"Activist" Deanna Violet Coco

has been jailed for a minimum of eight months. Her crime? Deliberately blocking a lane of the Harbor Bridge and setting off a distress flare. She was "protesting against climate change".

There are wildly differing opinions about whether she should have done this. There are also wildly differing opinions about whether, if she did it, there should have been a custodial sentence.

Ms Coco apparently has a record of "protesting". Perhaps she is a member of what is sometimes called "Rent-a-crowd" although I rather doubt that. I rather doubt "Rent-a-crowd" exists as such but I do know there are active groups of protestors who can be found at many "demonstrations".

It is much more likely Ms Coco is an individual who is desperately in need of some guidance and counselling. It is also likely she needs a job which keeps her busy and feeling as if she is of some use to society in general. 

All that said I have to say I think the sentence was light given her past misdemeanors and the potential gravity of the situation. Deliberately blocking any emergency lane anywhere in the world has to be a serious offence. You are putting other people's lives at risk. Yes, you might want to argue that by doing it you are potentially saving lives in the future but that is not how the law works. It certainly isn't going to cut any ice with the doctor who is waiting on the arrival of a police escort carrying the donated organ to save someone's life. It isn't going to cut any ice with the fire fighters who need to reach a fire in which someone is trapped. In fact it isn't going to cut any ice for anyone trying to reach an emergency situation for a valid reason. Nor is it going to please the thousands of people trying to get to work or school or the medical appointment they have waited so long to get. 

Her behaviour was selfish and arrogant. At thirty-two she is not a "silly teenager". Indeed I know many teenagers who would not consider doing anything that foolish. They might well get out there and protest but they would not endanger the lives of others.

I still don't believe that the Greens are right in demanding that sixteen year old teenagers be given the right to vote. That is too young. I am of the view that eighteen is probably too young for many. I also believe that eighteen is too young to join the armed services in a combat role. (I say that in case anyone wants to argue "but they can be sent to die for their country".) Yes of course there are young people who take a real interest in politics. They look at the policies, especially those which are likely to affect them. They weigh the policies against each other and find out what limited chances there are of implementing them at least in part. Such young people are few and far between. Young people will vote "Greens" because they believe it is the party most concerned with climate change. They will join a particular political club at university because their friends belong to it. Voting patterns can change for some later in life, generally towards more conservative and mainstream parties. Others will vote the same way all their lives. It is a major problem with our system of compulsory attendance at the ballot box. Voting becomes an unthinking chore rather than a right and a responsibility.

And some people like M/s Coco will never really change. They will cling to ideas they believe are "radical". They will protest all their lives.

I protest too -frequently. I protest here. I protest by writing letters to the Editor. I have been known to state points of view I disagree with and then argue against them. I also write letters to other people. Those letters are short, they might argue for specific action to be taken. I will back up what I have to say facts, with research and more. I have written thousands of letters over the years and they have produced results. People often tell me I was "lucky" that my efforts resulted in a major international event. No, I worked for it. Letter writing may not be as much "fun" and it may not produce the adrenalin rush but it can produce results.

Letters don't have to be sophisticated. They don't even have to be written with the correct spelling or grammar - although that helps. I remember once seeing a letter to an MP. It concerned a small variation to a proposed road through a rural settlement. "Do this.   Won't cost as much. Will save lives." It was written with what was likely a carpenter's pencil on a page from a school exercise book.  The map was accurate but no recommendation for any cartography award.  The MP took the idea to the planners and they listened. What might have been a dangerous cross road was avoided and the people in the rural settlement stopped "protesting".

It won't always work that way but fixing yourself with glue to the road at peak hour or throwing paint at a famous painting won't work  either. It may have just the opposite effect.