This time surely Julia Gillard has gone too far:
Denigration of religious beliefs is never acceptable.
Surely attacking the beliefs of atheists and agnostics should be recognised as unacceptable in a free society. Their right to be heard should never be in doubt.
So Gillard believes that Monty Python should be banned.
C.L.
30 Sep 12 at 11:32 am
Ms Gillard just says what John McTernan tells her to say, he’s sorta like a new variant of the ‘faceless’ men.
candy
30 Sep 12 at 11:49 am
I’d like to see Jules referee a salafi/evangelical atheist cage match.
lotocoti
30 Sep 12 at 11:52 am
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence was a satirical order of nuns, founded by gay activists in the 80s. They basically dressed up as nuns in drag, which I don’t need to tell you, is making fun of nuns. I don’t remember Catholics caring very much at the time, but maybe they should have!
dd
30 Sep 12 at 11:52 am
Julia Gillard should be banned. As a self-proclaimed atheist (not to mention a proven liar, adulterer and alleged abbettor of fraud) she is an affront to the religion of no name that she’s attempting to placate.
mareeS
30 Sep 12 at 11:53 am
As an aside, in my experience Christians who sit down and actually watch “Life of Brian” usually find it very funny. it has a lot of in jokes that people unfamiliar with the Bible wouldn’t get.
Still, I’m sure Gillard’s right. Probably best to ban it.
dd
30 Sep 12 at 11:54 am
Naturally. Nothing she says or does reflects any strongly held belief of her own that she is prepared to make public. In public, she is a straw in McTerman’s wind, a blast of hotair blown out of his nether regions in increasingly toxic doses to be inflicted as maniupulation on the electorate’s sensibilities. We can only hope that the electorate’s olfactory system is holding up under this assault. Australians have always been able thus far to detect and call bullshit on the rank odour of hypocrisy.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
30 Sep 12 at 12:13 pm
The Koran has some unpleasant things to say about Jews and Christians. Are they going to ban it?
Dangph
30 Sep 12 at 12:15 pm
” We can only hope that the electorate’s olfactory system is holding up under this assault”
I really really hope so, Lizzie, but they are extra-ordinarily sneaky and deceptive and adept at manipulation.
candy
30 Sep 12 at 12:16 pm
What about disagreeing with what ,lying,crooked ,theiving,self seeking so calledvpeepuks decoromatic soshalists? Will that be banned by tovarish dickhead conroy,cheif propaganda mongerel? Jail the alp bastards they Really Deserve It! No judges ,no lying lawyers ,no media wankers ,work them hard in the Gulags theyd love to have!
Borisgodunov
30 Sep 12 at 12:18 pm
Julia is not the messiah – she’s just a very naughty liar.
boy on a bike
30 Sep 12 at 12:24 pm
Gillard’s quote has to be the silliest thing I’ve heard an Australian PM say.
Luckily, I don’t think she means it….does she?
Quentin George
30 Sep 12 at 12:27 pm
Liberty quote!
C.L.
30 Sep 12 at 12:38 pm
I take it the Chasers are going to be banned from ABC? They had a picture of the Last Supper with Gillard as Jesus, and them as her acolytes. Or doesn’t that constitute blasphemy?
She will do anything, say anything, be anything, to be part of the poxy ‘inner circle’ that is the UN Like Sally Field at the Oscars ‘You like me! You really really like me!’
Throwing our carbon taxes round like confetti to all the banana republics whilst planning to raid super for more.
It’s like seeing your drug-crazed schizophrenic son take off, unasked, with your new car and all his crazy mates.
We don’t have democracy any more when we can be held to ransom by moron voters and the ‘independents’.
Never forgive, never forget. This is what they did when they were handed the reins by the morons and independents
Denise
30 Sep 12 at 1:38 pm
Well, I find the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence rather offensive, yet still think Dogma is a hoot.
I guess if all religious denigration is to be outlawed, then we’re going to be moving into extremely interesting territory.
Oh, and Life of Brian is one of the all time greatest films of all time.
(yes, I know it’s redundant, but it’s Life of Brian.)
nilk
30 Sep 12 at 1:50 pm
No, when the anti-blasphemy law is brought in it will only be applied against those who blaspheme against the Koran or Islamic beliefs.
Christians are not sincere in their complaints against blasphemy or insults against their beliefs. They just don’t care enough to become extremely violent – the great test of sincerity. The same applies to Buddhists and a number of other major religions.
Don
30 Sep 12 at 1:52 pm
so certain journalists and ALP ministers will not be able to call Tony Abbott the “mad monk” any more.
candy
30 Sep 12 at 1:54 pm
Not all religions/worldviews are equal. Some are better than others. I even believe one to be true – most people do. How can you NOT denigrate (if you understand it to mean “to deny the importance or validity of”) that which is false or foolish?
Truth really matters.
Ellen of Tasmania
30 Sep 12 at 1:54 pm
Christians are not sincere in their complaints against blasphemy or insults against their beliefs. They just don’t care enough to become extremely violent
what a lot of poppycock. Violence is the antithesis to Christ’s teachings.
Gab
30 Sep 12 at 1:56 pm
Christians care – they just understand how the kingdom of God grows.
Ellen of Tasmania
30 Sep 12 at 1:59 pm
The Fisk Doctrine can’t come soon enough
Tal
30 Sep 12 at 2:03 pm
Steve, you forgot that under Gillard’s new edict thou shalt not denigrate the religion of environmentalism, subscribed to by the likes of Bob “Earthian” Brown!
Julie Novak
30 Sep 12 at 2:07 pm
Yes. she has gone too far. ‘Denigration’ of religious beliefs is not only acceptable, but necessary. I see a high correlation between the moral validity of a world view and how open its adherents are to criticism of their beliefs.
Science, a method and philosophy built on criticism and questioning seems to be the most successful method of interacting with reality. Islam the least tolerant of all the religions to criticism seems to be doing the worst.
Other religions and political/economic ideologies sit along that line of correlation.
PS: Gab, I think you may have missed the sarcasm in Don’s comment.
TC
30 Sep 12 at 2:14 pm
Oh, did I, TC? Well, okay, if that is the case then I withdraw the comment.
Gab
30 Sep 12 at 2:16 pm
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
wasis asatiricalbrain dead order ofnunssquealing fudgepackers,foundedinvented as a deliberate insult bygayhomosexual activists in the 80s. They basically dressedup as nunsin dragprance about at the homosexual street parade in Sydney, which I don’t need to tell you, ismaking fun ofviciously mocking nuns.I don’t rememberMany Catholicscaring very muchwere highly offended at the time and still are, butmaybe they should have!the media, luvvies and left loved it, supported it and mocked along with the prancing fudgepackers. The Catholics turned, and still turn, the other cheek.FTFY, DD
All that said, maybe it’s time to copy the muslims and do as they do (it’s death for mocking islam and death for being homosexual, yes?).
After all, that gets results.
Mk50 of Brisbane
30 Sep 12 at 2:38 pm
The Doctrine will take care of it Mark
Tal
30 Sep 12 at 2:44 pm
just for giggles, http://www.memri.org/middle-east-media-research-institute.html.
One of my fave sites that translates mid east media.
I think Julia would have conniptions if she read some of the
poison that permeates public life / media over there.
Steve of Glasshouse
30 Sep 12 at 2:49 pm
The thing is, with Gillard, there is no inner core.
There is simply nothing there to guide her innately as to the right or wrong thing to do or say at any given time to any given circumstance; which is why she gets it so disastrously wrong, again and again, on every single level.
It is also a matter of trust. She is a serial liar who will say anything no matter how profoundly untrue, to deflect blame from herself. There is simply no getting around that.
She cannot and will not be elected by the Australian people for that reason alone.
Frankly, if the woman had a shred of dignity or self-respect or any other interest other than her own, she would resign now or call an election.
James P
30 Sep 12 at 2:50 pm
Sorry Gab. I have one of those whose sense of humour leans to irony. I do appear not to appreciate that many people take my remarks literally. I never seem to learn!
Don
30 Sep 12 at 2:55 pm
I support the PMs latest edict and insist that she acts to ensure that religious beliefs are no longer denigrated in Australia.
She should start with taxpayer funding. No funding of ABC or SBS programs that denigrates Christian beliefs.
No funding of art or cultural exhibition that denigrate Christian beliefs.
No funding of university academics who denigrate Christian beliefs.
Can’t see any reason why the PM wouldn’t do this, unless she does not say what she means. But that would mean she is a Liar.
johno
30 Sep 12 at 2:58 pm
…mmm…a good time to review what Thinking People Think about this subject…
Andrew Klavan: Is America Satanophobic?
true lilly
30 Sep 12 at 2:59 pm
Don, we have these rabid leftists who comment here (no I don’t mean Jarrah or sdfc) who do say things like that in all seriousness. So not having seen you post here before I suspected you to be one of them. My apologies for that.
Gab
30 Sep 12 at 3:01 pm
A retire Baptist such as Gillard has no excuse for forgotten all those nasty things the protestants (including the Baptists) said about the Catholics (the pope is the antichrist etc) and all those excommunications and condemnations to hell fires that the Catholics promises as the fate of heretics including Protestants.
The Catholics still think that the reformation was a mistake? Am I wrong?
Have the right to expose religion in general or just the competing religions for what they are has been central to the age of the enlightenment.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion and to propagate atheism with as much rude fervour as do believers. Why should any be expected to be polite to someone why wants to condemn you to hell fires and damnation.
Jim Rose
30 Sep 12 at 3:12 pm
Gillard’s statement seems to be of a piece with this:
Barbarity 2, Civility 0.
dover_beach
30 Sep 12 at 3:20 pm
Yeah but that’s true.
C.L.
30 Sep 12 at 3:24 pm
The Catholics still think that the reformation was a mistake? Am I wrong?
It would depend on what you meant by Reformation, Jim.
dover_beach
30 Sep 12 at 3:27 pm
Gab, I read this blog and comments reasonably often but only occasionally comment. I reckon Hammygar is having you all on and is having a good laugh at his success in getting so many responses. Some commenters have picked this up, but enough haven’t to make it all a bit of fun for Hammy. Anyone who still refers to USSR as sacred and uses someone like Scullin as a gravatar has got to be kidding.
Don
30 Sep 12 at 3:38 pm
Gillard has no core beliefs other than power for its own sake.
She votes for the sanctity of marriage yet has had affairs with two married men.
She says she joined labour to help the workers but supports Thomo as he and his mate Williamson rip off one union, and she is intimately involved in a dubious slush fund in another.
Now she is banging on about not denigrating religious beliefs…I don’t know how aware she is of recent events, but sucking up to Muslims hasn’t been working out too well for Obama recently.
Somewhere in Wales, a village is missing its idiot.
jupes
30 Sep 12 at 3:41 pm
Jupes
I disagree, I think the Lying slapper has a lot of core beliefs that she’s had from her days with the Socialist Alliance.
Like the Kenyan , she would be unable to utter them without devastating punishment at the ballot box.
JC
30 Sep 12 at 3:44 pm
I don’t quite get what these morons are demonstrating about.
There’s one placard which says
” No Violence remember Jill Meagher”.
WTF is that supposed to mean.
The woman was brutally raped and then murdered in cold blood. Who on earth would advocate the opposite?
Fucking moron.
Here’s what I advocate…. Capital punishment for the vermin that committed this atrocity. Any takers in that demonstration? Thought not.
Dickheads.
JC
30 Sep 12 at 3:51 pm
Bet you’ll never hear that at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.
boy on a bike
30 Sep 12 at 3:59 pm
By the way, when Gillard was talking about “denigration of religious beliefs”, she was addressing all us climate change deniers.
boy on a bike
30 Sep 12 at 4:00 pm
dover beach, I have read Robert B. Ekelund Jr. and Robert Tollison et al’ Sacred Trust: The Medieval Church as an Economic Firm; The Marketplace of Christianity; and Economic Origins of Roman Christianity. all worth reading both for the treatment of the church and as a way to learn applied economics.
The Protestant Reformation is the successful penetration of a religious market dominated by a monopoly firm–the Catholic Church.
The Counter-Reformation, the Catholic reaction, continued the competitive process, which came to include product differentiation in the form of doctrinal and organizational innovation.
The Catholic Church reacted to the Protestant Reformation by taking on the defensive posture of an incumbent-firm monopoly fighting new competition.
Contemporary firms typically respond to rival entry by rewriting their corporate charter. So did the medieval Catholic Church.
The Council of Trent failed as a reorganization plan because to keep economic rents flowing as before, it left intact the distribution of powers and property rights among the governing body of pope and cardinals demonstrating that entrenched economic interests are powerful even in spiritual institutions.
Protestant entry was facilitated in emergent entrepreneurial societies characterized by the decline of feudalism and relatively unstable distribution of wealth. it was repressed in more homogeneous, rent-seeking societies that were mostly dissipating rather than creating wealth.
Jim Rose
30 Sep 12 at 4:01 pm
On the contrary, denigration of religious beliefs should be de rigueur if that religious belief aggressively proselyses, condemns apostasy and disbelievers and demands blasphemy laws.
The right to have a religious belief, or not, is a fundamental individual right; we are all mortal and have to confront our personal death; how we choose to confront that existential fact, seperately, in groups, as part of an organised religion, or not at all, is each individual’s right.
All organised religions appropriate that individual right by dictating the theological constraints which its believers have to conform to.
Islam is implacable in oppressing the individual rights not only of its adherents but those who do not subscribe to its barbarous dictates.
That gillard should give even notional support to this anti-human religion indicts her as being at the very least a fool and a quisling.
She is a fool because to islam she is nothing more than a useful idiot; and she is a quisling because she betrays the core right of her social and political base.
Fuck her and fuck islam.
cohenite
30 Sep 12 at 4:13 pm
cohenite, I am surprised that militant religions call for laws on tolerance. more than a few imans go over the top, and would risk arrest under the laws they wanted.
Jim Rose
30 Sep 12 at 4:19 pm
Jim, I’m familiar with the sociological treatment of religion in terms of religious markets (and thanks for recommending those books, I will chase them up) but I’m not exactly sure what understanding it elicits about religion per se, or about Christianity, in particular.
dover_beach
30 Sep 12 at 4:33 pm
Gillard’s comment above was directed at the OIC, 56 or 57 UN votes to help rid her of her nemesis Rudd. She will say or do anything to help Rudd “move forward” and out of Parliament.
We see this quisling attitude in other areas of this government’s performance. Two examples are NO Moslems have been deported to Nauru (only Hindus and Buddhists), and the government’s delay to grant Geert Wilders his visa.
Dhimmitude is the name of the game, Sharia by stealth.
old bloke
30 Sep 12 at 4:53 pm
Good grief. She’s lost in space. Earth to Gillard…
Who are you, Julia? What do you actually stand for?
Where are you going?
What goes on in your head? (apologies to sarstedt)
one old bruce
30 Sep 12 at 4:55 pm
Good grief. She’s lost in space. Earth to Gillard…
Who are you, Julia? What do you actually stand for?
Where are you going?
What goes on in your head? (apologies to sarstedt)
one old bruce
30 Sep 12 at 4:56 pm
Gillard is an extraordinarily weak person when it comes to supporting Australian culture and values.
But I guess we should expect much more from a concubine….
Chris M
30 Sep 12 at 5:06 pm
Jim; consistency is not a hallmark of islam; neither is irony or a sense of hypocrisy; the so-called 5 pillars of islam do not include taqiyya and kitman; at least overtly.
What astounds me is that Western political leaders and msm representitives believe what islamic spokespersons say.
Islamists know that by and large Western leaders are afraid to confront them so generally say what they believe; which is the West is weak as shit and ripe for the picking; or dissemble for practice and the sheer disdain they have for the West.
cohenite
30 Sep 12 at 5:14 pm
I’m afraid the woeful pap plays well to the aqverage punter who doesmn’t give it serious consideration.
I reckon the best way to attack her is for not defending free speech and spelling out that the pap ipso facto is appeasement to opponents of free speech.
Obumma says precisely the same dross Gillard delivered..
The other thing is she said is that “our values are UN values” or soemsuch.
That’s positively offensive.
I want to see Australia resign from the UN.
It’s a fuckin’ disgrace.
JamesK
30 Sep 12 at 5:15 pm
Just what are these idiots playing at? Yes, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to use Nauru and Manus, but they finally did implement it. Considering how humiliating that was for them, what is the point of not even trying to make it work?
What is the point of hundreds of Muslims arriving daily and they are now sending them directly to Darwin of all places?
There isn’t a word to describe their level of incompetence.
jupes
30 Sep 12 at 5:15 pm
you cant have free speech if you want cultural marxism. It gets in the way.
john malpas
30 Sep 12 at 5:17 pm
Yeah-h, the rapists’ and murderers’ march is next week.
manalive
30 Sep 12 at 5:18 pm
Concubine. Is the best word seen so far to describe this woman.
Pickles
30 Sep 12 at 5:27 pm
Old Bloke
really? How do you know this? (Just curious).
Gab
30 Sep 12 at 5:53 pm
Oil fix youse captlist bastards,criticisin moi!sayin oim a loiar! That was just sloita an gordin thingy Oil git moi atternie jenral from morrie blackarse ta fix yez up bastards.
Borisgodunov
30 Sep 12 at 5:55 pm
Poi ess i forgot ter tell yiz .oim the proim minster of ostaylya an oi deserve respek.
Borisgodunov
30 Sep 12 at 6:00 pm
Borisgodunov now that is spooky
Tal
30 Sep 12 at 6:03 pm
| Concubine. Is the best word seen so far to describe this woman.
Bzzzt, wrong:
“Concubinage is an interpersonal relationship in which a person engages in an ongoing relationship (usually matrimonially oriented) with another person to whom they are not or cannot be married; the inability to marry is usually due to a difference in social status or economic condition.”
They are both Bogans, so no, concubinage does not apply.
andyd
30 Sep 12 at 6:26 pm
why. what is the point of free speech?
In 1977, Whitehouse v. Lemon (involving the periodical Gay News publishing James Kirkup’s poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name) demonstrated that the offence of blasphemous libel, long thought to be dormant, was still in force.
During the House of Lords appeal Lord Scarman said that “I do not subscribe to the view that the common-law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in modern law. … The offence belongs to a group of criminal offences designed to safeguard the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.”
When the BBC decided to broadcast Jerry Springer: The Opera in January 2005, they received over 63,000 complaints by offended Christian viewers who objected to the show’s portrayal of Christian icons (including one scene depicting Jesus professing to be “a bit gay”).
a fundamentalist group sought a private blasphemy prosecution against the BBC. The High Court founding that the common law blasphemy offences specifically did not apply to stage productions because of the Theatres Act 1968!!
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom
Jim Rose
30 Sep 12 at 6:32 pm
No I don’t want to return to the middle ages where saying the wrong thing about religion got you dead and buried.
Yes we must be able to say what we like on any subject. Tis a pity though that too many people take advantage of this freedom to sneer and mock with such enthusiasm.
Viva
30 Sep 12 at 6:47 pm
Tal dont yez speek owzin kamishun ?
Borisgodunov
30 Sep 12 at 6:49 pm
Julia Gillard doesn’t seem to understand about truthfulness.
Her assertion: “Denigration of religious beliefs is never acceptable” is belied by the overwhelming multitude who either freely say disparaging things about religion- whether true or false, generally or with particular reference- or listen to disparaging things being said of religion without always rejecting the inference.
Is there any inhabited place where religious beliefs are not criticised?
Leo G
30 Sep 12 at 7:05 pm
NO Moslems have been deported to Nauru (only Hindus and Buddhists),
really? How do you know this? (Just curious).
Gab, the only illegal arrivals who have been sent to Nauru so far are Sri Lankans. The majority of those illegal arrivals are Tamils (Hindus), though we are seeing some Singhalese arriving now also (Buddhists).
The government won’t send the Moslems for two (make that three) reasons:
1. That would endanger the OIC vote for Australia’s seat in the Security Council (and give Gillard a way of ridding herself of Rudd),
2. Endanger ALP support in Moslem enclaves in Sydney and Melbourne,
3. They wouldn’t go quietly, you can imagine the graphic images on the ABC News and Fairfax press of screaming Moslems being forced into aeroplanes against their will.
There is one group that should be particularly targeted for relocation, and that is the young men of military age who are “refugees” from Iran. These are Iranian Revolutionary Guards who are practicing military drills etc. on Christmas Island, the advance guard of al-Mahdi’s army IMHO.
old bloke
30 Sep 12 at 7:13 pm
Thanks for that, Old Bloke. I was just asking as a minority of Sri Lankas are muslim.
Gab
30 Sep 12 at 7:31 pm
Yeah I can read wiki. Before she was PM binage was all she did.
Pickles
30 Sep 12 at 7:42 pm
Tao Buddhists say “If it were not laughed at, it would not be sufficient to be Tao”.
Being denigrated is good for a religion. One of the finest theological pieces I have ever read was by a priest who appreciated “Piss Christ” when it was first shown.
2dogs
30 Sep 12 at 7:43 pm
andyd that is not the traditional meaning of the term, it’s a wiki feminised version.
Chris M
30 Sep 12 at 8:50 pm
As an aside, in my experience Christians who sit down and actually watch “Life of Brian” usually find it very funny. it has a lot of in jokes that people unfamiliar with the Bible wouldn’t get.
I’m not quite sure what is so offensive about it. If it were that offensive Catholics would be burning St Augustine’s works as well. There are non-canonical works of all kinds that say things that are non-PC too, that’s the way the (Judaeo-Christian) world works.
Look I tend to agree myself, but the issue here isn’t a lack of legal response to the atrocity. The disconnect between the unbelievable skill and efficiency of the homicide squad round here on the one hand, and the danger and lawlessness you can encounter on the other is really striking. These guys have suspects remanded within hours of finding a body, but their colleagues can’t recognise low-level, ongoing racial warfare after several years.
rob
30 Sep 12 at 8:53 pm
Sorry
was a quote
rob
30 Sep 12 at 8:54 pm
Boris, ffs, the space goes after the comma.
Winston Smith
30 Sep 12 at 9:18 pm
It’s a satire of religion but not of Jesus himself.
At the start of the film, you see Jesus – the real deal – giving the sermon on the mount, then the camera pans to the audience and to Brian, and from there we follow the ‘life of Brian.’ Monty Python have explained that they included that scene in order to make it crystal clear that Brian was not supposed to be Jesus.
dd
30 Sep 12 at 9:31 pm
Well put DD. The Life of Brian is meant to be satirical.
The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is meant to be offensive.
And that’s the difference.
Winston Smith
30 Sep 12 at 9:34 pm
We’re all individuals is possibly the funniest scene in any film ever.
sdfc
30 Sep 12 at 9:37 pm
People are only offended because they allow themselves to be.
kae
30 Sep 12 at 9:41 pm
Christians are fair game. The Romans fed them to the lions.
stackja
30 Sep 12 at 9:59 pm
Sure and the Islamists would concur.
Gab
30 Sep 12 at 10:03 pm
I agree. Absolutely brilliant. I loved the lone voice at the end that came in with the ‘I’m not.’
johno
30 Sep 12 at 10:04 pm
The punch line. Brilliant.
sdfc
30 Sep 12 at 10:05 pm
The punch line. Brilliant.
sdfc
30 Sep 12 at 10:05 pm
Will this be a double?
sdfc
30 Sep 12 at 10:09 pm
No
sdfc
30 Sep 12 at 10:10 pm
SDFC
are you talking to yourself now?
JC
30 Sep 12 at 10:11 pm
I’m lonely.
sdfc
30 Sep 12 at 10:12 pm
No you’re not. You’re on the internet and hundreds of people are hopping around these threads.
Hop, hop, hop. Byeee.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
30 Sep 12 at 10:56 pm
Aqueducts..
Lazlo
30 Sep 12 at 11:05 pm
Yes, you are correct Gab, there are minority Moslem and Christian populations in Sri Lanka alongside the majority Singhalese (Buddhist) and Tamil (Hindu) populations. There once also was a small Jewish community though they left with the Burgher (European descent) population in the 1950s and 1960s to Australia, Canada, UK and USA. It was a Jewish planter who actually started the tea business in Sri Lanka.
old bloke
1 Oct 12 at 10:10 am
“Tamils (Hindus)”
No time to read all above, but as I am in Tamil Nadu right this moment, surrounded by Tamils (!), I can faithfully inform you that all Tamils are split into 3 religions – Hindu Muslim Christian – with all, and all denominations, represented in large numbers. Churches and mosques often outnumber Temples in Tamil Nadu towns.
Vanakkam – a!
one old bruce
1 Oct 12 at 9:36 pm