This of course is the provision that snagged Mr. Steyn and Mr. Levant. As I have argued long and hard, I see no reason why the fact that a few journalists who espouse borderline racist views have brushed up against a law designed to catch Nazis should be cause to amend the relevant legislation.
Very disappointing that this guy should be a Liberal. Will the LPC become the party of the Mark LeMire's and Ernst Zundel's of this country?
Update: Just a quick note to visiting Steynosaurs. Although I do traffic in the occasional gay sex fantasy here at BCLSB, there is none of that in this particular post. If that's what you're looking for, just search the blog for "gay".
Update to the Update: Steyn alters his post to demonstrate that, indeed, there are some gay sex Nazi fantasies in the comments of this thread! That just shows that we got it all on BCLSB! Come for the porn, stay for the political analysis! If you Steynosaur lads are all nice and polite, I may post a few booby pics tomorrow. Does Steyn or (god forbid!) Ezra ever post booby pics? Exactly! Adjust your links!
60 comments:
Keith Martin's only been a Liberal since 2004. He's a Reformer from way back.
But the issue isn't so much political as ideological...these ideologues are laissez faire about everything and that of course includes teh mawket pwace of ideas.
Of course, the minute we all start seeing articles and entire publications devoted to World Jewry and its control of International Banking, they'll start seeing the downside to all of this.
These people are so naive.
"Will the LPC become the party of the . . . Ernst Zundel's of this country?"
Not Big on Liberal history, are you? Or delicious irony.
Zundel's timeline.
Check the entry for 1967.
Libs got rid of him quick and early. Making life easier on him would be a step back.
Haven't heard from YOU in awhile Rat, has your blog seen its first reader yet?
Actually he's a centrist liberal/red Tory.
Among the many who floats between the conservatives and Liberals, and among those who were excited by the prospect of Paul Martin the Prime Minister governing like Paul Martin the finance minister (alas it was not to be).
He also represents the many such liberals who will either sit on their hands or vote conservative this coming election, rather than voting for the far left Dion led party who's abandoned the middle and is fighting for the coveted NDP fringe vote.
That BCL and Ti-guy are opposed to Dr. Martin's move pretty much proves the above point.
Utilizing the Nazis to attempt to stifle free speech.
There's layers to that one.
It is significant to note the number of intellectual frauds, loonies and miseries (qualities which The Rat, singular among the trolls, embodies so holistically) who are attracted to this issue.
They all think they're Patrick Henry's when in fact, they really are just Eric Cartman's.
You haven't written much worth my time, you seem obsessed with myths like Bigfoot and global warming. And I wouldn't know about my blog, I don't "measure" it daily, as you do yours (or does ti-guy do that for you?). I guess I don't suffer from blog-envy. Still, I'm pretty sure you stopped by at least once.
That BCL and Ti-guy are opposed to Dr. Martin's move pretty much proves the above point.
Did I assert that I was opposed to it? No. It's actually one of the least important things I can think of right now.
One of the reasons I'm delighting in being contrarian on this issue with you free speech warriors (and I'm assuming you're not a fraud pretending to be a classical liberal), is that I think most of you are ignorant and grandiose.
If you actually believe you're on the front lines of the battle for intellectual freedom against the forces of darkness, you really need to get a life.
I guess I don't suffer from blog-envy.
He's got that right. What he suffers from is a personality disorder far more dire than something as trivial as that.
What are the chances of this passing?
Most of the opposition will not support it. If the conservatives do they will be accused of "pandering to their base" once again.
In fact, if I were a Harperite I would be tempted to point to this and accuse the liberals of racism. Unfortunately for Harper that would mean alienating his base.
I see this amendment dying a quick and painless death.
Rat wrote:
"And I wouldn't know about my blog, I don't "measure" it daily, as you do yours."
You're right! I also self-google obsessively as I wait to become famous (hasn't happened yet...but soon, man, soon!).
Still, I'm pretty sure you stopped by at least once.
Rat:
"Still, I'm pretty sure you stopped by at least once."
You're right! In fact, I'm the guy who came back!
I applaud Keith Martin for this move and hope other Liberals will join him (I'm skeptical that they will).
As for your scaremongering about Ernst Zundel and Ti-Guy's regarding "World Jewry", you should note that Martin is not proposing eliminating the criminal code hate speech provisions where extreme instances of incitement can be dealt with.
Liberal MP Moves To Ensure Nazi Rights!
Absolutely correct. Keith Martin is indeed moving to ensure Nazi rights.
And the rights of all Canadians who wish to speak their minds on controversial subjects.
I applaud Keith Martin for this move and hope other Liberals will join him
Whatever you do...don't ever stop clapping.
I guess it's a losing proposition to attempt to argue with the most insensate, most uncritical, most ADHD-afflicted demographic Western civilisation has ever produced to try and make the point that the "best" ideas are the ones promoted by those with wealth and power and are in no way related to altruistic beliefs about freedom of expression. The "best" ideas are only revealed as the worst ideas when their failure becomes impossible to deny anymore (ie at a crisis point) and it simply does not matter how free and unfettered their critics are. You don't have any free speech worth anything at all if no one listens to what you have to say.
I thought the last eight years of the Bush administration (and eight years of the Reagan administration) had made that abundantly clear.
It's odd that the strongest statements in support of free speech absolutism are being issued in defense of the most egregious intellectual frauds, poseurs and bigots I can think of, but I suppose that's what is to be expected when real intellectual and informed discourse and active participatory democracy is a lot harder than simply proclaiming the purity and nobility of one's attitudes and beliefs.
I really do just want to tell all the free speech warriors this: "Yes, dear...we know you value freedom of expression and it's so cute when you puff out your chest and defend it forcefully. Now, go back to playing Civilisation III and let mummy and daddy deal with the real-world attacks on civil liberties."
Your appeal to social class (ie not having HRC's to enforce hate speech hurts poor people) is nonsense. The hate speech provisions can only be invoked by the Attorney General. Its not like that if you are rich enough you can buy yourself a hate speech prosecution so can the class-warfare crap. The rich and poor have equal protection against hate speech with or without HRC's investigating it.
Absolutely there is room for having the government play a role in ensuring that the voices of the less economically powerful are heard. That is why we have the CBC (which I support) and other publicly funded media institutions. You fail to convince me that telling private media what viewpoints to advance is the only, or even the best, method to get the voice of the poor out there.
KC...were you addressing me with that last comment? If you were,I honestly do not understand what you just said.
I agree with Keith Martin. This sort of nonsense infringes upon the very definition of freedom of speech. If people don't like "borderline" racist views, they can complain to the publisher and have them fired. If it is the publication that is being "borderline" racist, we should encourage our citizenry to more careful scrutiny of publications. We don't need the state to nanny us on what we should be reading.
Ti-Guy - I was talking to both you and BCL. He has made the argument that we need HRC's to battle hate speech because it is more egalitarian--which for the reason I mentioned is crap.
You have made the argument that "free speech" without someone giving you a bullhorn isnt real free speech. My point is that we have established institutions to provide a voice to poorer people (ie public broadcasting) and we dont need HRC's doing it.
Raffi, can you please get it through your head that it is not just about being offended, its about possibly being exposed to harm. An again, in Ezra's case, his dustup with S Sohorhardy seems to have resulted in death threats, hate mail etc., being sent the Imam's way. Certainly serious enough to investigate.
KC,
The HRCs were designed to give people an inexpensive means of pursuing civil rights complaints. You make the complaint and if accepted the government does the legwork. Why is that crap?
BCL - Its crap with respect to hate speech because the criminal code hate speech provisions are equally accessible to rich and poor. In other words the commissions dont "equalize" anything as the rich have no more access to the mechanisms that already exist.
I support having HRC's for issues of discrimination in work and housing, etc. Just not speech.
death threats, hate mail etc., being sent the Imam's way. Certainly serious enough to investigate.
Death threats are a criminal matter which have nothing to do with removing subsection 13(1) of the CHRA. N'est-ce pas?
Quite, but my point is that the law requires more to happen than that offense should be taken (that I "not like" something), and in this case more did happen. You keep suggesting otherwise, and that's disingenuous.
I'm pretty sure the death threats were sent after the complainant went public to bash Levant and others for publishing them. Therefore it wasnt the publication of the cartoons that incited hatred, it was Mr. Sohawardy's public opposition that did so.
A link I saw over at Dawg's Blawg to an interview with John Ralston Saul, who's written a lot about the forms of freedom as opposed to real freedom:
"But my argument has always been that because the quasi-totality of the elite belongs to structures, they are prevented from saying and doing what they believe. We have the appearance of freedom, but we have a very real lack of freedom. We have the appearance of freedom of speech, but we have a very real lack of freedom of speech, because almost all expertise is either locked up in an employment contract (either with a corporation or with a government department) and therefore that expertise can only be expressed as if you were a spokesman or a spokeswoman for that organization. That's not freedom of speech, that's propaganda. That's rhetoric. You don't hear nuclear engineers saying, 'Well, I'm leaving my office at so-and- so company or government department and now I'm going to tell you what I think of nuclear engineering.' They don't do that because they get fired if they do that."
Once again KC...if all you believe is either wrong or irrelevant (examples being the high proportion of people who believe that intelligent design is science, or that the End Times will occur in the next 50 years, or that there is widespread disagreement among scientists about Global Warming or abortion causes breast cancer or any of the hundreds of falsehoods that led to the invasion of Iraq, etc. etc.) then it hardly matters at all what your free speech rights are.
Mike Brock,
The Mark Lemires of this world are celebrating right now. Remove section 13 and it will be, in a purely objective sense, easier to go about your business as a Neo-Nazi in this country. Are you okay with that? I am not.
By the way... I notice the irony of your title "Liberal MP moves to ensure Nazi rights" sounds an awful lot like Harper when he accuses the Liberals of caring for the rights of "terrorists" when they talk about issues like prisoner detainees, preventative arrest, Omar Khadr, etc; or "criminals" when Liberals implore the government to intervene on the part of people on death row in other countries.
We must all be willing to stand up for the rights of the most despicable in society for the word "rights" to have any meaning.
Well BCL you have now managed to completely beclown yourself.
As has been pointed out about a million times, the HRC were never intended to deal with speech. And, when it finally goes to the SCC my bet is that any finding of guilt in the Levant or Steyn cases will be overturned on s. 4 Charter grounds.
Martin has had the wit to propose ending this clown show. If the CPC was not such a hangdog group of panderers this whole, sorry, mess - replete with Lucy Warman and the even more bizarre Stacey of the CHRC announcing that he didn't consider free speech a Canadian value - would be over.
People who actually incited violence would be dealt with under the Criminal Code. People whose feeling were hurt could suck it up and get on with life.
Good for Martin!
The Mark Lemires of this world are celebrating right now. Remove section 13 and it will be, in a purely objective sense, easier to go about your business as a Neo-Nazi in this country. Are you okay with that? I am not.
We've had this discussion to death. You know what the libertarian argument on this is. To liken it to supporting Nazi's is just mad. You've crossed a boundary here. You have shown just how childish and hateful you truly are.
Ti-guy - If "free speech" only applies to those who are right then we dont really have free speech. Its kind of like saying "yes you are free as long as you behave in a manner we deem moral". With those caveats you're really not "free".
KC,
Well, yes, it was the whole controversy around the cartoons that seems to have sparked the hate mail, and the later threats re Muslim genocide that appeared on the WS website this December.
This from Jay Currie...who believed that an old stock of castor beans found in Iraq constituted PROOF that .Saddam had WMD's.
When the terminally stupid and willfully gullible stop arguing about the nobility of freedom of expression, I'll start paying attention again.
As for the conspiracy of liars that includes Steyn and Levant...they're lucky it's just a human rights tribunal they're dealing with. Someone should track down what they said about Maher Arar's rendition to Syria.
Galye,
Harper won't accuse the liberals of racism for the following reason:
He's not a race baiting freak who looks for every reason imaginable to throw around the "racist" label, but rather is one who has a mature understanding of what real racism is and recognizes that such a societal scourge is not a political plaything to be treated like Gayle's proverbial barbie doll.
Or something like that.
If "free speech" only applies to those who are right then we dont really have free speech.
Who asserted that? Not me.
I don't' think we're talking about the same thing.
BCL - I would find it incredibly hard to believe that a single person commited an act motivated by hate merely because they saw those cartoon. If acts motivated by hate were commited they were motivated by the reaction of some muslims (ie Syed Soharwardey, who tried to sic the police on WS and advocated making insulting religious prophets illegal). If anything it is the people who should be hauled before the HRT. It wasnt the cartoons that incited hate. It was the reaction to them.
Ti-guy - You said "if all you believe is either wrong or irrelevant... then it hardly matters at all what your free speech rights are."
I dont know how else to interpret that.
You still blog? Why?
I fisked the shit out of you repeatedly, most notably when you claimed that Canada was in a recession when in fact real GDP growth has been over 4% over the course of Harper's mandate, high growth by any reasonable measure.
While Canada may, someday, enter a recession due to global forces beyond its control, it may also be struck by a meteor.
So your claims of recession were outright lies, and when you were called on your lie you refused to remove the lie in your post.
Is it necessary, in this context, to debunk your lies a second or third time? No, because you've very publicly been exposed as an big liar. Not a complaint, just a reminder to those reading at home: you're just not very good at writing about politics.
If you read the hateful emails recieved by Mr. Soharwardy you will see that the earliest of them is February 3rd, 2006.
http://ezralevant.com/Soharwardy_complaint.pdf
That is the same day this article was published by CTV:
Soharwardy said there has to some restrictions.
"The freedom of expression has to have some limits," Soharwardy said. "Would they make fun of any ethic group in Canada? Aboriginal people, South Asians, Chinese community?"
SOURCE: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060203/muhammed_cartoon_follow_060203?s_name=&no_ads=
Isnt it reasonable to infer from this that the "hate" was caused by Soharwardy's suggestion that there needs to be "restrictions" rather than the cartoons themself? I find it hard to believe that hate or not some folks decided to pick this one particular Imam in particular for a barrage of hateful emails.
The Mark Lemires of this world are celebrating right now. Remove section 13 and it will be, in a purely objective sense, easier to go about your business as a Neo-Nazi in this country. Are you okay with that? I am not.
Wait, what?
BCL, did you just seriously try repurpose the "objectively pro-Saddam" line that Instapundit and other useless conservative troglodytes used to attack critics of the worst foreign policy blunder in a generation?
I mean, yes, Jay Currie and The Rat are--quite literally--tools, but that doesn't mean you should start aping the worst instincts of Republican hangers-on.
And I still notice that ti-guy hasn't actually, um, given a defense of his position. Just called people naive and whatnot. At best he's said "rich people have a bully pulpit", which is very nice, but rather amusingly naive as a comment on, er, a blog.
Sure, it's better than Godwinning yourself, I suppose, but critics of Iraq were also called "naive", and if BCL can call free speech advocates "Nazis", then surely I can call ti-guy a "Republican".
Right?
KC:
I dont know how else to interpret that.
Well, you could start by not assuming that that statement asserts anything more than it does.
I've yet to have someone explain to me how unfettered free speech prevented the American citizenry from believing the disastrous falsehoods that led them into the Iraq quagmire.
I guess free speech absolutism is ideal when the only people who suffer from its consequences (which in this case, includes hundreds of thousands of deaths and shattered lives for the survivors) are the other.
The unlettered and reality-challenged (don't nobody call him a liar) Steyn strikes again:
"America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined."
Uh, no.
Give me a break Ti-Guy if it hadnt been for free speech there would have been NO opposition to the War in Iraq. In fact if there was no freedom of speech Canadians would probably be over there as well. It was only because thousands of us (myself included) took to the streets to make our voices heard.
In fact the complainants against MacLeans and WS both justifiably exercise their freedom to say controversial things on a fairly regular basis. I dont know if you have ever read Mssrs Soharwardy and Elmasry's regular rants against Israel, the west, the Americans, and Canada--a society which these two portray as being consumed by its own racism.
And Im not a free speech absolutist I just (unlike you) see it as having a certain degree of value and not something we should discard easily.
Give me a break Ti-Guy if it hadnt been for free speech there would have been NO opposition to the War in Iraq.
We have freedom of expression. It just has certain well-defined limits.
You obviously refuse to try and understand what I'm getting at here; in this instance, the bad ideas (falsehoods) were allowed to flourish in a paradigm that ostensibly holds free speech absolutism as an unassailable ideal. And the consequences were dire.
I find that very significant. And I'm not arguing this because of the particular travails of Steyn and Levant; I'm arguing that as response to those who've been holding up free speech absolutism as an imperative to guard against totatitarianism and fascism.
Clearly, it doesn't do that.
I dont know if you have ever read Mssrs Soharwardy and Elmasry's regular rants against Israel, the west, the Americans, and Canada--a society which these two portray as being consumed by its own racism.
So, this is what it really is about, isn't it? Free speech, but only for the right people.
And Im not a free speech absolutist I just (unlike you) see it as having a certain degree of value and not something we should discard easily.
No one has suggested it be discarded easily; in fact I'm very much more opposed to censorship than a lot of the free speech warriors I know.
We have freedom of expression. It just has certain well-defined limits.
The problem is that the limits are NOT well defined. If Levant or MacLeans are "convicted" we will have lowered the bar to a historic low. That they are even having to deal with this process is proof that those who predicted a slippery slope were correct.
You obviously refuse to try and understand what I'm getting at here; in this instance, the bad ideas (falsehoods) were allowed to flourish in a paradigm that ostensibly holds free speech absolutism as an unassailable ideal. And the consequences were dire.
So Im confused. Are you saying that those who SUPPORTED the Iraq war should be stripped of their free speech rights?
I'm arguing that as response to those who've been holding up free speech absolutism as an imperative to guard against totatitarianism and fascism.
Like I said earlier, free speech is not a fail safe. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to protect against totalitarianism and fascism. In other words we can't guarantee that those things wont happen with free speech but that they are virtually guaranteed to happen without.
So, this is what it really is about, isn't it? Free speech, but only for the right people.
Not at all. I would never suggest that these two should be stripped of their respective right to their rants.
No one has suggested it be discarded easily; in fact I'm very much more opposed to censorship than a lot of the free speech warriors I know.
I think anyone who has visited this website over the last month or two would find that awfully hard to believe. You have at times suggested that hauling MacLeans before the HRC is justified because they are a lousy publication. Hardly a ringing endorsement of free expression.
I just checked your blog, KC. Are you still in high school?
You're incoherent. I'll just respond to this:
I think anyone who has visited this website over the last month or two would find that awfully hard to believe. You have at times suggested that hauling MacLeans before the HRC is justified because they are a lousy publication. Hardly a ringing endorsement of free expression
I have never once suggested MacLean's be "hauled before the HRC," let alone just because it's a lousy magazine. I have in fact stated that I don't think there's a case here against it or Steyn (but I don't really care to defend the magazine...or the robber baron's catamite). So if you're just going to make things up, well then there's no point in talking to you.
You can't have checked my blog because I took it down because I was ashamed to be on the same aggregators as this blog. And no Im not in high school although based on your reasoning abilities you seem to be.
I have read this blog everyday since the complaint against MacLeans was made and you have done nothing but insist that what the CIC, Soharwardy, et. al. is completely above board and justifiable.
If you dont care to "defend" MacLeans then you'll understand when people don't want to "defend" Omar Khadr or "defend" Canadians on death rown in other countries. If we dont "defend" the very worst among us who seek to exercise their rights then "rights" dont really have any meaning.
I have read this blog everyday since the complaint against MacLeans was made and you have done nothing but insist that what the CIC, Soharwardy, et. al. is completely above board and justifiable.
It's justifiable because it's completely within their rights to complain to the HRC. Beyond that, apart from believing there isn't much of case, I haven't asserted much beyond stating that I despise Mark Steyn and hope he chokes to death on the next Sugar Daddy he's compelled to fellate.
If you dont care to "defend" MacLeans then you'll understand when people don't want to "defend" Omar Khadr or "defend" Canadians on death rown in other countries. If we dont "defend" the very worst among us who seek to exercise their rights then "rights" dont really have any meaning.
Once again, you're incoherent. I defend people on the basis of rule of law, due process, and rules of evidence. You can do whatever the hell you want.
Really...you don't know what you're talking about. You must have been born yesterday.
By the way, while you free speech warriors protect the rights of hate-mongers, our Government clamps down on information in true totalitarian fashion.
Godwin's Law Alert!
BigCityLib, you've lost the argument with your first statement. You'd lose this debate to a Grade 6 debate team.
"Utilizing the Nazis to attempt to stifle free speech.
There's layers to that one." - Indeed there is, fellow Anon.
I posted this comment at Canadian Cynic and I'm reposting it here, because it's the only thing I've ever had to say to the free speech absolutists:
If the free speech warriors on the Right would turn their obsessive focus once...just once...on the sheer Orwellianism of the people they are aligned with politically or culturally, I would start believing that they have the intellectual skills to understand the nuances and complexities involved in the dissemination of information, the acquisition of knowledge and the role of propaganda in democratic societies but also the intellectual honesty to understand that the people they're aligned with have fascistic tendencies the rest of us find appalling...indoctrination, lying and the disappearance of evidence that exposes them, to name a few.
But...noooooo....all we ever get are these self-righteous and grandiose proclamations that they'll "defend to the death" (something I'm not sure anyone in a democracy has ever had to do) someone's right to float the most egregious lies and the most grotesque defamations and expect the rest of us to appreciate their nobility. And if you don't agree with them and worship their courageous stand against the forces of endarkenment, you're vilified as liberal fascists.
And these people expect us to feel safe because of that? That they're protecting our civil rights?
Dream on. I'm not going to expect my civil rights to be defended by such obviously flawed people against the obviously flawed people they're aligned with.
...I'll add that I'll fucking defend my own civil rights when I express, in good faith, the beliefs I've come by honestly and I'll use whatever legal means at my disposal to challenge and hold responsible the liars and bullies when they attempt to toxify the public forum in which all of us have a right to participate.
And if they don't like that, well that's too fucking bad.
The post-colonial left is so demented that it thinks Islam is beyond criticism. Like if you criticize the child molesting assassin Prophet Mohammad who blubbered the qoran, then you are attacking each and every individual muslim and their mythical "race"!
The left is intellectually inferior, that it thinks attacking Islam (or any other religion) is akin to attacking a person who has by choice accepted said ideology. This confusion can be traced back to their lack of a scientific education and to their philosophical illiteracy.
No wonder they are called the irrational or the rationalized left. Cause for them emotions and selective empathy trumps empirical reasoning. Cause their college degrees are all in cultural anthropology and gender studies. They avoided science class, as it was toooo tough.
BTW how many gays did your lover boy Moqtada Sadr torture last night? What is so heroic about Moqtada may I ask? How many college professors and female students did his Mahdi death squads kill yesterday?
Why don't you post-colonial leftists all ship out to Gaza Strip and live under Hamas and learn something about free speech and liberaties, ey?
At least you could study a bit of history and figure for yourself that free speech, which you lefto-fascists abhor and wish to shut down via Section 13 and kangaroo inquisition courts (Levant - "what is your 'intention' in criticizing Islam"?), was actually won by centuries of struggle and sacrifice.
Ahmadi
Very ridiculous title. Sad that you can't see beyond your leftleaning mantra. Very sad indeed.
So sad. Partisan politics more important than free speech.
Keith Martin is right on, and a hero.
bigcitylib said:
"The Mark Lemires of this world are celebrating right now. Remove section 13 and it will be, in a purely objective sense, easier to go about your business as a Neo-Nazi in this country. Are you okay with that? I am not"
By extending this line of thinking you would be able to justify any degree of censorship or the banning of all forms of communication. Why not ban the Internet? After all, the Internet makes it easier for Neo-Nazis to go about their business.
Wow, This trip down 'blog-entry lane' has been the most frightening thing I've ever seen. The patronizing tone and sheer self important tone is much more shocking than I could have expected.
What EXACTLY makes Big City Lib and TiGuy so much smarter and better to 'think' for the rest of us? I'm curious what education or life-experience they have had that makes them so much better at deciding what's best for everybody? Their comments and tone speak volumes. I guess I better just skulk back under my rock because I am obviously to stupid to think for myself. BCL and TG are just way ahead of me. They know what is best for me and the rest of the country too. Imagine..... we waste so much time and energy electing MP's to represent us when we could save so much by just consulting these two!... who would have thought that the entire democratic process could be by-passed if only we put our trust in BCL and Ti-guy!
I'll tell Ya, I'm happy to shed my citizenship and democratic rights this very minute because its obvious that these two can do such a better job of it on my behalf. They are really on to something here. We don't need to think, feel or respond....they have us all covered.
They can tell us how to speak, think and vote. Amazing
What utter assholes. both of them....and pretty much anybody that thinks like them
I served my country for years, following in the footsteps of grand father and his father and most of my family so that some people could enforce their version of political correctness. Makes me sick.
If I was KM, BCL I would be suing you for the Nazi comaparison. Maybe he will file a 13.1 complaint?
We emensuits offer discount for us in all their products such as grey suit,man suits,formal wear and many more just check emensuits.com
Post a Comment