The Shield of Sanctimony, Ctd

No oil in that PVC raincoat?

No oil in that PVC raincoat?

Green party followers and Greenpeace activists like telling people how they live a virtuous lifestyle. Take Gareth Hughes for instance, he constantly whines about carbon footprints and pollution and yet has one of the largest parliamentary travel bills.

Lucy Lawless is another prime example. She is telling us all how she loathes big oil yet she took their filthy dollars for an advert. Just as the green muppets claim that climate scientist who takes big oil money is tainted forever so too is a green activist who showered herself of in dirty oil money. SHe was once a shill of big oil, she remains a shill for big oil, tainted by her dirty money.

Never mind too that she has a garage of gas guzzling Mercedes Benz vehicles and is currently churning through wast amounts of diesel with bulldozers and diggers at the work site for her Orakei mansion on Kepa Road. Nevermind the vast amounts of cement and carbon emissions that go into making cement and concrete will be needed to build her palace.

She cares not a jot for thousands of litre of fuel used on the generators for the set of Xena. Or the fuel needed to get the staff and crew to remote locations. Or the helicopters….

I’ll bet you a dollar to a knob of goat poo that her carbon footprint is several times larger than almost any other person in new Zealand, yet she has the sanctimonious audacity to protest about big oil.

It matters not to her. She is covered by the shield of sanctimony that all green warrrior princesses are covered with.

Hypocrisy is simply a word found in the dictionary that has no meaning for them.



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Davidp

    Lawless in 2006:

    “Yes, you can confirm that I am selling Liquid Will, my first purchase
    with my Xena money. It’s about as pc as the stealth bomber and uses the
    same jet fuel. V12, purple Mercedes, CL600. L”

    It doesn’t just use huge quantities of fuel… She’s boasting that it uses huge quantities of fuel.

  • pidge

    Oh, that explains the “No drilling” poster on the gate of the new house being built on Kepa Road.  It seemed jarringly incongruous.

  • Michael

    Now she won’t be allowed into the US – that’ll cut her carbon footprint in half.

  • Isn’t she purty. 
    At the end of the day, it’s a storm in a D-Cup 

  • The funny thing is if you look at her outfit in the protest:
    Helmet: plastic. which uses oil
    Jacket: made of synthetics, ie plastics, which uses oil.
    Gloves: looks to be synthetic, i.e. plastics.
    Shirt: we’ll go with cotton. production process most likely is mechanised, i.e. uses oil.
    Hair ties. made from synthetics, ie uses oil.

  • John Q Public

    There’s nothing wrong with oil-based products, as long as it’s not drilled for in the first place…….

    • Roger

       Who is drilling her?

      • Philip ure a cock

        Who would want to drill her now she’s a greenie – bet she smells like boiled cabbage. Being on the fem-mo!

  • Catweasel321

    Look at all the socialists with their politics of envy
    and class warfare. She has made something of herself and has an international
    profile. This little bit of marketing is genius. But instead of celebrating her
    entrepreneurialism you try to pull her down to your level. Jealousy is such a
    destructive vice. As a self made person she has a right to enjoy the benefits
    of her hard work and career development, without being attacked by all you tall
    poppy bashers.

    If you too made something of yourselves then you too
    could parade your opinions for all to see, that’s the privilege of being a success.
    Something you appear to despise.

    • I don’t mind her having the flash car, or the fancy house. I may be a bit envious of them, but she is allowed to enjoy them

      It’s her hypocrisy that is the problem, not her success.

      • Catweasel321

        Glad to see you fess up to your envy. Well done. But hypocrisy is one of the privileges of success. Only socialists believe in vetting expressions of free will for ideological purity.Who are they to say what we can and cannot think.

    • Guestosterone

      hippyocrisy is the problem not envy catpiss

      • Catweasel321

        “Sticks and stones” Guestrogen, “sticks and stones.”

  • AnonWgtn

    Silly bitch should realise that if convicted she will have great difficulty in gtting to the USA and Australia. They do not take kindly to criminal records. But she has enough money to bypass that anyway.

    •  Not just criminal recors AnonWgtn; she will have to disclose the fact that there is a charge hanging over her head.

  • I guess we all have the same forgive and forget past mistakes Eh? LOL Drilling in the Artic is what they were demonstrating against and can someone tell me what’s actually GOOD about that?

    • In Vino Veritas

      What’s good about drilling in the Arctic? Umm, crude oil? That would be good wouldn’t it? Also, if there is an accident, crude oil at very low temperatures will become more viscous and easier to clean up. That’s good isn’t it?

      • That and our food supply a bit more secured as it should slow down the Bio fuel from corn fad?

  • Roger


    Has one of your clan of watchers the requisite skills to estimate Lucy’s carbon footprint? She might be NZ version of the goracle.  

  • Kthxbai

    I’d respect her views if she didn’t live a consumerist lifestyle.

    Frequent international travel, even if it is to make more money, is still a huge burden on the environment.  As are the house, cars and  a large wardrobe of constantly changing fashion items.

    It’s the hypocrisy that gets up people’s noses, not the political views. 

  • Ants

    I see it like this. It’s OK that Lucy Lawless has been
    successful, and enjoys the fruits of her success.
    But we could all enjoy an increased level of wealth if we responsibly taped
    into our nation’s oil & mineral reserves. As well as generating highly paid
    jobs, both directly and through associated supporting industries, the
    government would also collect increased revenues and taxes.

    What gets me is that she’s against doing any of this and thereby against a
    significant opportunity for increasing the collective wealth of ordinary New
    Zealanders.  Her behavior and attitude is very patronizing!  “I’ve done OK, now I’ll have an opinion.” and use my profile to manipulate others.  How patronizing!

    Incidentally, didn’t she start out by working in Kalgoorlie, in the Australia mining industry?

  • axeman

    So where is that odious prick Hakeem Phuckwit on this issue, with his pathetic diversionary spiel? “But but what about ………?”

  • Dr Wang

    The problem is: she is happy to enjoy all her consumerist consumption and indulgence, but insists that nobody else can have it.

    That’s not just hypocrisy – that’s arrogance.

  • growabrain

    Watch this. It explains the tu quoque debate fallacy. It also proves that Cameron Slater and most of the people commenting are idiots. That is all. 

    • Ratchet

      I watched all 5 minutes and 9 seconds of that video, and have come to the conclusion that, although the video is true, your application is well wide of the target.

      The fallacy explained in the video is basically: If the moralist (conservationist, vegan, etc) is guilty of a minor transgression (an environmentalist driving a car) then the subject can commit a larger one without recourse, because they profess NOT to care.

      This is not the case here. What everyone is saying is that the environmentalist (Lawless) who is professing to be against oil exploration, should lead by example and pursue habits that reduce her dependence on fossil fuel, thereby reducing the need to discover new oil sources, rather than lead a lifestyle that consumes far more oil products than the average person.

      For the video you posted to be relevant, everyone here would be needing to say “Well, Lucy Lawless is an oil protester, but drives a V12, so I can drive something that has TWO V12s because I’m not a protester. Obviously, this is not the case.

      Please read and consider more carefully next time, as knee-jerk reactionism will cause more than one regular poster on this blog to suggest that you, perhaps, are the one who needs to growabrain. 

  • growabrain

    I understand that not all of the video is going to completely fit this situation, however I believe that much of it does. Basically, I ask Cameron Slater what he is doing to help, as to go around calling people hypocrites is quite pathetic if he is doing nothing himself. I also would like to draw from the video the idea of “nobody’s perfect”. Of course Lucy Lawless has done things in the past and even perhaps a few things in the present that have had adverse effects on the environment. It would be impossible to live with no carbon footprint, largely due to how society currently operates. I personally find the notion that if someone has ever done something wrong in their whole life and later does something good, they immediately must be a hypocrite, because we all know that there is no such thing as people changing or forgiveness or anything like that…Cameron also took a very biased view of the situation. Here is part of a transcript from an interview at the end of last year:

    ” I am meeting with solar panel consultants to get a grid-integrated system for my home. I never let my family turn on heaters when they can put on sweaters but if I have solar panels, we can take the edge of the winter somewhat. Flying is my big bug bear. I am trying to reduce flights whenever possible by scheduling things together or staying longer overseas even though it puts my family under some strain. It’s an awful trade off, but necessary.”

    I really do feel that blog posts like this are almost an indirect justification for one’s own inaction – instead of doing the hard thing and actually trying to change, people make themselves feel better by putting others down. Lucy Lawless was arrested for promoting awareness of a situation she saw was wrong. This will possibly have huge effects on her career and family. Why would someone do that if they weren’t truly invested in their cause? I have heard these arguments over and over again as a vegan: people feel uncomfortable when others (in this case Lucy Lawless) draw attention to issues that would require them to change their ways (eg by using less petrol etc). So instead of talking about themselves, they try and run around the issue by calling the person a hypocrite. The fact is, whether or not Lucy Lawless herself could do more for the environment (and I think she is doing great things), that doesn’t move any responsibility from Cameron or anyone else to do so. It doesn’t change the issue she was promoting. So perhaps Cameron could stop trying to “prove” his point with random, questionable examples, and try proving it with actual logic. And perhaps he could stop pointing out the flaws in other people and actually discuss the issue for once, that is, oil drilling in the arctic.