Share the Christmas Cheer with all religions - exclusionists fester dangerous thought

The intense debate over the controversial alleged Christmas fatwa (which presumably include greetings, decorations and all forms of celebrations related to Christ) show that there are deep differences among the Muslims in Australia.

The causes of these differences boils down to the level of fundamentalism and interpretation of their religious texts. Further, these differences probably stem from how Australian Muslims want to be viewed by non-Muslims friends and communities. Among this moderate group, majority have denounced the radical views from the fatwa school because they do not think it is reasonable and religious to do so.

Others may have adopted a softer line so that  the heat and radar will be taken off the fatwa group or that it will not lead to a ban and deportation of extremist imans and followers. The radicals have since kept a low profile and denied the meaning of the fatwa allegedly quoted out of context.

Attempts to push the boundaries have not been abated since the violent protests in the city a few months ago. Excuse me, their disapproval for Christmas is not specifically targeted against alcoholism, sex and safety issues. The fatwa episode is just another example of religious directive which have crossed the line. Australian society at large would not accept even if this is strictly practised by a particular Muslim group because the environment is not located in the Middle East.

Whatever defenders may say or do in the hope of explaining why fatwa has even arisen through mosque sermons and modern social media such as facebook no less, that a fatwa is even suggested or considered is cause for great concern in multicultural Australia with a secular system of government.

If Hindus, Buddhists and some Muslims have no issues going along with the festivities of Christmas and New Year, why must a certain Muslim group stand out alone and be proud of it?

Majority of Australians are Christians. Sharing the joy of Christmas and reflecting on life are universal, and do not mean compulsion to becoming Christians.

Fortunately, in this instance of fatwa retraction, reason has prevailed. It is important to ensure that we keep it this way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/fatwa-on-seasons-greetings-rejected/story-fn9hm1gu-1226542720493

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lakemba-mosque-removes-christmas-fatwa-post-20121223-2btaj.html

Suicide of nurse who connected DJs to Princess Kate - an unexpected tragedy

Kate Middleton's nurse who took her own life has been referred more to her employment rather than her name Jacintha Saldanha. Apparently her existence  was owed more to the royalty she served.

It is indeed a tragedy of the worse kind in recent times. From middle aged on, most of us would have received surprising news of deaths from causes other than terminal illnesses. Accidents and suicides that extinguish young lives are the a lot harder to accept, more so if the victims still have many good years ahead, have families who love them dearly and dependents who have most to lose with their departure. 

While it is cruel to crucify Australian DJs who are merely "doing their job" and had no intention of killing an innocent person with their pranks, they cannot totally escape indirect blame. Neither is it cool or magnanimous to absolve the two DJs from any responsibility. 

Some people are more fragile than others. Although majority may be able to sail through trials and tribulations, a minority may have complex personal issues. Setbacks could spiral into depression and resort to extreme and drastic actions to resolve their dilemma.

It cannot be denied that the victims' weak constitution, pressure of their professional pride and society's expectations are all partly to be blamed. Unfortunately, a coincidence of external events can trigger unexpected outcomes. Just because most people have the capacity and tolerance to survive pranks, bullying and backstabbing, does not mean that these actions are excusable. 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-tragedy-but-who-is-at-fault-20121208-2b29q.html

It is unlikely that the case will be pursued further than the internet debate. From the legal perspective, how would the prank gone wrong be judged fairly? 


The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine that says the wrongdoer takes the victim in the condition he/she finds him. There is no allowance for an already weakened state of the injured party. If a defendant negligently injures someone, the defendant is responsible for all the consequences, whether they were foreseeable or not.The rule is applied in tort and criminal cases involving a plaintiff in a vulnerable, weakened state or suffering from a medical condition.

A rebuttal to the eggshell skull rule is the crumbling skull rule. This rule argues that the harm suffered by the victim was inevitable and the defendant's acts only had a minimal effect upon the already deteriorating circumstances.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eggshell-skull/

In real life, incidents cannot be measured in legal terms. Human viewpoints influenced by individuals' values and experiences would continue to shout across cyberspace. These noises are unlikely to help the victims' families. Given our short memories and inability to reconcile differences, these incidents will make a mark but sadly may not help us to avoid similar tragedies in future.