Perth / Western Australia

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.