My kids and I, like many thousands of people, lost hours of time in the traffic on the freeway.

While I respect and strongly support the right to free speech, Mr Fox deliberately left messages implying the possibility of harm to motorists and to anyone attempting to remove him. This in my mind is like phoning in a bomb threat as a protest.

While he can get his message out, I think a few years in jail should give a strong message to others thinking of threatening harm as a way of getting their message out.

We have penalty's, Fox has been charged and is on bail.
A great number of people suffered.
Yet a poll has said more support than disapprove of his actions.
It says a great deal about our country's laws involving parents after separation.
Men do, suffer far more than SOME women.
And justice is slanted to wards mums.
Children are used, by both sexes as a weapon.
This man did not look to be a grave danger to his kids, maybe he is, but while unfortunate, maybe unneeded,let our laws handle it.

I was wondering when someone was going to start this con-vo.

Disruptive protests can span quite a large spectrum SM, and will one penalty server all or its depending merits. But for the individual on the bridge, A DOCS candidate if I ever saw one. Even on radio, "THE MASTER OF TALK BACK" suggested that he would do all in his power ( in 24 hour's no-less ) to send the appropriate help for the man who feels hard done by the system thats supposed to stand-by fathers with separations problems from their spouses in custodial disputes.

SM.....everyone has a story.

But who will have the time listen?

A fine in this case, obviously a desperate father/man.

LEAP

Difficult one SM and I understand your POV.

However, many times authorities don't listen or the system is too bureacratic. I can understand how sometimes there will be people who one day say enough is enough and make a stand to bring attention to what they perceive as an injustice. There was probably a better way in terms of civic responsibility but it worked in bringing the issue of Family Law and child custody issues to light.

We don't know the particulars of this man's life - was he a lone campaigner with a beef or was he just an angry man. None of us know. Family breakdown is a real issue in this country and nobody seems to be looking at causal factors tending to only deal with the aftermath.

Maybe more details will come to light as the events unfold.

I read this guys story in the Weekend Australian Newspaper this morning, and it does seem that he left a note in his car on the bridge saying anyone climbing the bridge to remove him would meet with a 'fatality', and insinuated that he was willing to kill people for his 'cause'.

I have no sympathy for people who threaten or commit violence at all.
The paper also said he hadn't seen his children since January.
If this is true, then there must be a hell of a lot more to this story, because I doubt DOCS would condone a mother keeping her children from their father for that long, without very good reason, or some doubt about him.

If this guy wants to disrupt a whole city, and threaten violence against innocent people, then no wonder they don't want him to see his children!

Dear SM,

How come security was so lax that someone could scale the bridge so easily and cripple a major city so effectively. I suppose scaling the bridge around 5am and abseiling down just after 7am does seem to smack of a well-planned exercise. Should there be penalities? I'm sure there will be. He's going to court and he will be judged accordingly. The security of the bridge should be investigated.

What ever the ins and outs of his story, this bloke did Sydney and the country a service by highlighting the lack of security awareness; not only on the Harbour Bridge but in/on other places as well.
He could just as easily driven a heavy truck on to the main lines and held up the trains for a few hours.

The possibilities are endless.

Suzieonline
"I have no sympathy for people who threaten or commit violence at all."

I thought you were in favour of threats of violence as a means to make people pay so-called "child support" . When did you change your mind? If you haven't yet, is there any limit to the amount of violence that you advocate? Would you go all the way to killing?

PeterHume <"I thought you were in favour of threats of violence as a means to make people pay so-called "child support" ."

Where have I ever said that Peter?
Please find that sentence in my past posts, otherwise run along and harass someone else.

Do you condone what this guy did, or are you here simply to fire false accusations at others?

I thought the subject was we should have laws about such protests.
We do, he has been charged.
Secondary , not to the victims ,is the suffering they faced by his actions.
Now I seem not to have the full story,Medea reports first said that note in his truck asked police to close the bridge.
Saying his gear was not all safe and may fall, killing and injuring some one.
That like a great number of things Medea say, may have been untrue.
Are those against the bloke just as much dismayed by people chaining them selves to coal loaders.
Or climbing the Oprah house to do much the same in the name of some political protest.
Right or wrong the mans actions highlight we are a very weak mob, some ruling in our courts are useless and at best unaware children should be put first every time.

This was a well planned stunt. I would bet that he was over the rails and on his way up long before the security had any chance to react. He also planned to close the bridge and cause the maximum disruption, by implying that there was a danger to the commuters.

There is a world of difference to someone that chains himself to a bulldozer or the opera house. If he had climbed the bridge, unfurled his banners and said, traffic is safe, I will come down at x time, his message would probably have been heard by as many people, and probably received not as someone with a personality disorder.

SM

If the man in question has a "personality disorder" then he needs help not punishment. Clearly he was not behaving rationally.

As others have pointed out, there are penalties in place for disruptive protests. We can trust that the courts will evaluate this man's charges as unique to his circumstances, whatever they may be.

Most courts do an excellent job - we only hear about a few where justice does not appear to have been served and even then are not privy to the entire picture.

I agree Shadow- I propose that there be more measures to ensure that

1- any protest physically obstructing access through a bridge, tunnel etc be punishable by jail.

2- all victims be allowed to sue for lost wages, petrol expense, and a thousand or two extra for wasting their time. EACH

3- As he threatened violence- he should be charged for that on top of the other offenses. But then again, he arguably was committing a violent hostage situation (Sydney's commuters), threatening violence- so I would have no qualms if somebody just shot the bastard off his perch and ended it in a few minutes.

If he is mentally ill, he should be stuck in an asylum and cared for, instead of allowed to run loose (supposing we still had any open in this state).
I *would* say that parental access would make a fair case- but I don't think DOCS would have a hard time explaining why this disturbed individual is being denied access.

I guess it should boil down to if the children WANT to see him, however. If they do, it should be their right to demand it over a third party's.

The ones who caused the disruption and suffering are the police, not Fox.

Under the guise of a "protest", the man's real intention was to show the world how fit he is - and he succeeded.

The most reasonable response would be to ignore him. He would eventually be brought down without fuss by the calls of nature and very few would have even known this ever happened!

Shadow

While it would be better if he didn't disrupt so many people, he shouldn't have to. These dads have had to fight far too long for a fair go. The threatened violence increased the effectiveness of the protest, without actually hurting anyone.

Suze

If any of us were unable to see our kids for four months because of a court decision, we would become mentally unstable too. The fact that Mr Fox pulled off this stunt doesn't necessarily prove that he had mental issues back in January, or that he is an unfit parent today.

Ammonite,

I said personality disorder, not mental disorder. He is perfectly aware of what damage he is doing, it is just he feels far more important than us mere mortals.

The courts have two functions, one is remedial to get the best help for Mr Fox, the other is to provide a deterrent. If Michael Fox gets a slap on the wrist and what he wants from this stunt, there will be a queue of disgruntled sociopaths lining up to block the bridge, tunnel, airports etc.

". . . , there will be a queue of disgruntled sociopaths lining up to block the bridge, tunnel, airports etc.

Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 15 May 2011 2:12:05 PM"

and it won't be hard to do and probably there won't be anyone to stop them.

Benk, I agree with you. Like you, we can only speculate because we don't have all the details of this guy's case.

Not many parents who get a decision from DOCS that they don't like, will go ahead and stop traffic for hours or threaten violence against innocent people will they?
The issue here is whether he should be penalized for his tough-guy stunt on the bridge.

Shadow Minister is right in saying the courts should come down hard on this guy, whether he is mentally ill or not, or we will have mad acts happening from others with an axe to grind.

But who will have the time listen?

A fine in this case, obviously a desperate father/man.

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Saturday, 14 May 2011 2:40:42 PM

I agree Leap - a fine is sufficient given the circumstances.

weareunique

It seems the above witch-hunters only see their own primitive objections to what is clearly an act of desperation. ( I can read between the lines too WAU :) So many symbolist at work here, and not to mention the profiling expert's:) We should be thinking, what would drive a seemly normal undervalued human-being to risk jail, his-life, and make a fool out of the Australian Government, not to mention making threats of harming others.

The system as obviously failed this fellow and no-one looks at the social side-effects thats caused the proverbial straw to break.

1..Why are suicides higher than ever before?

2..Why is the pressure of everyday living making us sick?

3..Why are people divorcing in record high numbers?

4..Why is it, when work sustainability is threatened for long term, people loose the plot?

5..What is the mental health state of the working population?

6..Are the numbers in Australia, effecting the way we function?

7..Why are we growing, when the care just wont go around?

8..

9..and so on to question 60.

And the lists grows faster than I can type.

15 million here for overall happiness and prosperity...IMO....But its not is it:)

The water tank is leaking, and there's not enough Ban-Aids to plug up the leaks:) For all the hoops one must jump through in order to operate, the human-beings were not meant to be pushed this far.

I tested rats once, in an over-crowded stressful situation, and the findings were less than favourable. Do you think humans are differenced? Some say...too fast and too hard, and I tend to agree.

The world has never seen this many people before, and you might want to think about shutting the gates for a while and give everyone some time-out.

Sorry for the long drawn out posts, I just add food for thought.....thats all.

Good night.

LEAP

Shadow Minister

I also respect the right of free speech, but that doesn't include a right to be a nuisance, to block roads, and it doesn't include threats of harm.

The sanction should not be a fine, which only goes to the state and would not do justice to those adversely affected. It should be to pay compensation to people affected by his actions.

suzieonline
You seem to be under the impression that when you favour a policy to enforce your opinion against people who aren't harming anyone, you aren't guilty of aggresisve violence, but you are, because that's how policy is enforced. Ultimately if you don't obey, a group of armed men will come and physically seize you. If you resist they will tazer or handcuff you, and if you defend yourself with similar force they will shoot you. This fact underlies all policy, that's why it's called policy, and it means there's an ethical question underlying all policy that you have obviously been oblivious to. When enforcing policy, everything the police do would be a serious crime for anyone else.

We don't see more of it because people already know that resistance is futile, so the government doesn't have to bother actually clubbing you into submission, they can just threaten to fine you. But that doesn't mean people, by obeying, agree; and it doesn't mean it's okay to use violence to get what you want.

So, are you in favour of policy to enforce the payment of "child support" even against people who never agreed to pay it?

If so, then you do have sympathy for people who threaten or commit violence to aggressively bully people into obeying their sexual or moral opinion, and you are guilty of it yourself, aren't you?

Why are there so many people who think that anyone who feels this behaviour is unacceptable immediately assumes said people actually object to also improving the system to prevent the offending people being drawn to this point?

I think I smell straw.

I would have thought he had standing to make a political protest, he is a non-custodial parent after all. His actions were a protest, but what sort of protest? All I saw is two signs flying on the bridge calling for reform to the political & bureaucratic status quo. As a citizen of Australia, he is entitled to make a non-violent protest of such kind. If there was such a problem, perhaps it is time that the security on the bridge should be beefed up (like we've been told it has been).

Non-litigious routes to settling Custodial disputes should be encouraged. Too often lawyers (lowercase intentionally) get involved and do whatever they can to cloud the issues, even intentionally causing dis/mistrust to further their own ends. Quite frankly, as a step-parent (partner has shared custody), it is hard to comprehend that Parents are never presumed to be capable of rehabilitation (unlike criminals), or to have grown. I don't advocate relaxing strictures against abusive parents, but other than that...

I would personally like to see the charges dropped, or for him to test the extent of the "Lange" type "Freedom of Political Expression/Speech", it would certainly seem to be a fit case for it.

I understood it wasn’t a man vs woman custody dispute that he was protesting about. Was he asking for custody because it looked like he was asking mainly for his children to be safe by any means?
Hadn’t he tried to get help because he believed his children were in danger and had been ignored many times?

If he was in a panic, or a rage, because he believed his children were at risk and kept being ignored when approaching the problem through more official and orderly channels then at the point he took to the bridge the dude was doing what we want parents to do – protect their kids by any means necessary.

I doubt you can do much good holding a silent protest in your own bathroom in case you upset anyone, I suspect it wouldn’t make much of an impact.

Peter:”...right to be a nuisance...”

Maybe we should be able to buy a RTBAN licence when we feel our children are in danger, damn these spontaneous people and their silly worries about their offspring bothering decent folk.

Jewely

Yes fair enough.

I thought he was protesting against DoCS, i.e. the child protection department?

Peter Hume<"So, are you in favour of policy to enforce the payment of "child support" even against people who never agreed to pay it?
If so, then you do have sympathy for people who threaten or commit violence to aggressively bully people into obeying their sexual or moral opinion, and you are guilty of it yourself, aren't you?"

What the hell are you talking about?
I am in favour of the policy to enforce the payment of child support for dropkicks who were happy to make the babies, but not happy to give ongoing financial support to them! That's only fair.

I doubt this bridge guy's problems were about child support issues anyway. He seems too concerned re his children's welfare to be one of those men who refuse to pay child support.

I say again, I don't believe in violence of any sort.
Do you?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8249327/harbour-bridge-protester-vows-more-stunts

http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/narrabeen-bridge-protester-was-not-sas/

There is probably a lot more to this story. The protester according to some reports is suffering from PTSD. It appears he was working as a private security guard in Somalia, Iraq and other war torn areas. He obviously needs some help and this appears to be a cry for help.

The issue does appear to be about child access but no reasons given as to why there is reduced access. Clearly this is a family in crisis and rather than all the finger pointing from dad's groups and the other way from some women's groups what about just helping this family find a resolution, and if the ex-soldier/guard requires mental health assistance ensure he gets it. Too many veterans are left without adequate support networks when they come home (if that is indeed the case).

Somehow truth gets lost in other people's agendas. Why not wait and see what the real story is about before passing judgement.

I've written enough letters to pollies and others over the years and heard enough spin from them to have some sympathy. Legitimate mean's are treated cynically by those who should know better.

I don't agree with the choice he made but the reality is that quiet protests that don't cause disruption draw little attention unless you have something else in it for the media.

Suzie "He seems too concerned re his children's welfare to be one of those men who refuse to pay child support." - that assumes that he thinks that so called child support actually helps his children. Whilst I paid it when we were doing shared care I did so because I thought fighting it would do more harm than good. I think in my case and many others so called child support was a big part of the problem.

Those who've not been on the wrong side of that particular system rarely understand just what a corosive damaging mess it is. Rather than helping kid's it often add's to conflicts over custody and perpetuates conflict between parents who really need every opportunity to move on with their lives.

BTW as the full time carer I've never received (or sought) child support. We are all better off without that particular mess in our lives.

We do need penalties for actions that cause so much disruption but we also need penalties for politicians and others who create the mess that lead's to such a lack of trust in legitimate means of complaint.

R0bert

Pelican is right in saying this poor guy obviously needs help, and we still don't know the whole story. He broke the law though.

Robert, obviously not all parents try to beat the system, and I don't want to tar all separated parents in custody disputes with the same feathers, but I was replying to Peterhume's nasty comments which would surely not further any group's cause?

I don't want to get any further into a gender dispute on this issue anyway, because the thread is about penalties for disruptive protests, which I think we all agree should be given in this case.
Although I would stipulate that this guy get some counselling as well, if I was the judge.

Pelican....If there was ever a truer post on this thread, yours is the one.

Thank-you.

LEAP

This might be about the message not the messenger. I don’t care about his mental state or anything else about the dude, just the big signs hanging off the bridge. It’s the medias job to make a big deal out of the person and not what they are saying I guess.

R0bert I thought here there was no choice regarding receiving child support? But yeah what a stupid messy system and it’s tipped another person over the edge.

Jewely the choice part get's difficult if you are reliant on various parenting benefits for your income.

As I understand it other payments get reduced if you are not collecting child support.

R0bert

He is a citizen, he is a non-custodial parent, that means he has the rights of any other Australian (it's not like he destroyed a detention center and then protested on the roof, is it?)...

The qualified right to free speech in this Country protects legitimate protests, protests by their very nature tend to discommode others (or they are remarkably ineffective).

What, in your view makes the protest illegitimate? The decision by authorities to stop traffic? I don't believe there were any signs saying that traffic over the bridge should be stopped? All I saw was one man (rather than the groups that PAY to climb the bridge) with the guts to stand up for something? Or should we have to get a permit to exercise our rights?

I was just thinking of all the objections when Joh cracked down on street protests in Qld.

Some food for thought in that.

R0bert

Let's see Custard- making threatening displays in the middle of an infrastructural choke-point would both be excellent grounds.

Of course, the authorities could have
a: closed the bridge in response to this guy
b: not closed the bridge, *and assumed he would not drop anything on motorists below, himself included*.
For some reason, they assumed he was not the kind of person who would fit into option B.

In fact to answer your question, half of us specifically stated that we should simply make it specifically illegal to hold physical protests on bridges, tunnels and other major infrastructural passages on the basis that this would obstruct vital traffic. A permit at very least WOULD be a fair call if somebody felt that their personal cause was much too important to hold a few blocks away in the city.

And I really don't give a toss what he believes in- it sure as hell does not give him the right to take it out on other people trying to mind their own business.

But obviously I was wrong.
I'm currently unhappy with School-Zone speed limits, and nobody else seems to care. So I'm going to MAKE them listen!
Therefore I have a good mind to stand in front of the emergency-entrance of a major hospital screaming my case, and making a point to remind everyone how good I am at armed combat.
I mean, it's not like I barricaded the door- they should just *assume* that despite everything I say, that I'm going to let them pass by me peacefully!

Alternatively, I could not be a selfish parasitic bastard and not put my personal problems ahead of other people's needs and expect others to tiptoe around me?
Don't get me wrong, every way society failed this guy needs to be drastically changed- it still does not excuse him by a long shot.

Kinghazza

"it still does not excuse him by a long shot."

WHY?

LEA

A "Political Protest" includes, but is not limited to -

Deliberately tying up wharves or alternatively, sacking all the wharfies... Either screws up the entire economy, not one city for a morning.

When umpteen thousand people walked across the same bridge, etc.

It would be arguable that protesters storming Lucas Heights over anti-nuke protests would (or could) if ACTUALLY non-violent, regardless of potential), despite potentially being able to be called "dangerous" for the entire city...

Also when truck drivers choose to block the roads to Canberra...

Plenty of people put out, a real prospect of injury, the man knows he has PTSD (and a solid military background), quite frankly it was considerate indeed for him to let authorities know so they didn't send ill-equipped individuals up there to try and wrestle him down (THAT WOULD HAVE TURNED UGLY, human nature is to respond/resist, more so with PTSD in the frame).

Last I looked it was not a crime to make a statement that one has served in the ADF (although with the ridiculous prosecution going on, it can't be far off)? I've never seen a city shut down because someone "might" throw themselves off a building (quite frankly, if Police couldn't see the ropes there's something wrong & people with rappelling gear rarely throw themselves off buildings in a terminal way at least).

A couple of statements, that were allegedly left, no actual violence and appropriate safety gear? Massive overreaction by Police and an utter failure of security (of course, it is only on during the day, terrorists wouldn't strike at night...). The man, regardless of mental stability, seems awfully "together" (albeit angry). It isn't like some of the violent protests we've seen at Villawood, is it?

Posted by Quantumleap:
Why?

Simply because no amount of grievance, no matter how legitimate, gives anybody the right to take it out on innocent unrelated people, period. They day they are is the day every victim gets to squeeze out every bit of compensation they want out of him.

Custard: Wharfies going on strike (stopping work themselves and sabotaging their own ability to work and by extension, those who depend on their work) is nothing like what this man did- it would be more like me hanging out of the entrance of a wharf where wharfies needed to pass through to get to work, pointing out that I'm good in a knife fight and anybody who tried to move me out of the way was going to "enter a world of pain" because my best friend died from a factory accident because the laws were not substantial enough to force his employer to install proper safety gear.
Is my case important?
Yes.
Do the wharfies need to suffer for it, even if they don't care because they don't work in a factory?
No.

The last thing this country needs is a standard that people think they are actually entitled to take their anger out on others because of their own problems- no matter how bad or unjust those problems are.

Yes, but protests are by their very nature, obnoxious. That is why they work.

Banning protests that work, is to ban protest per se, how does that fit with the ideal of "Freedom of Political Communication"?

Quite frankly, if this chap had run for NSW/Federal Senate after doing this stunt, he'd be in like flynn. He has a higher public profile than Barnaby Joyce and actually stands for something. A major minority (more than enough for NSW) would support him because he actually did something to highlight the plight of that disaffected minority.

As itt is not illegal to climb the bridge and it is not illegal to make poorly worded signs and hang them from objects, you would suggest that the illegality lies in doing so in a Politically appropriate way? If that is not making a Political Statement, I fail to see what would qualify.

It is not the job of any Australian civilian to avoid doing that which is possible unless the same is specifically prohibited by law. Rather it is the job of those who would seek to prevent it to make such acts impossible. Climbing a bridge without paying exorbitant fees is maybe illegal, doing so to make a Political Statement, that like it or not HAS been made? I would strongly suggest that lies within the qualified protection.

After all, he actually endangered nobody, he was not attempting suicide (although a jailterm is appropriate for the "plz" IMHO), he was not even threatening anyone was he? He was a long way from Police on the bridge and had no actual present ability to harm them unless they chose to ignore what he had written, that makes it a statement of fact in my view. The fact Police chose to overreact is hardly his fault (I don't think they shut the bridge when the paying groups climb it do they? As they are less able climbers than this bloke, I'd have to suggest they pose more of a real, present risk to commuters and passers-by than he was).

suzieonline
I'm merely pointing out that you are either mistaken or confused in claiming that you're not in favour of violence. You are, on a massive scale.

You don't agree with violence but you do agree with enforcing child support even against someone who never agreed to pay it?

So how is the policy to be enforced without using force or threats of force?

You just ask the subject to pay but if he declines, that's the end of the matter, because you're against violence, right?

No? So police go to arrest him, but he refuses to go because he doesn't agree with your idea that he's a money object to work for someone else's benefit. So is he free to go now?

No? The payment's not voluntary, right? So the cops physically seize them but he still doesn't agree with your slave philosophy so he uses similar force back. Is he free to go now, or should they tazer or shoot him?

All policy, as it is enforced, rests on this underlying threat - that's what makes it policy, and that's why you're in favour of it, remember? Otherwise you'd be in favour of voluntary relations, right?

Should he be shot dead if he persists in defying your attempts to exploit him as a money object? At what stage do you actually renounce violence and threats as a mean to force people to obey your moral opinions; or understand that you are deceiving yourself in believing that you are against violence on a massive scale?

R0bert:”As I understand it other payments get reduced if you are not collecting child support.”

Oh, yeah I think that was the bit I thought was out of one’s hands and Centrelink would go after it.

KH:”Alternatively, I could not be a selfish parasitic bastard and not put my personal problems ahead of other people's needs and expect others to tiptoe around me?”

I believe it was what he thought were his children’s needs. Parents and non-custodial parents are known do weird stuff like worry and fret and panic. Fright and anger for their babies can lead to extreme behaviour in the sanest of mums and dads.

I’m quite sure the people inconvenienced got to return to their normal lives without any real follow on affects from being delayed.

He didn’t do it in front of a hospital or fire station etc so his intention was not to cause anyone serious harm or endanger others.

He wanted to be heard and what a shame someone has to go to such lengths.

Where did “parasitic bastard” come from?

Sorry Custard but climbing the bridge or unfurling a banner alone were actually mentioned by myself and others in differentiating an acceptable bridge protest against what this guy did, if you bothered to read it.
I only have three other things to say:
"He actually stands for something"
And is willing to stomp all over others to do it- which makes him a nasty piece of work- NOT a hero. If what you say about his election chances were true, it would actually explain a lot about why our politicians are so corrupt and dirty, and why our state and federal governments are so poorly managed.
-
And the unfairness of banning protests "that work" because disrupting other people attracts catchier headlines? Please. Tough luck for them- they can chalk it up as a lesson of "why I can't have my way with other people just because I'm angry and want attention" (something you teach to a four year old).
-
"He didn't threaten anyone"
''If anyone attempts to climb to the upper arch of the bridge during this protest, the consequences will be fatal,''
quote by the perpetrator on SMH

Jewely
Jewely- IF he actually WAS worried about his kids being in danger at the care of the other former spouse, and not merely angry about his custodial arrangement, AND he was willing to resort to extreme deviation from the law, what would be the first course of action to ensuring THEIR wellbeing?
1- simply approach them without the mother's knowledge and ask them to stay with him (in violation of the custody laws- which would highlight a strong problem if the children would rather live with the non-custodian due to the abuse of the actual custodian.
2- Launch a big publicity stunt to get my mug on TV.
The fact he was willing to do (2) at the intended expense of a few thousand people is what makes him a parasitic bastard- that he screws other people just for self-promotion.