What happened in Sydney on Monday was one of the most horrific and unspeakable tragedies we as a city have witnessed in living memory.
It also appears to have been one that could have been avoided.
Since the siege, reporters have come out with stories of interviewing the gunman about his political beliefs, describing whether they did or didn’t at the time consider him capable of violence and terror. As more of these reports emerge, more people are asking whether there was any indication this man would go on to become Sydney’s hostage-taker. Did he seem dangerous? Was there evil in his eyes? Did he leave any clues?
The truth is we do not need to ask these questions about whether Monis posed a threat, nor do we need to make assumptions about whether he was prone to violence prior to Monday morning. We have evidence that he was. We have a well-documented, seven-year long record to prove that he was both threatening and dangerous, and very likely to commit another violent offence in the near future.
We know that men who commit violence against women once will most likely do it again, and are also considerably more likely to commit other violent offences than men who have no history of domestic or family violence. We also know that men who commit acts of sexual violence will most likely go on to commit other violent offences.
Monis had a history of both.
Monis began committing aggravated sexual assaults against women who came to him for spiritual guidance in 2002. As far as we know, he violently sexually assaulted as many as seven women.
In 2013, Monis was accused of planning, aiding and abetting the brutal murder of his ex-wife while they were embroiled in a custody battle in the NSW courts. The 30-year-old woman was stabbed 18 times before being set on fire and burning to death.
Monis had demonstrated a very clear pattern of persistent and escalating violence.
When Monis appeared in court in January of 2014 requesting bail for the second time – for the sexual assault charges – it appears Monis had committed both sexual violence and domestic violence of the utmost severity. Both of these violent offences made him very likely to reoffend. So why was he granted bail?
The comment made by the magistrate who granted Monis bail the first time – for the accessory to murder charge – is telling. He said Monis is not a threat to public safety because the only person he posed a threat to was his deceased ex-wife.
This assumption that Monis’ violence was limited to one woman and one situation denies a proven connection between violence against women and a series of other issues of public safety. It underlines an assumption that men who are violent towards women are not necessarily violent men.
It underestimates the reality that violence against women is, itself, a public safety issue.
We have long understood that violence begets violence, but what we somehow can’t understand is that violence against women is no different.
I am not a legal expert and I understand that no bail system is perfect, but if we as a society cannot understand this connection, men who have proven themselves to be violent and dangerous will continue to be a risk to the public.
It is near impossible to predict or definitively prevent events like this. But based on his criminal history alone, Man Haron Monis should not have been anywhere near Martin Place that day. He should have been in prison awaiting trial, where we could be confident he could not harm any more victims or threaten any more lives.