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.