Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Triggernometry"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Canada's de facto independence can be dated from as early as 1848, when its government became formally responsible to the Canadian electorate rather than Westminster. The process was well under way in 1830. After that, layers of symbolic British rule were removed one by one, Lord Balfour declaring in his 1926 report that Britain and its dominions were constitutionally "equal in status." One area of partial integration remained, the foreign office, but this lone survival was at Canada's sole discretion. It decided to end it four years later.
(Even this was largely symbolic, as Canada had already been a founding member of the League of Nations (1919), had its own seat at the Paris Peace Conference (1919), had concluded a treaty with the US on its own (1923), had sent its own ambassadors abroad, etc.)
Canada can de jure never be more than (as Mr. Biggar put it) virtually independent, as long as the Monarch is its head of state. But not a soul on earth disputes that this last remaining tie is ceremonial, and it first became effectively so when Queen Victoria was in the 11th year of her reign, aged 29. The statute passed in 1931 codified and finalized a reality born 83 years earlier.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It won't stop here either. There are endless shining horizons of sexual and other identities to explore, as hinted at by the emergence into the spotlight of the 2,000 genders.
What about three-way marriages? Four-way? Thirteen-way?
Indeed, what if a whole artists' colony or alternative theatre troupe show up at city hall demanding the right to plight their mass troth into a single great union? Shall their human rights be denied by the chaplain present?
Can't people marry their pets? And not just sheepdogs and pekingese, but gerbils, spiders and gnats?
Is it right that in the 21st century society refuses to recognize the intimate love between grandmothers and their grandsons, great-uncles and their grand-nieces? And should they be denied bathrooms dedicated to them alone? Why do none sit together on even a single company board of directors across the whole land?
What if you fancy a piece of timber—shouldn't it be eligible for your workplace benefits? You know, a fresh coat of shellac yearly, and a survivor's pension when you shove off?
And is it not high time we ended the exclusion of ethereal unions? Are we so closed-minded that we can't allow marriage between a woman and her ghost, a man and his fairy, five ladies and their three cherubs?
I do apologize to all whom I've left out of this unfairly, inexcusably short list. I am deeply sorry and pledge to dedicate myself to making amends.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2