The events of the last few days provide me with much to reflect upon. Not so much the events themselves, but the responses to them.
Take the Japan earthquake and tsunami which has killed upwards of 10,000 people.
Most people I know consider this a tragic event. It is apparent I’m mixing with people who are too nice. Perhaps this is why I’m horrified to learn there are many in our society who take this tragedy as an opportunity to suggest that this is payback for Japan’s past atrocities. They deserve this because they bombed Pearl Harbour and Darwin. They deserved this for the horrific massacres they carried out in the war. They deserve this because they kill whales.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think they deserve it. How many of those little children laying dead underneath rubble conducted atrocities in the war? How many of those little children gave the orders to bomb Darwin? How many of those little children spend months on the high seas killing whales for alleged scientific research. How many of those little children club dolphins to death?
A bigger question I have, is why can’t we forgive? My father fought in the war and the day it ended he forgave the enemy. If he were alive today he’d find these events tragic and he’d definitely be ashamed of those fellow Australians who suggest that Japan deserves this tragedy. If he can forgive, why can’t all Australians? Australians who weren’t even there to fight against them who now say that it’s karma.
These people are no different to the people in Arab states shown on TV to be rejoicing the 9/11 atacks and loss of life, shouting that America deserved it. To their Australian counterparts, may I ask what Queenslanders did to deserve the floods or what terrible crime the people of Christchurch conducted in the past to deserve the earthquake?
This is a sad day for Australia when we have people in this country who are so morally diminished and that we have their views splashed and promoted across the social media.
What have we become? Why are so many of us so nasty?
Now for something a little light-hearted:
The Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) is a statutory body established under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to conduct merits review of administrative decisions made under the social security law, the family assistance law and various other pieces of legislation. Since 1 January 2007 the SSAT has had responsibility for reviewing most decisions made by the Child Support Agency (CSA).
The SSAT’s principle function is to conduct merit reviews of administrative decisions made under a number of enactments, in particular social security law, family assistance law, and child support law. Its main output is the finalisation of applications for review of decisions.
I was having a look at their 2009-2010 Annual Report and came across this case study that was too outrageous not to share with you. In Lilley v Logan 2009:
. . . the father of the child contended that he should not be liable for child support as the child was conceived as a result of an act of prostitution. The Court held that the child was covered by the child support scheme and properly the subject of a child support assessment. The antecedents of conception did not destroy a child’s entitlement under the child support scheme.
Isn’t that outstanding? This bloke gets a prostitute pregnant and reckons that he shouldn’t have to pay child support because the mother was a prostitute. Amazing. I reckon he’d be the type who claim that Japan deserve all the tragedies Mother Nature throws at it.
I’ve rambled on a bit, perhaps you dear readers can bring some sanity back into our lives.