This actually raises a question for me: Are Australia and Canada still mostly bound by English common law, or did you sit down and do a rewrite when you gained independence?

Australia still operates under a common law system, and where they haven't been superseded by statute or Australian case law, British case law is still applicable.

Among other things, this means that the law regarding the jurisdiction under which a contract is deemed to fall depends on the splendidly named Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft.

Until the 1980s, cases heard under State law could still be appealed to the (British) Privy Council. (Federal cases had been refused appeal to the Privy Council since 1975.) Since then, the highest court of appeal has been the Australian High Court.

Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft.

WHOA. What's the customary abbreviation?

WHOA. What's the customary abbreviation?

In polite company I refer to it as "the Brinkibon case". I've seen it appear as "Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl" on occasion too.

Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft

Hey, it just means Steel Goods Trade Association. It's not that scary.

Brinkibon!brinkibon!brinkibon!

Er, sorry. It just has a nice unfamiliar bouncy ring to it.

Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft! Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft! Stahlwarenhandelgesellschaft!

just...doesn't

this has me thinking it's a part of the oral tradition, that there are bards who travel all over the nation, and are always present for meetings in the parliament to recite the constitution, using all those ancient memory keys like interior rhymes and refrains and couplets.

You think you're kidding? Google "Norman St.John Stevas". That's exactly what our constitutional scholars do.

Brinkibon is the Fifth Teletubby.

Ah! The teletubby who replaced TinkyWinky when TinkyWinky was determined to be too gay?

t random

I've seen the bloke who was the original tinky winky doing standup, fwiw. And he was one FILTHY and perverse comic. Which I liked.

Not to digress about homosexuality, but I've been having a lively debate about sex portrayals in sexuality textbooks. It's sort of funny, because all of us on the team are used to the terminology, of talking about this act and that position without giggling or awkward silences, but then we have to step back and ask, "What will get us investigated at the University of Kansas?"

(That really happened -- a prof at KU was showing sexually explicit learning materials in his sexuality course, and was accused in the state legislature of showing pornography.)

Needless to say, this continues to shoot down my basic argument that 5 pages of drawings showing different f/m intercourse positions, to one drawing of two naked men basically waving hello to each other, is a rather unbalanced portrayal of the realm of sexual expression.

But what were they waving hello WITH?