conduct my business in a way that actively prevents harm, ie. to “take all practicable steps… “. So no matter what their cause, how can an uninvited outside party be correct for behaving recklessly on my turf, ignoring all my controls to protect people and mitigate harm? Would you, for example, accept a group of anti-fluoride or mercury-amalgam protesters forcing their way in your clinic, interfering with your treatment of and the safety of the patient?

    Viv, you should either drop your romantic fantasy or go and tell your kids that it is OK to trespass and put themselves and others at risk, just so long as they have a good cause.

    Children learn to recognise and challenge authority in the face of it, not the absence. In that way, laws, rules, and authoritarians (including parents) are essential.

  35. robertguyton says:

    Tracey – you haven’t worked out that Authoritarians and authorities are not the same thing, hence your confusion.

  36. TraceyS says:

    Authorities are not always authoritarian in their ways Robert, but some of the time they are. That’s the nature of their role.

  37. robertguyton says:

    You still don’t understand the term Authoritarian, Tracey.
    Not much point in furthering the discussion.
    I believe you are an Authoritarian.

  38. TraceyS says:

    Why do you think I am an authoritarian? All I said was that people should abide by the rules or laws. Is compliance with such, including enforcement, not part of the role of a regional authority for relevant matters? It was you who misused the word by stretching its meaning to insult those here who disagreed with you. Obeying the rules, staying on track and towing the line does not make one an authoritarian. If I am an authoritarian then so are you.

  39. Mr E says:

    A common trait of some bloggers is the labelling trait. In my view it shows a weakness of debating skills. Attack the person rather than debate the issues. Not particularly endearing either. That’s how I see it.

  40. robertguyton says:

    “Those who support law breakers are, in my eyes, disgraceful

    Labeller.

  41. Mr E says:

    If you can find me a person that supports her law breaking, I will tell them their actions are disgraceful. Not labelling them Robert, labelling their actions. ‘Supporting law breakers’
    Do you support her law breaking Robert? Why will nobody answer this question? It seems pretty simple.

  42. robertguyton says:

    Mr E, take one,
    Those who support law breakers are, in my eyes, disgraceful.”
    Mr E, take two,
    “If you can find me a person that supports her law breaking, I will tell them their actions are disgraceful”

    Mr E talk with forked tongue!

  43. TraceyS says:

    Robert – fyi:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

    Authoritarianism:

    “… a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.”

    Isn’t that exactly what you’re involved with Robert?

    Your link references a so-called “Right Wing Authoritarian Personality” trait. You’re not qualified, as far as I know, to evaluate my personality. And even a professional could not do so accurately on the basis of a few blog comments! You may be interested to know that I grew up with extreme left-wing influences.

    Face it Robert, you’re a politician in an authoritarian regime. And I do not mean that as an insult, so please don’t take it that way.

  44. TraceyS says:

    Mr E, Viv has commented that she supported the law breaking actions of Lucy Lawless.

  45. Paranormal says:

    And therein lies the fallacy. Have a look around Viv, your doomsday religion is coming unstuck. The evidence is failing to support your link to the end of the world and so called evil greenhouse gasses.

    Anyone stupid enough to break the law over naturally occuring climate change really needs Darwin’s assistance to help save the human gene pool.

  46. Paranormal says:

    Tracey, RG is your tyopical authoritarian – being a Green n all.

  47. TraceyS says:

    Yes.

    “John Duckitt of the University of the Witwatersrand suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism. Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.”

    If authoritarianism is defined as unquestioning submission to rules, laws and authority, then the question is to what authority is being submitted? The ‘law’ of climate change, or the laws of the nation?

    Protesters are collectivists. In that vein, Lawless herself may perhaps be verging on authoritarian.

  48. robertguyton says:

    Yeah, but I was talking about you. Rightwing Authoritarian, that’s what I reckon.

  49. robertguyton says:

    You are so funny, para. Viv won’t fall for your silliness though. She’s a rational thinker.

  50. robertguyton says:

    After facing one or two difficult issues with environmental destruction last year, protesters have little patience left for those who do it. Hence Lucy’s actions.
    Go Lucy!

  51. robertguyton says:

    “Where does it end Viv?”
    It ended there, on that cold platform. It went no further. You are extrapolating wildly in the hope of obscuring the fact that … it ended there, it went no further. Perhaps like Mr E, you’d have us believe there was a murder.

  52. inventory2 says:

    Summary of this thread: Robert Guyton, principled Green Party member, elected representative on Environment Southland and former Green Party candidate endorses breaking the law. Says it all really…

  53. TraceyS says:

    Didn’t your parents teach you the “two wrongs”… thing?

  54. TraceyS says:

    And I reckon you’re a left-wing one.

  55. robertguyton says:

    Ah, another of your famous mangled ‘summaries’, Inventory Stock. I do thank you for this though,
    ” Robert Guyton, principled Green Party member, elected representative on Environment Southland and former Green Party candidate.” You make me feel proud. However, if you want the smear to stick, you’ll have to give at least one smidgen of evidence.
    Bet’cha can’t.

  56. Mr E says:

    Forked tongue? How so? I have always referred to the action of supporting law breaking as disgraceful.
    In D grade political form, you are ignoring the question. Do you support her law breaking? A get the feeling you are not as open as you might portray. It really is a simple question. Your ignorance of the answer makes me wonder if Inventory is correct.

  57. robertguyton says:

    If you’ve sunk to the level of ‘wondering if Inventory is correct’, you’re in a very sorry state indeed, Mr E.
    Regarding your claim,
    ” I have always referred to the action of supporting law breaking as disgraceful.”, is these not your words<
    “Those who support law breakers are, in my eyes, disgraceful.”?
    If so, you are calling "Those", "disgraceful", , not "the actions of those", unless my ability to read and comprehend has abandoned me entirely.

  58. Mr E says:

    Disgraceful for their support. It is not rocket science Robert. I hope that clears up your confusion of the obvious.
    Back to the question. Do you support Lucy’s law breaking?
    Here I was thinking you blogged for the sake of transparency. You are making that statement look silly.

  59. robertguyton says:

    I’ll let it go. Which law did Lucy break, Mr E (just wanting to ensure we are talking about the same thing – you might be thinking ‘of the high seas’, I might be thinking ‘of the jungle’).

  60. Mr E says:

    As expected, deflection. I too will let this question go.

  61. TraceyS says:

    Just wondering Robert if you approve of people disobeying laws for things like, say, using marijuana? Have a feeling I’ve seen comments along those lines, but couldn’t find them ….

  62. robertguyton says:

    What ‘law’ do you mean, Mr E?
    I think Lucy Lawless’s actions were justified in this instance.
    Tracey , ‘for things like…” – you what? What ‘things’?

  63. TraceyS says:

    OK, you think Lucy Lawless was justified in trespassing. Do you also think growing and using marijuana against the law is justified? I think you’ve made this comment before. But please correct me if I am wrong.

  64. Mr E says:

    My My.
    I will give you credit for finally stating your position, despite it taking repetitive questioning. Nice to finally see your opinion.

    However, supporting a law breaking action is surprising to me. Perhaps it is more accurate to say I am shocked. Particularly for a councillor who contributes to local government policy. In my view this is completely unacceptable.

    When the vote rolls I will be looking for an individual who believes in the fundamentals/principles of rules and law. Not one who is willing to turn a blind eye when it suits their agenda.

  65. robertguyton says:

    Shocked! What pish, Mr E. You’ve been angling for days now for me to say I support Lucy’s action, so that you could spring in with your faux-outrage. I regard each incident of this kind (the occupation by Lucy and co) separately, and don’t try to paint them all with the same (righteous) brush, as you do, Mr E.
    I have an idea! If you are so convinced of my unsuitability for local government, initiate a Code of Conduct challenge and get me tossed out. You seem to have the will and the time to fluff about prising ‘damning’ statements out of me, so why not put that to good use, Mr E?

  66. TraceyS says:

    Initial charge of burglary under the Crimes Act was apparently reduced to a lesser charge of trespassing under the Trespass Act. It is reported that Lawless pleaded guilty.

    See this:

    “Lucy Lawless’ relationship with Shell may have recently turned sour but her link with the oil giant appears to have once been amicable. In the early 1990s, the actress appeared in a television commercial …. for New Zealand Shell to sell its petrol.

    She later went on to star in the show that made her famous, Xena: Warrior Princess”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10788527

    I thought you demanded integrity from those whom you support, Robert? I am disappointed in you now.

    She’s still a great actress though. Maybe just not such a good activist. Wonder if she’ll do it again?

  67. TraceyS says:

    On a case by case basis someone might one-day come along with a good cause for breaking environmental rules/laws. What will you do then?

    Would you support my hypothetical wetland being built without consent (not that I will do that), because it really is a very good cause and the consent and legal costs will prevent it ever happening otherwise.

    Someone must take a stand over RMA bureaucracy, after all, environmentally intentioned projects should have a easier path cause we need more of these to be happening. Don’t you agree?

    And if things go wrong I’d apologise of course and say that it was all well intended and for a good cause, no harm meant, small fine and away we go…!

  68. robertguyton says:

    “On a case by case basis someone might one-day come along with a good cause for breaking environmental rules/laws. What will you do then?” (you mean “case”, right?)
    I’d look at that case with an open mind, of course! What’s difficult for you to understand about that, Tracey?
    You want to build a wetland without consent? By all means bring your argument to me and I’ll consider it. Sounds interesting.
    As to your fuminating over the RMA, I don’t hear a good argument from you, just self interested bombastification.

  69. robertguyton says:

    Burglary? Burglary!?! Why was Lucy charged with burglary do you think, Tracey?

  70. Mr E says:

    Goodness me. It seems to me, you are calling me a liar.
    I didn’t expect you to say that at all. My tease including Inventories statement, was entice a response, expecting you to be unwilling to support said actions. My debate hinged on the expectation that nobody would want to support law breaking, and therefore remorse should be a general expectation by the public. You’ve ruined my arguement with replaced it with shock.
    Is expecting law breakers to be remorseful, and the public to condem such actions righteous? I don’t think so.

    I would prefer not to debate the ‘code of conduct’ statement as I bought up your councillor status. I apologise for that. It is irrelevant to the debate and came out of shock. I’ll endeavour to leave that fact out of future debates if it makes you feel more comfortable.

    Fluffing? Is that what I am doing? You sound like my other half.
    “prising ‘damning’ statements out of me”. Here I thought I was debating an issue. Engaging with the public. I am not sure that I can be blamed for any damning statements?

  71. TraceyS says:

    “… don’t hear a good argument… ” Really? We have a piece of legislation that does a very good job of channelling large amounts of money away from the environment and into the pockets of lawyers and consultants. I thought it was there to protect the environment. It’s a nonsense that projects with environmental aims which line up nicely with the intentions of the Act are made so difficult if not impossible by that Act itself. Crazy nonsense. We will never improve anything this way. Land users will not throw huge amounts into ‘paperwork’ for enviornmental projects when there is no or little financial return expected.

    Come to think of it, lawers probably did pretty well out of the stunt of Lucy et al. too. Ask yourself Robert. Could that money be better spent?

  72. robertguyton says:

    You don’t like the RMA, Tracey. You think it is crazy nonsense. You believe only lawyers and consultants benefit from it.
    Bizarrely, you ask whether the money that lawyers earned through prosecuting and defending Lucy could have been better spent. Perhaps you should pose your question to the police. And Shell.

  73. robertguyton says:

    “My debate hinged on the expectation that nobody would want to support law breaking, and therefore remorse should be a general expectation by the public.”

    You must have forgotten, Mr E, actions taken by farmers over issues that inflamed them to the point where they were willing to flout the law. I recall a tractor being driven up the steps of Parliament. Were you not cheering the driver on? Can you remember his expressions of remorse afterwards? No?

  74. robertguyton says:

    Paper roads, anyone? Farm sheds and fences built across them, legal access to them denied to the public. I remember clearly the remorse shown by all farmers when they realised that they were acting illegally with regard those paper roads. Oh, yes, that was a day steeped in remorse, for sure!

  75. Mr E says:

    Not cheering. It was a silly act in my opinion. I didn’t find it admirable.
    If you have specific examples of law breaking I would suggest you report them to the Police. Unless of course you are supporting that too?

  76. Mr E says:

    The security settings are such that I can’t comment there ;)

  77. robertguyton says:

    It’s an exclusive site, reserved for those who don’t trade anonymously.

  78. robertguyton says:

    Remember the fall of the radio tower in Southland, Mr E?
    Did you not find my ‘paper roads’ example sufficiently pointed?

  79. TraceyS says:

    Robert you are ranting and have no idea what you are saying. I never said “only lawyers and consultants benefit from it”. It is not alright to put words in others mouths just because you’re all wound up.

  80. TraceyS says:

    Ah! That is why there are NO COMMENTS.

  81. TraceyS says:

    “The next time the oil companies take measures to destroy the biosphere for personal gain… ” Oh come on Robert, who buys the stuff? Destroying the biosphere? “Biosphere – the part of the earth’s surface and atmosphere inhabited by living things”.

    The article claims that the oil companies are destroying life on earth.

    This is emotional blackmail designed to suck people into fear-driven change.

  82. Mr E says:

    I think you must be confusing me with someone else again. I can’t find any other reason for your cryptic questions.

  83. robertguyton says:

    What’s wrong with fear-driven change?
    “Change lanes , Mummy, you’re driving on the right and we children are afraid we’ll be killed!”
    “Don’t buy coal, Daddy. Coal burning produces greenhouse gas and the climate is very important to us farmers.”

  84. robertguyton says:

    Tracey – why do you think Lucy was charged with burglary?
    Why do you think the police asked for so many of thousands of dollars as compensation?
    Have you any view on those aspects?

  85. TraceyS says:

    Everything.

  86. TraceyS says:

    Deterrence.

  87. robertguyton says:

    Why was the charge of burglary thrown out?
    Why was the claim for compensation by the police thrown out?

  88. TraceyS says:

    “thrown out” was it? As in thrown out by the Court?

    Reduced to a lesser charge Robert. Damages are hard to prove. Nothing suspicious there, move on.

  89. robertguyton says:

    “Damages are hard to prove”

    Ha ha ha ha ha! That’s very good, Tracey.

    Lucy, bad, Shell, good! NZ Police, good! National Party, good!

  90. TraceyS says:

    Gosh what a turnaround!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,280 other followers

%d bloggers like this: