Formalism Gone Mad

A few weeks ago, in one of my Legal Studies units, we were looking at Formal vs. Substantive, where Formal is the rules applied, with no consideration of extenuating circumstances, or even giving any weight to any kind of circumstance, actually. Substantive is where there is a consideration of the circumstance in which the crime/event occured.

Anyway. My wonderfully humorous unit coodinator put this up on our unit materials board. It amused me greatly.

... And to think, it actually happened...

IN THE SUPREME COURT

REGINA v. OJIBWAY

Blue, J. August, 1965

This is an appeal by the Crown by way of a stated case from a decision of the magistrate acquitting the accused of a charge under the Small Birds Act, R.S.O., 1960, c. 724, s. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Fred Ojibway, an Indian, was riding his pony through Queen's Park on January 2, 1965. Being impoverished, and having been forced to pledge his saddle, he substituted a downy pillow in lieu of the said saddle. On this particular day the accused's misfortune was further heightened by the circumstance of his pony breaking its foreleg. In accord with Indian custom, the accused then shot the pony to relieve it of its awkwardness. The accused was then charged with having breached the Small Birds Act, s. 2 of which states: "2. Anyone maiming, injuring or killing small birds is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine not in excess of two hundred dollars." The learned magistrate acquitted the accused holding, in fact, that he had killed his horse and not a small bird. With respect, I cannot agree.

In light of the definition section my course is quite clear. Section 1 defines "bird" as "a two legged animal covered with feathers." There can be no doubt that this case is covered by this section.

Counsel for the accused made several ingenious arguments to which, in fairness, I must address myself. He submitted that the evidence of the expert clearly concluded that the animal in question was a pony and not a bird, but this is not the issue. We are not interested in whether the animal in question is a bird or not in fact, but whether it is one in law. Statutory interpretation has forced many a horse to eat birdseed for the rest of its life.

Counsel also contended that the neighing noise emitted by the animal could not possibly be produced by a bird. With respect, the sounds emitted by an animal are irrelevant to its nature, for a bird is no less a bird because it is silent.

Counsel for the accused also argued that since there was evidence to show accused had ridden the animal, this pointed to the fact that it could not be a bird but was actually a pony. Obviously, this avoids the issue. The issue is not whether the animal was ridden or not, but whether it was shot or not, for to ride a pony or a bird is of no offence at all. I believe counsel now sees his mistake.

Counsel contends that the iron shoes found on the animal decisively disqualify it from being a bird. I must inform counsel, however, that how an animal dresses is of no consequence to this court.

Counsel relied on the decision in Re Chicadee, where he contends that in similar circumstances the accused was aquitted. However, this is a horse of a different colour. A close reading of that case indicates that the animal in question there was not a small bird, but, in fact, a midget of a much larger species. Therefore, that case is inapplicable to our facts. Counsel finally submits that the word "small" in the title Small Birds Act refers not to "Birds" but to "Act", making it The Small Act relating to Birds. With respect, counsel did not do his homework very well, for the Large Birds Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 725 is just as small. If pressed, I need only refer to the Small Loans Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 727 which is twice as large as the Large Birds Act.
 
It remains then to state my reason for judgment which, simply, is as follows: Different things may take on the same meaning for different purposes. For the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two-legged, feather-covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals with feathers as well. Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals "naturally covered" with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature, I am certain that the phrase "naturally covered" would have been expressly inserted just as "Long" was inserted in the Longshoreman's Act.
 
Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a bird, and a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird. Counsel posed the following rhetorical question: If the pillow had been removed prior to the shooting, would the animal still be a bird? To this let me answer rhetorically: Is a bird any less of a bird without its feathers?
 
Appeal allowed.

Throwing Stones

Don't talk to me about missing people if you're going to belittle me, say - "Aww, that's cute" - or tell me that the feeling will pass or I don't know what it really feels like to miss someone.

Because if you do, you're full of sh*t.

I left my life in the country to go to our capital city 600kms away, to go back to school from homeschooling, to a whole new life where I knew no-one at all, at the age of15. I'd never been to a school that big before, or had to take public transport. A train that goes between suburbs? That's nuts. And scary coming from somewhere that you could ride, on a bicycle, across town and it was about 30 minutes depending on the weather. I only went to the city twice or three times a year and even then it was just passing through on the way to a town on the other side.

I knew that I wouldn't see my family for a few months at least. I knew what it was like to feel completely alone, to feel physical pain because you miss your parents and siblings, so much that you can't breathe, can't eat, can't sleep. When you really miss someone, you know about it. It manifests itself physically and painfully. That ache in your chest like you're going to cry, but not quite. That feeling that you've forgotten something, forgot to put your shoes on, that something isn't right. It's real.


A while ago now, I'd just discovered that I was working on the evening that my boyfriend and I had planned to spend together and I couldn't find anyone to cover or shift-swap for me. Now, this was a big deal because at the moment my man and I live about 80kms away from each other, he in the city and me outside the metropolitan area, and although from my uni to his place is a 15 minute drive, we see each other only once a week, usually a set weeknight, last semester was monday nights. So I'd go to his place after uni, we'd talk a bit and have tea, watch a movie if we weren't too tired, and then go to bed. I'd get up in the morning when he woke me as he left for work and that's the only time we'd see each other.

Every moment is precious.

I told the girls at work that last statement and their response was 'Aww, how cute'. I wanted to slap them. I miss my boyfriend, I care deeply about him and we're really close, we've been together well over a year now and seeing each other once a week is difficult. We miss each other and feel it physically. The more stressed I am the more it hurts.

Our relationship is such that we talk more with slight gestures, our eyes, body language, that we don't need to talk to express what we're trying to say, and it's comforting to have someone like that. (I don't mean sexually, I mean in general.) We'll be sitting at a cafe and if one of us wants to leave, the other will know instinctively, even if our mates have no idea. It's hard to be apart when we can't really "talk" as such. I don't understand how or why we interact like that, but it works.

That aside... When I found out that I would probably not see him for a couple of weeks at least, my chest ached, I had a headache within about 20 minutes, and my throat was a bit constricted. One of the girls asked what was wrong and I said that I just missed him. She said that we're only young (those of you that know how old my partner is will find that amusing)... And that it'll pass. Ha.* When I was younger, dad went over east, or to Perth, or something, for a conference or to see family. Mum didn't sleep very well and seemed a little "out of it". They've been married for over 20 years now, and that "I miss you" thing, it hasn't changed.

Now, I know that this post may seem hypocritical where one of my previous posts is about having your own life and not relying on your partner, but to those among you that read this properly, will know that this is different. This is where you have a connection with a person, where they're a big part of your life, like your family. You aren't constantly around them, and you do your own thing, and that's cool, but you miss them when you're apart for an extended period of time (or when you know that they're only 15 minutes away every single day you're at uni but they're working and you're studying!). It's when your boyfriend isn't just your boyfriend because-he-looks-hot-and-kisses-well-and-is-smart-and-funny, it's when the relationship deepens and he becomes your best friend as well as your lover, your family, your confidante, and someone who knows you sometimes better than you know yourself... And you miss them like you miss having tickle fights with your sisters and brothers, or the company of someone while you're lying on the trampoline looking at the stars/clouds...

Idle chatter or silence.

Just comfortable companionship.


* - NOTE: I acknowledge that there are people that don't see their husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend for months on end, and I have so SO much respect for people that have the strength to do that. It's incredible, and a week seems like so little for those that have to endure that length of time apart..

Is it better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all?

Seems to be topic of the week with my science mates at uni, but I've always found discussions become increasingly circular, and painfully personal, on occasion. So I decided to take it to my blog, where no-one can argue, or interrupt. So there.

How many times have you heard this little cliche? How much truth do YOU think it holds? Do you think that to never know what something could have been, what someone could have become, and agonising over the 'what ifs' is easier than loving someone, then losing them, and then the grief that comes with that?

13 years ago today, I lost my little brother. He was nearly 3 years old when he passed away, and although I was only 6 at the time, he was a big part of my life, and I still miss him, and there are things that remind me of him in everyday life. The way that some kids eat icecream on a stick by grabbing the entire icecream and melting it all over them instead of holding just the stick. He did that aaallll the time. I loved him, but for a year or so after he died, I wished that I never knew him at all. There were memories, things that constantly reminded me of him, that just made it hurt all over again, that made me think that it would have been easier if he were never born... Now I know that that's not painless either...

I know a woman who had a stillborn child, about 2 years ago now. Her pain was overwhelming and intense, I can't imagine what it's like, to have a little person growing inside you for 9 months, then pass away before you can get to know and love him/her. She keeps casts of his feet and hands on the wall in her home, with "I wanted to love you" inscribed in the frame.. She says that to have loved this little boy, if he lived, and to have known him for a day, then the grief would have been easier to deal with...

In regards to relationships, by loving someone and then losing them, you have had that time to remember, those good times, but then the pain that comes with the loss. By not knowing, or loving, you have gained nothing and lost nothing. Is that better?

Is it really better to have loved and lost then to have never loved at all?

I don't think so, do you?

~Rest in Peace, lil' brother... 19/11/1994 to 19/09/1997 ~

Some days, she's the reason you wish you were an only child...

-

She is your mirror, shining back at you with a world of possibilities. She is your witness, who sees you at your worst and best, and loves you anyway. She is your partner in crime, your midnight companion, someone who knows when you are smiling, even in the dark. She is your teacher, your defence attorney, your personal press agent, even your shrink. Some days, she's the reason you wish you were an only child.

~Barbara Alpert

I stumbled across this little gem while I was chilling out from a hardcore night of study and lecture-catching-up-on (Long Live Lectopia!).

Now, I have 3 little sisters and reading this I know that every element of this statement is pretty much true. For the most part of my life, I've shared a room with the oldest of these 3. As a child she was literally my mirror, we looked like twins and with a strategically planned haircut, you couldn't tell us apart... Which made for great fun at school, getting the teachers confused and even a couple of our classmates. As we grew into young women, though, we were less like a mirror and more like negative print of one another. She's ultra-sporty, I have old sporting injuries which mean I have to lay off a bit; She's into accounting and economics and I can't stand the stuff; I'm into forensics and criminal studies, things that don't really appeal to her; I'll go out to the tav or pub and have a couple of drinks and pool with mates but sh'es not a fan of that kinda scene. I see possibilities in her that she sometimes hasn't seen, and we encourage each other when we're not at the top of our game... That said, it's interesting how much it changes as you get older.

 

She's still my partner in crime, as are the younger two, and we'll all gang up on the 'rents if the situation arises.

 

All three of my sisters have taught me many a little lesson, and I have done the same for them I hope... Here are a few:

1) If it's your job to do the dishes, try to make plans with mates for the evening and conveniently forget about the chore.

2) 2 words - corruption and bribery (lollies work brilliantly, as does a little blackmail).

3) If you're running late for school and mum threatens to take you to school in your pjs, you best hurry quicksmart, because she'll do it (that one was unfortunately from experience).

4) With a good flashlight and even better hearing, you can get away with reading a book under the covers for most of the night (until you fall asleep, that is).

5) If you ask dad for extra computer time, you'll get 10 or 15 minutes, if you ask mum, you'll get 5 (but she'll actually set the timer for 10).

Everybody Else

So I was thinkin'...


Who is this elusive, usually exclusive everyone? 


How can we achieve individuality?
How do you define something like that?


You can't. 


Everyone has their own 'look', their own attitude, personality, but still we hear:

"Oh she's a carbon copy of so-and-so" ;

"He's a dick, look how he's dressed" ;

"She looks like a dumb barbie, what a bitch".

But they're not, if you strike up a conversation, everyone, EVERYone has their own fears, hopes, secrets and dreams.

Someone asked me, last year, why I had turned out so different from the rest of my siblings, why my career path was so markedly different from what they 'expected of the family', why I interact with my parents differently than my little sisters do. I just said - "Because I'm not my sisters". Because I'm not. In that case, the everyone was clear. My sisters, and my family as a whole, was that everyone. You can't group people together as an everyone, because it isn't. Sure, it may be a majority, but to have a majority, there has to be those that don't conform, or disagree, and even in that majority, you don't have to agree completely to take a side.

But we're still grouped according to that "everyone", and now that there's so many little niches for people to fit into, so many everyones to be a part of, there's nothing that's really individual anymore. Even now, Alternative genre is considered mainstream music; abstract art is one of the most popular art forms (?forms) and there are many shows and museums that have a majority taken by what was once seen as an oddity and not even considered art.

But then, is it just society, us in general that are becoming more accepting or tolerant of everything? Are we going to lose those old-fashioned tastes and values? Are they not good enough for us anymore? We're continually encouraged to push the boundaries but are there some boundaries that aren't meant to be pushed? So we can be expressive but outside what's already been done? But then if it's all been done, what then? Has it all been done before or did we push boundaries a couple of decades ago and have just followed their paths and not discovered something new for that long? Have we just bashed at the sides of the path, widening it for others to make their way through but not forging ahead? Since when have we been able to pinpoint one single person that's done something in the last 10 years that hasn't been done before, isn't building on something that's previously been discovered or isn't named as just a part of a company or scientific, artistic, or political group. Just one person, doing their own thing, something original. Something new. There's not really, that I know of, but someone correct if I'm wrong.

Until next time, take comfort in the fact that you're an individual...

Just like everybody else.

Don't Stifle Something Beautiful

/rant - LADIES, have a life separate from your man, be it study, hobby, weekly girls nights etc. Sure you love the guy but spending 24/7 with one person can/will be detrimental to your relationship and relationships with your mates. And don't fully rely on him for your every need/want. Be independant. For your own sake.... And for his sake. And for your mates' sakes. And if you're single - Enjoy it!
That is all/

Today, the above was my status update on Facebook. In the past few weeks, and beyond that actually, I've seen girls, and guys, getting sick of their boyfriend or girlfriend (respectively), or just fighting, or feeling like they're being controlled, or stifled, and I'll ask what they do by them self, do they work with their partner? Do they study with their partner? Do they live with their partner (usually I already know that one)? Do they have time to themself, at all, at any time during the week where they go out with mates without the other half around, or just go out for a walk, or something, by themself? Usually, they'll say no, they do everything together and for girls it'll be - "Oh, but I can't live without him!" - I'm sorry, girls, but please, PLEASE, get a grip, a reality check, whatever you want to call it.

If you can't physically live without the guy, can't do anything without him around, it's a bad place to be in.

I'm not a feminist, but every girl needs to be able to have her independance and confidence in herself, who she is DISREGARDING her man. Its what guys find hot, and even if you're in a stable relationship, if you lose your flavour, your spark of 'you', things can go downhill. Don't do it, girls. And guys, let your girl do her own thing, she'll grow into something more beautiful than you can imagine, or 'make' her into, doing something that she loves and feels confident doing. Trust her.

Be strong in yourself. Trust your partner. Let them spread their wings and show you something amazing. If you can't love completely, where's the basis of the relationship?

Don't stifle something beautiful.

Goodbyes and New Beginnings

The last couple of weeks have been really interesting...

- I've had to say goodbye to a good girlfriend of mine, who's going to Europe to further her studies at Maastricht. I'm really happy for her but at the same time this beautiful girl will be missed.

- I've missed an engagement party for 2 friends of mine in Kalgoorlie... But that's ok kinda. I'm pretty sure I'll be able to see them tie the knot, and I can't wait... I love weddings, and I think that these two are amazing together =D

- An old friend of mine (from primary school) has just got engaged.

- Another old friend of mine has had a little girl, and yet another friend has found out his fiance is expecting.


And exams are over, but that really doesn't matter in comparison to goodbyes, babies and weddings.

Every time someone gets engaged I think - How can they know, and trust, that their partner will be theirs for life? How can they live with this guy or girl for the rest of their life and know that the romance won't suddenly fade after a few years? I know that my partner and I have spoken about marriage and are seriously considering it but... Still have to get established, money for a house etc, I'm still in university. But I love the guy and we've been together well over a year now. I still have problems with trust and sure, we have disagreements, but my friends think he's so good for me (apparently he's the right amount of insanity, stubborness chivalry, and I'd have competition if he wasn't mine already - gotta love those friends who say exactly what they're thinking ey).
My mate that just got engaged has only been with her man for 10 months or so, and she's the same age as me (ok, a couple months older but hardly a difference) but she trusts this guy implicitly. Something I heard once.. "Together a year and a day" ... And it makes perfect sense. To know someone, to be with them at least a year and a day so you see how they react in different situations, birthdays, christmas, new years etc. But 10 months from not knowing the guy until getting engaged and getting married this November? I don't know if it's just me, but that seems really fast. But then, each to their own and maybe I'm just super cautious. Ah well. Each to their own.

Anyway, enough of my rambling ramblings. I should really get my room tidy (it's a neverending battle) and go fill my car up while the fuel prices are still half-decent.

Toodles
x

Cyanide... This time with Happiness

So... Here we are again.

I've rediscovered an old friend of mine, a comic strip but not in the regular way, it's little more morbid, witty and a whole lot darker than you'll get in the newspaper. Cyanide & Happiness. Really, with a name like that, you know it's not your run-of-the-mill, feel good comics.

Here's a sample -

A new twist on the parental adage - "Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about". Brilliant, isn't it?

Examinations... Cyanide anyone?

Picture this - You've aced the unit for whatever uni course you're doing, throughout the entire semester, and are confident of a D or HD.

You decide, just out of curiousity, to see how much the final exam is worth, and promptly crap yourself. 60%.

So... If you do great, say.. overall 90% or so throught semester, you only hit up 35 - 40% of the final marks of the unit. If you're sick on the day of the final exam, you're screwed. If you make some stupid mistake on the final exam, you're screwed. If you're late, or nervous, or forget your notes, or your calculator, you're screwed.

And then you get those stupid units where, if you don't pass the exam, you fail the entire unit. Yes, Chemistry, I'm talking about you. Stupidstupidstupid. I'm not good in exams, never have been. I don't think anyone is really the best. It's so much pressure, and the whole sitting still in a dead quiet hall, usually freezing your pants off or delirious from heatstroke (they never can get the temperature just right, really) for 2.5 to 4hrs, depending on the length of your torture, oh and don't forget the omniprescent sniffer. That one kid that sits just far enough from you that you don't know who it is, but just close enough to get incredibly annoying and distracting. 

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to exams.

Love is an online presence

Assignments. Ohhh they're a bitch and a half.

Exhibit A: Cait thinks that she's finished a law essay and hands it to a friend (law student, 2yrs ahead of her). Friend proceeds to almost decimate essay with various angry red circles, underlines, crosses and amendments. Cait, slightly disheartened, heads home and prepares for a long night working changes to the previously-thought-brilliant essay.

Exibit B: Cait (at 9.30pm), knowing that her prac book is due for submission tomorrow at 9.30am, decides to quickly flick through it to double check that all the work is done correctly, only to discover that many diagrams have been labelled incorrectly, in a hurry, or not at all. Panic. Calm down. Works on the book, finishing at one minute to midnight.

Well yes, maybe I shouldn't leave my editing to the last minute... I like to live on the edge *shrugs*

BUT you know what? I could never have done it without my late-night online presence. No it's not some robot or some random chat room thing, it's my boyfriend.

I stress, and what does he do? Makes himself available online, usually msn, so that I can rant, or throw questions at him to get his opinion/ Or say nothing at all.. Pretty much any time I ask, he's there.

I digress. It's like that thing that your parents say to you when you're little and you ask about love and friendship... That you can just be with someone, say nothing at all, and have complete comfort in silence, that when conversation runs out, it's not awkward. That person is your best mate. I have a couple of people I know like that, but online it's different. They don't 'talk' and you think they're busy... or away... then comes the question 'You still there?' or 'So how's life?' or something ridiculously mundane along those lines. When you get to the point where you know someone's online, conversation has tapered off, but they're still there, and the 'silence' is comforting as opposed to awkward? That's something special where, in this day and age where everything's instant communication, commonly online, an electronic 'silence' can comfort.

Noone else I chat to, electronically, can do that. It's only him that I trust he's there when I ask, maybe reading a book, but ready if I need to talk.

That's love.

Snuffle-uf-agus

I got the sniffles. Not just the annoying oh-my-this-is-annoying sniffles but the I-think-I-need-to-buy-shares-in-a-tissue-factory sniffles. It's more than a little annoying. Also, the stuffy head feeling.. Ya know, ya just can't think, and when someone says 2 + 2 = 3 you agree because thinking doesn't come easy. Days till exams = 14. Exam study today = 0. This being sick is not working for me.

Ooh, on the upside, I scored myself a lovely half hour massage. BEST 30 minutes of the day. It went by way too fast, but now my 3 day headache has miraculously dissipated. Woo!
Note to self: Get massages more often.
Actually, scratch that. Requires money, and I need a job to have money. Someone employ me?

In other news... My littlest sister broke her toe. Yep, that annoying little appendage that you really can't do anything with except hobble around looking like an idiot for a while. She was being the sweet little obedient child she is (insert dripping sarcasm here) and jumping over one of her older sisters who was laying on the grass. Should probably mention she'd been told not to by another of her older sisters (yeah, lotta girls in my family) and, in her jumping, managed to catch her toe on the end of a hooded jumper and OOPS! down she went.
I'm sorry, I laughed. Poor kid, it's gotta be annoying but seriously. Obedience right there? I was never that bad at her age...

Laters,
Cait.

blogblog

Blogging. Well, it seems that all the cool kids are doing it these days. So what the heck, may as well jump on the bandwagon..

Ah, and it's also another procrastination technique. I seem to be quite proficient at this procrastination thing now. Lovely.

A little about me - I'm a uni student, studying Criminology and Forensics. More like Bones than CSI, for those crime show buffs. But not really. On the side, I'd love to work in some capacity at the Motorplex. Yup, science, law and speedcars. 3 of my loves in life. I have many. Loves, that is, not speedcars.

Though many speedcars would be nice...