Last Friday traffic ground to a halt in Sydney's CBD as a man ascended the Harbour Bridge in protest of the apparent neglect suffered by his children at the hands of the Family Court and other Australian family assistance services.
There was a slight beat up about him endangering the safety of commuters drawing parallels to terrorist attacks and making the impression that the man, Mick, intended to cause harm to commuters. More than once a cry was heard that "he left a note on his car saying he was going to hurt people". That was a good story however it was not factual. The note left by Mick on his truck actually said, "I do have un-lanyarded equipment with me which poses a hazard to any motorist underneath and I don't want anyone to get hurt in this." Anyone who has participated in a bridge climb (in fact anyone who has completed basic high school physics or who possesses a little common sense) would know that ANY item taken onto the bridge, be it a paper clip or a brick, which is not secured at all times is a risk to commuters and pedestrians on the deck below. It is however a far cry from the claims likening this protest to a terrorist attack in which the participant intends to harm others.
Yes, it was a dangerous protest, however, danger is relative and we must look at all the facts when assessing danger. This was not a man who went onto the bridge without safety equipment or without the full understanding of the undertaking he was making. It was a man who possessed the skills to conduct both the climb and descent safely, who warned that there was danger present to others and requested that measures be taken to ensure their safety.
Yes, people were inconvenienced, traffic was held up, productivity for the morning would've been reduced. However, surely this is a small price to pay if this man's protest bears any weight in the failures in the current systems that children fall under when their parents separate. Our children ARE being failed, when their parent/s fail them there are not sufficient processes in place to ensure that they are safe and cared for, not just physically but mentally and emotionally. Before Mick's protest it may well have been the case that the majority of people had never heard of "parental alienation syndrome", yet it is a very serious matter and one which needs our attention.
What it all boils down to is this; children NEED their parents, BOTH of their parents. Ideally yes, their parents would be together and love one another but at the very least children need AT LEAST an awareness and knowledge of both their parents, in the absence of either parent they need that awareness and knowledge to be unbiased and told to them in terms that they can accept and understand. Not everyone's parents are good people, sometimes good people do bad things, whatever the case, a child's parent IS part of them and if a child hears only of how bad their parent is they believe also that part of them is equally as bad, if not worse.
