Jenna Talackova, right, the aboriginal transgendered Miss Universe adversary is apparent on date with two competitors during the basic annular of the Miss Universe Canada challenge inToronto on Thursday May 17, 2012. The Vancouver beauty, who was built-in a man but underwent sex-change anaplasty four years ago, is amid 62 contenders allusive for the crown. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Aaron Vincent Elkaim THE CANADIAN PRESS/Aaron Vincent Elkaim.

Wannabe adorableness queen Jenna Talackova has bedeviled media absorption for weeks, starting with her high-profile action to access the challenge alike admitting she was built-in male.

The gangling albino from Vancouverunderwent a sex change operation four years ago and is the aboriginal transgender adversary to attempt for the appellation of Miss Universe Canada.

Supporters of some added competitors complained during abeyance that Talackova’s amazing adventure has over shadowed aces challengers.

“It’s a little bit biased and there’s a lot of focus on maybe Jenna and maybe the issues surrounding it,” said Donavon Powell, there to acclamation for 24-year-old adherent Vaughan Marr of Cremona, Alta.

“I anticipate it’s acceptable there’s absorption brought to it but I anticipate it ability be ascendant and overshadowing the blow of the antagonism in general.”

Organizers say absorption in this year’s chase has been intense, cartoon alert as abounding reporters as aftermost year. A arranger said visiting media outlets accommodate TV crews from two Tokyo broadcasters, CNN and the U.S. ball appearance “Inside Edition.”

Still, the 800-seat city theatre that hosted Thursday’spageant appeared aloof two-thirds full.

The challenge kicked off with 62 women donning deficient white bikinis and bright black gowns for a basic round.

The 6-1 Talackova stood arch and amateur aloft some contenders, and gave a amorous circle abreast the top of the appearance to affectation her ample figure.

The swimsuit and clothes categories anniversary accord 30 per cent of the score, while 10 per cent is fatigued from the contestants’ altruistic work.The actual 30 per cent comes from a clandestine account affair set to booty abode Friday.

The champ will be crowned Saturday with a bright streamed online at www.beautiesofcanada.com.

Celebrity board Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan of HGTV’s “Home Heist” vowed to abide impartial.

“We won’t be pushed into authoritative her the champ aloof because we demand to be involvedin history in the making,” said Ryan, one of 15 board that accommodate “The Kennedys” extra Kristin Booth and accompanist Kreesha Turner.

“We’ll alone adjudge if Jenna’s a acceptable champ if Jenna shows us that she’s aces of captivation that crown. She’s gorgeous, butshe’s got to be a accomplished lot added than attractive to be our winner.”

Fellow adjudicator and “Rookie Blue” amateur Lyriq Bent said he’s steered bright of media advantage to abide as unbiasedas possible. He said he didn’t alike apperceive the character of the transgendered contestant.

“I’ve been audition about it (but)I’ve not watched any TV or listened to any news,” Bent said.

“At the end of the day, we all accept opinions and we accept an important job to accomplish abiding that we do not accompany that assessment into our judging. So that’s, I think, the best way to accord with anything.” Talackova created an all-embracing burst back organizers butterfingers her because she isn’t a naturally-born female.

But celebration buyer Donald Trump overruled the accommodation and said Talackova could booty part.

On Thursday, bristles women automatically fabricated it to Saturday’s final annular by acceptable aftereffect contests.

Calgary’s Adwoa Yamoah was called best aerodrome model, Hamilton’s Marta Jablonska becoming the altruistic prize, Edmonton’s Chelsea Bird won best body, Vancouver’s Casar Jacobson got the night’s best admirers votes while the people’s best award, fatigued from online votes, went to Mandi Gale of Grand Falls-Windsor, N.L.

Denis Davila, admiral of Beauties of Canada which runs the Canadian pageant, said he has accustomed a lot of emails both for and adjoin Talackova’s run for the crown.

But he said this year’s crop is afair representation of Canadian women.

“This is Canada — we are diverse, we are a multicultural country, we accept to appear fromall walks of activity and this is the accurate Canada,” said Davila.

Because of our ties with The British Empire and in honour of Queen Victoria.

In 1845 the Canadian Parliament made it a holiday because of her birthday.

In 1901 after her death it became officially known as Victoria Day.

When I was a child in Toronto Ontario we called it firecracker day.

Most families had their own fireworks in there front or backyards.

The day seemed filled with pink smoke, the scent of lilacs and excitement.

This is thought of as the begining of summer the proper time when you can wear,

white shoes and sandals and summer clothes.

People will open up their summer cottages or go camping,

or just have picnics and barbeques in the local parks or their own yards.

Because of the excessive beer drinking it has also become known as,

2-4 weekend after the beer cases with 24 beers.

Some campgrounds have banned alcohol in their parks that weekend.

Hoping to cut down on the excessive partying.

There are still fireworks displays, but most don’t have their own anymore,

especially in their yards due to fire regulations.

Here in the Near North Ontario, July 1st Canada’s Birthday,

is our big celebration.

So on this Long weekend we will enjoy the nice weather, and a family barbecue.

We hardly remember that great Monarch, Happy Birthday Queen Victoria.

There was a liitle ditty we said as school kids,

The 24 of May is the Queen’s birthday if we don’t get a holiday,

we will all run away.

Most of the other functions remain the same on the new website but the design and name changed. Whether this was a good step moving away from the already established brand is difficult to say at this point. The future will tell us.

Before you blame the husband, you must remember the fact that women are like diesel engines while making love. It took some time before the really ‘hot’. Therefore, women need a longer foreplay than men. Based on this fact, you and your partner should communicate with each other in order to reach the ‘peak’ at the same time.

According to an article that had appeared in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, of 33 sex theraphist from the United States and Canada in 2008, the normal duration of sex is not all night, but between 7 to 13 minutes. This figure is outside the foreplay activity. Randomized study conducted in men and women also revealed that the penetration is less than 7 minutes is considered too fast, while over 13 minutes is too long.

However, according to dr. Eric Corty, a sexologist who are involved in the study, the numbers in the study were not the raw count. “It depends on each partner. Could have changed the numbers. Clearly, the needs of everyone will be the duration of the bed is different for each person, “said dr. Eric.

The study also aims to calm me ¬ couples who still have the notion that a healthy sexual relationship is to last a long time. Such assumption would only lead to disappointment and dissatisfaction ¬ s.

The duration of the female sex to reach the ‘peak’ is different. It depends on many things, such as context, mood, psychological, physical, sociocultural factors, environment, and various other factors. The most important sex is not the duration, but the quality of sexual activity for both sides. The point is, how men and women are equally able to reach the top.

Property laws in Manitoba

            Manitoba has become one of the first provinces to fully recognize the rights of common-law parts in regards to division of property. As of 2004, Manitoba has successfully passed legislation incorporating common-law as an acceptable form of family figure for consideration under the Family Property Act. The Marital Property Act was amended under bill was affected primarily by Bill 53, the Common-Law Partners’ Property and Related Amendments Act, which officially extended the Manitoba property regime to opposite-sex and same-sex common law partners, as well as changing the name of the act to reflect this change[3]. This is a large step in the direction for inclusion of new family forms as it breaks typical social norms expecting marriage before provincial legislation fully recognizes two individuals as a couple. With the enactment of this legislation, unmarried adults in Manitoba are offered the opportunity to register their relationship under the Vital Statistics Act, or they are automatically considered if cohabiting for 3 years under the Family property act[4]. This comes as a leap forward to those living within the provincial jurisdiction as they now have full support under the act. Before 2004, any couples splitting up would keep any assets that they acquired under their own name. Under this new legislation, officially recognized common-law couples are offered equal division of any property assets that they have built while together. Common-law partners are given the opportunity to opt out, as they may have chosen this family figure to avoid the consequences of marriage entirely[5]. The amendments also affect the distribution of property upon death in the following: if there was no will left at the time of death, then the surviving partner is entitled to at least half, if not all of the deceased partner’s assets in accordance to The Intestate Succession Act[6]. These changes mean that residents of Manitoba are free to enjoy a larger variety of ways to proceed with conjugal relationships. However, it represents the problem of incorporating an entire family form that developed out of the idea to avoid the status of being considered “married”. Of course, this contrasts the Canadians that aren’t offered this immediate risk assurance in common-law relationships, and the ones that are still debating for it, such as in Ontario.

Property Laws in Ontario

            Ontario has not seen as severe a change in its laws regarding common-law relationships; however certain amendments have been made to incorporate them in ways that prove beneficial, but still not as significant as Manitoba. Unlike its neighbouring province, Ontario doesn’t welcome common-law couples into every section of the Family Law Act. Common-law couples enjoy protections for spousal support (Part III), requiring them to maintain a relationship “continuously for a period of not less than three years, or in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child”[7]. Under domestic contracts (Part IV), they are offered a chance to govern their affairs. And finally, under Part V, they are provided with dependants claims for damages in the event of death or injury of the other.  Ontario legislature has begun recognizing that common-law relationships essentially embody every aspect that a typical marriage has[8]. However, property rights of common-law couples are all but non-existent in the province. The benefit of being in a marriage means a husband or wife can apply for equal share of wealth that they generated while together under Part I, they both have right to possession of the home no matter who the owner is under Part II, as well as protection from the other spouse selling the property without mutual agreement under part II[9]. However common-law couples are offered an option to receive monetary compensation if they contributed to the acquisition of assets held by the other spouse. This claim of unjust enrichment has been emphasized previously in a few cases. Pettkus v. Becker[10] introduced a new form for developing constructive trust as a remedy for unjust enrichment, and in particular developing the requirements. The difficulty with establishing something like constructive or resulting trust claims is the effort it places upon the plaintiff, who many leave with less than 50% of the property they were fighting for. In reality, however, one must make a fair judgment and regard the laws that currently exist around property division. For married couples, Ontario doesn’t simply divide property in half, but under s. 5(1) of the Ontario Family Law Act, an equalization payment is presented to the spouse with less net worth upon divorce[11]. Overall, these ideas raise further questions for analysis. Importantly, one must ask how the community that has the most influence on change has portrayed the debate on marriage compared to common-law relationships. The benefit of being within the Ontario jurisdiction is unmarried couples no longer have to participate in property division upon relationship break down, however the problem with this is that not many people are aware of this fact. What seems to be a major problem is the lack of informing the public, as there does not seem to be an active effort in representing the different available options.

How is the issue reflected in debates?

            Common-law relationships, as previously mentioned, have been found to carry the same characteristics as formal marriages. But when brought into full view, how do these two very distinct family figures measure up? Before delving into the topic, it is necessary to establish that common-law relationships have faced heavy scrutiny in developing a proper formulation for what constitutes the bond. The 1960s and 1970s saw an increase in marriage breakdowns, and cohabitation outside marriage began to increase, with 14% in 2001 compared to 6% in 1981[12]. To further expand upon the history of common-law relationships, reference to Miron v. Trudel[13] is a necessity as it essentially established the grounds for charter scrutiny of the term “spouse”. In a five-to-four decision, the Court found marital status to be analogous ground for discrimination. This was a large step in the portrayal of how judges have seen common-law comparable to marriage. However it is important to note that Justice McLachlin, who wrote for the majority, describes the idea of individual decision in respect to choosing a family type. The arguments against providing the rights and obligations of marriage to common-law partners resides in the idea that common-law is the choice to be together without dealing with marriage consequences. McLachlin writes that this may not always be the case, and at times common-law relationships erupt due to the inability to seek marriage. Sometimes it may be due to “the law; the reluctance of one’s partner to marry; financial, religious or social constraints”[14]. Marriage has gone through many changes through the years as the younger generations have been found to choose common-law cohabitation, and this increase will therefore begin affecting a larger population of people who want to make their interests heard[15]. The article by the Ontario Law Reform Commission titled Report on the Rights and Responsibilities of Cohabitants Under the Family Law Act (1993) represents an attempt by a provincial body to scrutinize, understand and attempt to remedy the issue of common-law relationships and marriage in Ontario. This commission recommended that the definition of spouse that was applied to Part III should be extended to section 1(1). This would enable them to have full access to the entire Act in their support[16]. But then one begins to question how all this stands in comparison to marriage itself. Marriage was at one point our only legally recognized family form[17]. Like common-law relationships, the idea is marriage is a choice for individuals to undertake certain obligations and responsibilities. Marriage creates a new reality for many people, and it is that they are now bonded in a way that is out of their own power, and they are essentially under the mercy of the law[18]. Comparatively, just as many common-law couples are not aware that there is legislation to offer them similar rights to married couples, there are many who are married that do not realize they have the option to opt out of their rights and obligations. In this sense, it seems that legislative bodies are continuously focusing on ways for the different family forms to include or exclude themselves; however they are avoiding passing laws that inevitably include all conjugal cohabitation. Manitoba has already decided that it would be in the best interest for the province to fully include common-law partners. As quoted by Rosalie Abella, a significant issue is the inability to agree on what marriage is, and when to apply certain rights and obligations on the persons[19]. This arises from the fact that the only definition we can find is in common law, with no federally or provincially defined definition. Instead we rely on the most frequently used common law definition which states that marriage is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”[20]. In conclusion, marriage and common-law relationships have faced far too much in the sense of comparing the two family forms, and there have been a large amount of amendments and legislations made to reflect their individuality. The problem is that the law is starting to get messy, and misunderstood, with people not fully realizing what their options in either situation actually are. The problem with making too drastic a change is how it’ll impact the concept of marriage as being a distinct legal and social institution.

How will this change the outlook on marriage?

            Throughout this analysis, it has been established that marriage is not actually legally defined in a way that offers helpful support for either party in the situation. It provides a discriminatory definition that violates Canadian charter rights, making it analogous for charter scrutiny. All Canadian provinces agree on legislation that fully encompasses the situations revolving around married couples, and their rights have been recognized since at least the 1980’s[21]. After the Miron trial, it became clear to the judicial system that common-law relationships can develop in a way similar to married couples, and the Pettkus case developed the understanding that someone entering into a common-law relationship of some permanence should at least have the opportunity to receive some form of damages in the situation that they contributed enough to the relationship to expect some obligation from their partner. In the more recent case of Kerr v. Baranow[22], we witness the courts recognition of common law couples as being regarded like married couples. The case set out some ideas for a new “joint family venture”, that essentially allows couples to prove that they did in fact have a family relationship, and are then entitled to a share of the assets they acquired when there was a financial agreement between both individuals. In the case of Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh[23], we are presented with a case that surprisingly pushed itself up from a provincial issue to a federal case. It represents the split in opinion, and how the provincial legislation felt that common-law couples are excluded in an unjust way from many of the rights that married couples enjoy, specifically for women who are within relationships that end with children requiring support. What we are witnessing is a change from typical family forms, and an increase in the alternatives. This requires employing upon the population that they are not required to marry to achieve a certain status that brings with it various obligations and right. The Walsh case found the majority decision agreeing that common-law should remain distinct from marriage because if the law were to involve all common-law couples, regardless of their choice, within a legislation that presses upon them obligations that they chose to avoid, then it would see a new problem created within the entire process[24]. Even with all the comparisons made, we must remember that common-law couples are essentially considered as autonomous as married couples, and to eventually “bundle” the two family forms under the same legislation threatens to impose that they are fundamentally the same concept. However if we are to maintain a sense of democratic freedom, then it requires more than merely representing the population that decides they are ready to accept all the responsibilities of a married couple without undertaking the social responsibilities that are required. It is these social consequences that the judges in the Walsh case typically found it unjust to simply apply a common definition among all couples representing relationships with some expectation of permanence and mutual obligation. Keeping the two family forms as separate will maintain the idea that marriage truly is a specific family form that two people agree on and make official before they are expected to feel mutually obligated to each other financially and socially.

Conclusion

            Overall, this analysis represents the ongoing change that is occurring within the legal institutions around Canada. We see that many provinces are finding legitimacy in the arguments of common-law couples to obtain more rights. They seek to remove the old ideology that marriage is the only officially recognized family form, which almost proves to undermine those who choose to avoid it. It is commonly said that many are unaware of their rights, with those choosing relationship forms being part of this group. However, one must ask if all these options are truly the proper remedy. They may serve to aid some individuals, while turning away others. Many expect that they should automatically be considered equal to married couples, because the two family forms share so many similarities on a personal level, as well as economical. But the opinion of the majority of judges seem to feel that initiating an overhaul of the legislations that effect property would prove to create new problems. In reality, this seems to be the only viable remedy, as in practice it would be unfair to impose these obligations on someone seeking to avoid them. The past has seen many changes, and it is inarguable that the future will only prove to represent the continuing struggle for full legal recognition of common-law relationships.

Bibliography

Bill 53, The Common-Law Partners’ Property And Related Amendments Act, 3d Sess, 37th Leg,

Manitoba, 2004

Cobb and Jones Legal Matters:  Article Library. Common Law Couples and the Joint Family Venture (article)(Cobb and Jones Legal Matters: Article Libary, 2011), online: http://www.cobbjones.ca/library.php?article=167

Colette Chelack & Joan MacPhail, Sharing a Life: Manitoba Legislation Respecting Rights and Obligations of Common-Law Partners (2005) 31 Man. L.J. 111 – 139

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3

The Family Property Act, C.C.S.M. c. F-25

Government of Manitoba, Family Justice (government document) (Manitoba: Website of Government of Manitoba, 2004), online: http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/law/commonlaw/index.html

Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, [1866] 1 P. & D. 1

Heather Conway & Philip Girard, “’No Place Like Home’: The Search for a Legal Framework for Cohabitants and the Family Home in Canada and Britain” (2005) 30 Queen’s L.J. 715 – 771

Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269

Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report On The Rights and Responsibilities of Cohabitants Under the Family Law Act (Toronto: Office of the Ontario Law Reform Commission 1993)

Pettkus v. Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834, 117 DLR (3d) 257

Nicholas Bala, “Controversy over Couples in Canada: The Evolution of Marriage and Other Adult Interdependent Relationships” (2003) 29 Queen’s L.J. 41 – 102

Winifred Holland, “Intimate Relationships in the New Millennium: The Assimilation of Marriage and Cohabitation?” (2000) 17 Can. J. Fam. L. 114 – 168

[1] Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990 , c. F-3

[2] The Family Property Act, C.C.S.M. c. F-25

[3] Bill 53, The Common-Law Partners’ Property And Related Amendments Act, 3d Sess, 37th Leg, Manitoba, 2004

[4] Colette Chelack & Joan MacPhail, Sharing a Life: Manitoba Legislation Respecting Rights and Obligations of      Common-Law Partners (2005) 31 Man. L.J. 111 – 139 at para. 7

[5] Ibid. at para. 16

[6] Government of Manitoba, Family Justice (fact sheet) (Manitoba: Website of Government of Manitoba, 2004), online: http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/family/law/commonlaw/index.html

[7]  Family Law Act, Supra note 1, s. 29

[8] Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report On The Rights and Responsibilities of Cohabitants Under the Family Law Act (Toronto: Office of the Ontario Law Reform Commission 1993)

[9] Ibid. at p. 9

[10] Pettkus v. Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834, 117 DLR (3d) 257

[11] Family Law Act, Supra note 1, s. 5(1)

[12] Nicholas Bala, “Controversy over Couples in Canada: The Evolution of Marriage and Other Adult Interdependent Relationships” (2003) 29 Queen’s L.J. 41, at para. 6

[13] Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418

[14] Bala, Supra note 12 at para. 13

[15] Report, Supra note 8 at 6

[16] Ibid at 61

[17] Winifred Holland, “Intimate Relationships in the New Millennium: The Assimilation of Marriage and Cohabitation?” (2000) 17 Can. J. Fam. L. 114, at para. 15

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid at para. 16

[20] Per Lord Penzance, Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, [1866] 1 P. & D. 130

[21] Heather Conway & Philip Girard, “’No Place Like Home’: The Search for a Legal Framework for Cohabitants and the Family Home in Canada and Britain” (2005) 30 Queen’s L.J. 715, at para. 7

[22] Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269

[23] Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325

[24] Ibid. at para. 158

Brian Robeson, a thirteen-year-old from New York City, boards a plane headed from Hampton to visit his father. His plane pilot has a heart attack, and the plane crashes into a lake in the Canadian woods where Brian is stranded. Brian has little to eat and is injured from the crash, but believes he will soon be rescued. He builds a shelter and inside the forest, makes a fire using a hatchet. This is how Brian survives in the woods.

What i liked:

Brian is a very dynamic character. While he shows weakness, frustration, and anger at the beginning of the novel when he attempts to commit suicide, his experiences in the north woods of Canada changes his life forever. He learns lessons and adopts qualities that are important to not only to wilderness survival, but also to life in the city. Patience, an appreciation for the natural world and observation all contribute to Brian’s development over the story. All these changes symbolise Brian’s manhood, which I thought, was a major theme in the novel.

What got me thinking:

This text made me think about the dangers of our technology. From the story, an obvious danger in our world is transport. When a plane crashes, all the passengers have to strive for survival in a completely random natural biome. Brian was lucky to crash in the forest, and extremely lucky to be near a lake. The fact is, this plane could have crashed anywhere between New York and Canada. What if it crashed in the middle of a city? or In the ocean? Our technology today may seem useful and beneficial to us now, but in reality, it poses a lot of danger towards the human society.

What slogan would be so offensive that it would ignite moral indignation in Canada? This is after all the country in which a prime minister could get away with giving the single finger salute to the press, and where a political party could run in a federal election on the platform of ending the prohibition on marijuana. What T-shirt slogan would offend us? Something about giving illegal drugs to puppies, or a satanic rock band clubbing baby seals?

No, the T-shirt making national headlines today reads, “Life is wasted without Jesus.”

According to the CBC, Swinimer was told repeatedly by his school principal to stop wearing the shirt, but the grade 12 student refused to comply. He told CBC news that the principal would have accepted a shirt with the slogan, “My life is wasted without Jesus.” That would be his personal opinion. As is, the slogan is an attack on the beliefs of other students.

“But I didn’t go for that because I have my rights as a Canadian citizen.” Swinimer said. He says that he will continue to wear the shirt and is prepared to be suspended the rest of the year.

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told the CBC that some students and teachers found the T-shirt offensive.

“When one is able or others are able to interpret it as ‘If you don’t share my belief then your life is wasted,’ that can be interpreted by some as being inappropriate,” she said.

So, to get this straight, a slogan needs to be clearly designated as a personal opinion, or else someone might interpret it as an offense against them personally, and that would be inappropriate, so therefore wearing a T-shirt with that slogan merits a suspension from school?

Swinimer says that the T-shirt is an expression of his beliefs, and he won’t stop wearing it.

“I believe there are things that are bigger than me. And I think that I need to stand up for the rights of people in this country, and religious rights and freedom of speech.”

The school board is now looking for some guidance on the matter. It hopes to bring in an expert to help mediate the dispute with Swinimer, his family and church supporters.

“We’ll be looking for some people with understanding in this area to help us with that,” Pynch-Worthylake said.

I’m sure they will find someone. After all, Canada is a nation built on compromise, where anything is tolerated except intolerance. I’ll keep you posted.

If it wasn’t for the martian family who moved in next door to the I would be fine.

The Captain and his wife had lived on the same street in the same neighborhood for the last thirty years.

They didn’t know the martians were from out of space.

I must be the only person in the world who doesn’t celiebve that the American space people landed on the moon.  I think they might landed but it was an optical illusion. 

Still they did learn something.

I love the moon.  No matter waht happeds in my life there is the moons and the stars. 

Some of the stories about space are fun. 

What does this have to do with Saturday night. 

My Saturday night is my time off from doing things I have to do. 

I love Saturday night because I went to a fun college.  I met many kind people there.  I was about to have fun.

Please forgive my Grammar.  I came from Canada.  I speak both English and French.  English is my first language.  Freanh is my second language. 

Another thing found in Germany, specifically Berlin in our case, was a tram system. The one we took to move across the city was bright yellow, often crowded, but it was still better than walking those distances (if one doesn’t have the time or inclination to walk). It was also hot and humid in there. Anyways, the trams provided simple mass transportation to those who needed it, so I guess the system is overall good in its purpose. While moving through Berlin I noticed that there were many apartments. They came in all sorts of colors; such as red, green, yellow, blue, etc. I noticed also that the streets of Berlin were narrower and there are many line in white painted on them for the use of walkers and cyclists.

Near Berlin is an old concentration camp named ‘Ravensbruck’ filled with crumbling weathered buildings. This was a place where women were held. Here we had an hour to walk around and examine the place, all the while trying (and most likely hugely failing) to imagine what it must have been like to be interred there in those horrible conditions. While we were there the sky grew cloudy and a light rain began to fall, and yet, the birds around us in the area continued to sing their merry songs. It was a bit eerie, but that was probably the best atmosphere for where we were at that time. The old concentration camp near Munich that we visited a day or two later, named ‘Dachau’, was also quite similar to the first one, excepting it was emptier because more building had been removed, and it was creepily more beautiful as well. There was an area with flowers, trees, and a walking path, that was actually quite nice to linger in for a while. There too a light rain began, it being cloudy as well, and so too was there the sound of happy birds all around. Overall the concentration camps in Germany had a big impact on us.

Munich, Germany was much like Berlin, a difference being some piping, blue and pink, which snaked aboveground through the city. We saw most of Germany’s countryside whilst sitting on a bus. There were many farms, conventional and solar, and also a lot of wind turbines. One could easily grasp the importance of alternative sources of energy in Germany. We saw also many little villages scattered amongst the hills, and they would reveal themselves suddenly as we passed around a bend in the road. As we left Germany we had time to reflect on everything we had seen previously on our trip. The concentration camps especially weighed heavily on our minds. The first leg of our trip was over, three more to go yet, and we were already hopefully a little wiser, somewhat more experienced in the ways of the world, on our way to being seasoned travellers. Germany had managed to shatter some misconceptions, born of media back home… showing us what the country, or merely parts of it, is really all about, and it sought to make a good impression. I would say that it succeeded.