Category Archives: Free Speech

Scalps

Hal Niedzviecki was forced out of his editorship of an obscure magazine published by the Writers’ Union of Canada for daring to suggest that writers should try to get out of their identity silos and use the voices of “others”. Apparently, this offended the Writers Union and its “Equity Task Force” and Niedzviecki was forced to resign.

A number of brave souls in Canadian media stepped up and said Neidzviecki had a point and was a victim of political correctness run wild. On Friday, the Walrus’s editor in chief, Jonathan Kay wrote an article for the National Post in which he said,

Personally, I land on the side of free speech: I’m fearful that, as at many points in history, small acts of well-intentioned censorship will expand into a full-fledged speech code that prohibits whole categories of art and discourse. national post 

He went on to conclude,

What I don’t find helpful is the reflexive instinct to shame those with whom we disagree—the kind on display at TWUC this week. Indeed, it is these mobbings that encourage the idea that free speech is under siege from a systematic program of left wing censorship. On both sides, it is fear and suspicion that is driving the social media rage. And as of this writing, there’s no sign it will dissipate soon. national post

Today Kay resigned as the editor in chief of The Walrus.

Niedzviecki was entirely right in his initial article. White people should be encouraged to write about non-white people, women about men, blacks about Asians and gays about straights; otherwise we’ll have a sterile, politically correct, literature in which the only characters in a novel will be from the “community” (however defined) of the author.

Kay was entirely right in standing up against lefty cultural pogroms.

Where both were wrong was in capitulating to the cultural fascists without a fight. The Twitter mobs are nasty but they are relatively powerless unless a target is willing to give them power. Niedzviecki was pushed out the door by his employer but, realistically, other than a craven apology for “glibness and insensitivity” Niedzviecki barely fought at all. Kay’s meager defences were apparently overwhelmed in less than twenty-four hours and he scuttled off to a baseball game with his phone off to escape the baying hordes.

Free speech and freedom of cultural expression in all its forms are won by people willing to fight back. People who actually believe in their positions and are willing to fight their corners. Niedzviecki was beginning to gain support for his liberal view of how writers should approach the world. Sure he was being howled down by lefty illiterates on Twitter. So what? The Twitter mobs of SJWs live to howl and denounce and yell about their sensitivities. The cultural cringers at the Writer’s Union would have fired Niedzviecki in any event, but rather than apologize, he should have published a really fierce piece defending his position and calling out the censors of the identity left.

Kay, having adopted a strong, liberal, free speech position should have stuck to his guns. If The Walrus wanted to fire him, fine. But surrendering before an actual shot had been fired is just sad.

The only way to stop the SJW barbarians is to shoot back. Make it tough, if not impossible, for them to impose cultural tyranny. Surrender only leads to more demands, more censorship, more badly grounded claims of moral superiority. Surrender narrows the discussion and the boundaries of what may be discussed.

The only silver lining to Niedzviecki and Kay’s failure to fight back is that their cowardice in the face of the viciousness of their detractors shows just what liberal, free speech, supporters are up against. Kay, in particular, has access to major media, friends in government and the academy (not to mention the PMO) and has demonstrated a willingness to suck up to the PC SJWs on issues like “climate change”. If these cultural fascists can “get” him it is a huge warning to the rest of us.

 

Tagged , , ,

Betrayed: Stephen Harper’s war on principled conservatism – A Review

51i7c9ikkIL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_Various people have asked me why I will not vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in this election. While the Cons’ failure to seriously tackle the deficit, reduce the size of government and begin to dismantle the Liberal state are all good reasons, I probably would hold my nose one more time if it were not for one, fundamental fact: C-51. And I might have even given Harper a pass on C-51 if I didn’t know the Conservative record on free speech, the perversion of the Human Rights Commission and the legal thuggery which attended it.

Connie Fournier and her husband Mark are not going to be voting for the Harper Conservatives either: Connie has detailed her reasons in Betrayed: Stephen Harper’s war on principled conservatism.

Full disclosure: I’ve met Connie and Mark once and I provided an affidavit in their defence when Dr. Dawg sued them for libel (a case which they won at great personal expense). Connie and I chat on Google and, in so far as it is possible to have friends you only chat with on the internet, I’d like to think Connie is one of mine.

The Fourniers are ordinary, middle class Canadians – Mark drives long haul trucks, Connie was a homeschooling stay-at-home mum – who were politically involved as far back as the Canadian Alliance. They started a website called Free Dominion in 2001 where conservatives of various sorts could post topics and comments and have a good time arguing among themselves. Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,

Academic Matters

Screen-Shot-2013-11-26-at-11.34.40-AMNotes Re Coming Academic Year
From: Dean of Arts
To: Faculty
Dear Colleagues,

I hope you are enjoying your well earned summer vacation. I know I am. However, a number of issues have arisen which I feel I must bring to your attention.

1. Marking: Many of you are still clinging to the outmoded idea that marks are designed to measure absolute progress in a subject. You are insisting upon received grammar and spelling in essays. You are setting exams and papers which, in themselves, are triggering events causing significant anxiety. Worse, you are not taking into account the often heart rending oppression narratives which many of your students bring to class. Stop it.
2. Subject matter: It is not enough to include writers and topics from outside the tragically exclusionary Western Cannon. The fact is that even a reference to Shakespeare will trigger feelings of anxiety, worthlessness, racial othering, religious persecution and, of course, sexual confusion. Just stop it. The same with references to the Bible, Plato, Milton, any so called Saint, Mark Twain or that Moby D*** fellow with the harpoon obsession. Each of these references will only serve to underscore the possible ignorance of your students which, rather obviously, will make them feel anxious, disrespected and unsafe. Best not to mention any of it.
3. Women: This is a minefield. First off, for those of you who are cis male and not queer, women should not be discussed in any context whatsoever. Just stop it. You have nothing to say about women’s experience. The same goes for “cis female not queer” instructors as the gender identification of women in the past is a contested subject and you have nothing to say about lesbian/bi or “just a little confused” womens’ experience. While the rules, perhaps, should be different for instructors coming to women from a queer perspective, there are too many potential triggers for this to be a truly safe topic. There really is no right answer as to why Vita was asked to take off her earings. (Or, for that matter, why queer men liked first Berlin and then Tangier.) So stop it. By the same token, POC instructors are advised to a) avoid discussions of non-POC women except in the context of oppression studies and there only for purposes of illustrating relative levels of oppression, b) wondering if Vita would have taken her earings off had her paramour been black and the marks wouldn’t have shown quite so much on those dusky thighs.
4. Islam: Are you joking? There are no circumstances whatsoever in which Islam is a proper topic for classroom discussion. The danger of unsafe speech from Zionist oppressors or even well meaning, but white privileged, students is far too great. This is particularly true where the instructor is Jewish, queer or female. Just stop it.
5. Science: As we know “science” is the socially constructed study of natural phenomena which has advanced from first principles all of which were created by cis male, usually straight, often Jewish, so called scientists. There is math. It has no place in a safe, inclusive ARTS faculty. However, by all means discuss global warming as it is well understood to be science free.

6. Race: Pretty much the live hand grenade of the Arts Faculty. Say anything and it explodes with unknowable consequences. Even a supportive statement such as “slavery is wrong” can lead to disastrous conversations about Black African complicity in the trade and the continuing Islamic acceptance of slavery. Plus, and this is an acute problem, Chinese and South Asian students, dealing with our university’s current admission policies, may take strong exception to remarks vis a vis affirmative action or diversity. Just don’t go there.
7. Logic/Argument/Reason: Mansplaining at its heteronormative worst. It is pretty clear that argument, both verbal and written privileges middle class, usually white, usually male, left brain dominant, testosterone charged, individuals. By prioritizing thinking over feeling, requiring reason means an instructor risks making women, minorities and queer students feel unsafe with the feelings they often use in discourse rather than accepting the oppressor’s terms of exchange. Stay away.
8. Economics: At one point it was safe within undergraduate Arts Faculties to discuss and even teach Economics. Between Marx and Keynes undergraduates (and there is a word which needs rethinking) could learn to structure arguments in favour of social justice. However, recent advances in correct thinking underscore the fact that even Marx and Keynes are rooted in a form of logic and Keynes, it turns out, had some math in several of his books. (Plus, Keynes was a queer traitor happily marrying a ballerina of all things.) While it is certainly acceptable, indeed practically obligatory, to teach inequality theory you are on safe ground there as, like global warming, it is theory untainted by actual economics.
9. History: Whose history? Here again what had been a safe, non-controversial subject in which white imperialists committing genocide in the name of Christ provided the oppression narrative for many of our Aboriginal and POC peoples. However, a huge new danger of anxiety and triggers (and possible in class beheadings) has arisen. Until very recently the understanding of the historical facts surrounding the spread of Islam was confined to a tiny, dry, silent, scorned, academic anti-elite. With the rise of ISIS, popular attention has been drawn to this area to the shock and, of course, anxiety of Islamic students and their allies. Don’t go there.
10. Political Science: Not at all safe. There are two big dangers – individual rights and democracy. Individual rights looked good in the 60s and 70’s but more up to date thinkers realize that the very idea of an individual right as opposed to collective rights will always privilege dominant, cis male, heteronormative, white people at the expense of “the Other”. Democracy, the idea of giving the already privileged the right to vote to keep their privilege is, of course, the ultimate tool of oppression. Rights talk and democracy cannot help but create anxiety and a sense of unsafeness for anyone not a member of the privileged group. Worse, any conversation about rights and democracy by definition is an insult to Islam and we know what can happen with that.
I am sure that I have left a few things out and I humbly beg your pardon if I have in any way offended you by my errors or omissions.
Now I know a few of you will be wondering, in light of the list above and its implications, what will be safe to teach in the coming semester? Well, there is always global warming. And you can can teach inequality theory provided you don’t use any math or those curvy things economics professors draw on blackboard. But mainly, no matter what the subject, it is best to listen to your co-learners. Make sure you structure any written work or class discussion to be inclusive. Avoid assigning readings as this will privilege the cis literate.
Remember, our Faculty is committed to respectful, safe and inclusive learning.
Have a great summer…see you in September.

Tagged

Law Marches On

Madame Justice Heidi Polowin has rendered her decision in Baglow v. Smith et al (Free Dominion) .

It is a long, closely argued, decision – 62 pages – ending in a win for Free Dominion on fair comment grounds. I suspect it will join Grant as one of the critical decisions advancing Canadian defamation law into the post Charter, internet age.

I want to read it at leisure but two things are striking: first, the judge has decided that each side shall bear its own costs – which mean Connie and Mark still need your donations. Second, and I have not seen this in a decision that I can recall, Polowin, J. ends her judgement with these words:

“Finally, I thank all involved for their assistance and thoughtful submissions.”

Connie, Mark, Roger Smith and Dr. Dawg should never have let this matter get to Court. But it did and as a result, and at great cost to all of the parties, we now have a roadmap for online conduct. The defence of fair comment has been slightly extended and the question of “context” driving the meaning of particular words considered.

I am delighted that Free Dominion won and the win was well deserved. But it was a damned close run thing.

Tagged , ,

New Charlie Cover

Charlie Hebdo Cover

(h/t bcf)

This should be on the front page of every paper in the world that has run “Je suis Charlie” graphics of any sort. Because either you are willing to print an image that might well be Mo or you are not. If you are then you support free speech. If not, then shut up and cower.

UPDATE: The Lying Jackal has a smarmy post up on the topic he says (and I screen shotted it):

Almost a decade ago, a global debate raged about cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed as a terrorist – and my colleague Ezra Levant’s decision to display them in the magazine he then published. The cartoons set off a wave of emotional protests and threats on a global scale – and fostered a vigorous debate about what constitutes free speech. Was the publication of those cartoons satirical, or was it hateful?

When we attempt to answer that question – honestly, diligently, impartially – we will quickly ascertain the difference between an act of mischief (say, spray painting a graffiti artist’s tag on the doors of a synagogue), and an actual expression of actual hatred (say, spray-painting “DEATH TO THE JEWS” on the doors of a synagogue). Certain words and images can stir up actual fear and pain and hate. Others don’t, or shouldn’t. the lying jackal

Of course the Jackal does not let me comment, but you cannot help but admire the sheer finesse with which the scumball avoids answering the question of whether or not Ezra’s decision to publish the cartoons all the news was about was right.

UPPER DATE: Daily Mail runs the cover story – doesn’t show the cover.

Telegraph – story no picture, just the title.

Order-Order.comLoud and Proud

Guardiannot a splash but it is there – Good for them. “The Guardian is running this cover as its news value warrants publication.”

New York Times – No…

Washington PostYes

CBC – no mention of cover at all

The AustralianYes – full image

UPDATE #2 – Boris Johnson shows the Jackal how it’s done:

London Mayor Boris Johnson said Charlie Hebdo had “no choice” but to print the cover it had, following the unity marches in France and defences of press freedoms in the wake of the attacks.

He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “You cannot have a march through the streets of Paris attended by 46 world leaders, four million people, climaxing with a shout of ‘We are not afraid’ and then not print the central object of contention.

“Of course they are right to do that and I am afraid it is absolutely vital now that everybody stands up and defends their right to publish.

“You may not agree with what they have done, you may be offended by what they have done, but you should defend their right to publish it.” Daily Mail

Tagged ,

Another March

pegita

How now Frau Merkle?

As expected the PEGITA rally in Dresden tonight attracted a record crowd,

A record 25,000 people have joined an anti-Islamisation rally in Dresden, Germany, called in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

The protesters defied calls from German politicians to stay away from the Pegida organisation’s rally.

Elsewhere across Germany, tens of thousands of people joined anti-Pegida rallies. bbc

If the BBC is saying 25,000 I have to bet closer to 35,000 actually marched. Likely a doubling. And not much of a surprise.

The ordinary people have had it with Islam’s rise in Europe. Charlie Hebdo was a horrible, violent, incident. As such it was a, as I put it, Useful Horror. It underscored how desperately wrong the present immigration, asylum and multicultural policies in Europe – and Canada – have gone wrong. We have too many of the wrong people arriving and then excluding themselves from our societies for political/cultural reasons.

The demonized “far right” politicians recognize and address this fact. The bien pensant political leaders of the left, centre and right are flailing in the face of a problem they created and the anger of their citizens that this should be so.

The mainstream media demonstrate a combination of cowardice and confusion in the face of the anger of their public. Their craven refusal to print the cartoons their fellow journalists were killed over demonstrates just how badly we are served by the press whose freedom we have sought to enshrine. Their willingness to go along with the line that CH had nothing to do with Islam and not to call politicians on this nonsense shows how completely they have been captured by the political class.

The question which now confronts us all is whether the collapse of the political elite and their lapdog media is going to be allowed to matter. The thousands of pro-Farage comments, the presence of 30,000 plus Germans in the streets of Dresden, suggests ordinary people have had enough.

And that is a start.

Tagged , ,

A casualty

This is a sad story. It is also what happens when a nation forgets who it is. The France that marched yesterday included it’s Jews.

Not for much longer.

Tagged , ,

High Risk

The French government seems to think hosting world leaders and several hundred thousand French citizens at rallies for unity is a step towards the social cohesion which was damaged by the Paris atrocities. They may be right.

There is the obvious risk of more terror. Put a lot of people in one place at a pre-annonouced time and you create a target. I hope and pray the French security services are up to the job.

The greater risk is that the people who show up will be the lily white crowds who have attended the “Je Suis Charlie” demos to date. Will that build unity or will it serve to illustrate the two solitudes which have emerged in France. Without black faces and headscarves the rallies risk underscoring the essential problem Islam poses for France.

The gains from such rallies are ephemeral. If they are successful everyone will feel a little better. The downside risks are long term. Even without a terrorist outrage the stark divisions present in French society may well be underscored.

For France’s sake I hope the rallies are a huge success but there is no question that they represent huge risks for minimal gains. And on Monday the very real problems ill thought out mass Muslim immigration pose for France will be just as intractable.

UPDATE: The March has come and gone and other than anyone trampled by Sarkozy as he pushed his way to the front row, it was without terrorist incident.

And, with the exception of the President of Mali, it was a collection of 1.5 million white French people. I have been scanning the pics but I’ve seen no signs of any black faces. No doubt there were some which I have missed. No headscarves that I could see. I may have missed some of those as well as it was a cold day and people were bundled up.

However, I think it is fair to say that if the demographics of the crowds out today were the actual demographics of France the atrocity at Charlie Hebdo would not have happened.

Non-white, Muslim immigration to France has been a failure. There has been no integration at any sort of mass cultural level. Realistically, one reason why there are so few obvious Muslims at the Charlie Hebdo rallies is because they would have been made to feel deeply unwelcome. As they have been for fifty years.

The Solidarity rally reminded French people of a France which has vanished from day to day life. At the rally there were no “No go” zones.

The sullen, sometimes violent, black, Arab and Muslim immigrants whom the majority of the French population ignore or, sadly, despise are out of sight at the rally. As they are in the parts of France the rally goers will tend to come from.

Tomorrow the rally will be over and the intractibily of the French problems with race, religion and radicals will return.

Dr. Dawg bangs on

Xianthrippe – wrongly spelt and linked when I am a real keyboard describes the miscarriage of justice which is John “Dr. Dawg’s”  endless defamation suit against Connie and Mark Fournier.  I commented

Thank you again for covering this travesty.

Connie and Mark and Roger are  being put through an expensive wringer by a man who knows better. Unlike Warman,  Baglow is misguided rather than actively evil. As you report, he knows shame and is feeling it as this farce goes on. People who, normally,  he would respect are lined up with the Fourniers. Even if,  as unlikely as it is, he wins his win will simply skiffle the conversation of the internet. He will silence his critics and, eventually,  his critics will use his precedent to silence him.

How sad.  I was chatting to Connie a day ago and talked about a bar I used to go to where lefty academics fought tooth and nail with right millionaires.  It got hot. Insults were exchanged. People said things which, in the sober light of day,  they might have phrased differently.  No lawsuits. Brass rail rule.

Several years ago I offered my good offices to settle this silly dispute.  Connie and Mark were up for it.  John was not. Which has meant huge legal fees for both sides over a remark which would be a commonplace in any Legion or pub in the country. Which John knows. After all,  he repeated his so called defamation using his sock puppet Miss Mew.  Which he also knows.

If Baglow wins it is pretty much the end of free discussion on the net in Canada.  Which he also knows.

I know John well enough to know that that outcome is not what he wants or intends. We disagree about politics but we don’t about free speech.

He needs to drop this case now just on the off chance that he might win.

Prostitution: Canada = Sweden

Canadian prostitution law
Made in Canada prostitution law?

As if.

New legislation would criminalize the purchase of sexual services, crack down on those who benefit from prostitution and outlaw the sale of sex near schools and other places where children gather.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay says the “made-in-Canada” model targets johns and pimps while protecting the vulnerable. vancouver sun

The DOJ newser is a bit more explicit. Peter MacKay wants to criminalize speech as much as he wants to “reduce demand” for prostitute’s services. I quote at length as the actual legislation has not been tabled.

The proposed new prostitution-related offences are aimed at reducing demand for sexual services, protecting those who sell those services from exploitation, and protecting children and our communities from exposure to prostitution.

Purchasing sexual services – This new offence would prohibit the purchase of sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose. Maximum penalties for purchasing sexual services would be 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction and 5 years imprisonment on indictment. Escalating mandatory minimum fines for first and subsequent offences would also apply. There would be a $500 fine for a first offence and a $1,000 fine for a subsequent offence on summary conviction. These fines would be doubled if the offence were committed near parks, schools, religious institutions or other places where children could reasonably be expected to be present.

Receiving a financial or material benefit – This new offence would prohibit profiting from the prostitution of others, including through businesses that sell the sexual services of others online or out of venues such as escort agencies, massage parlours, or strip clubs that also provide sexual services. It would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Exceptions would be made for non-exploitative relationships.

Advertising the sale of sexual services – This new offence would prohibit advertising the sale of others’ sexual services in print media or on the Internet. It would give courts the power to authorize the seizure of materials containing such advertisements, to order an advertisement to be removed from the Internet, and to require the provision of information that would identify and locate the person who posted it. Maximum penalties for advertising the sale of sexual services would be 18 months imprisonment on summary conviction and 5 years imprisonment on indictment.

Communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present – This new offence would prohibit anyone from communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present. The maximum penalty for this offence would be 6 months imprisonment.

This is pretty much the Nordic model with a few bits of censorship tossed in for good measure. It does not work very well in the Scandinavian countries.

First problem is that the effect of criminalizing the purchase of sex will tend to drive the trade underground. That might be the intention behind MacKay’s action but, oddly enough, a trade driven underground is a criminalized trade. Now, the logic underlying the SCC decision to strike down existing prostitution laws was that they put women at risk. It is difficult to see how criminalizing the purchase of sex will reduce that risk and, in fact, by criminalizing the purchase of a legal service the chances are that the purchasers will be extremely wary. In turn this is likely to increase the risk to prostitutes because the encounters will be far more furtive, customers will be less likely to be willing to be vetted, customers will use blocked numbers and customers will demand proof that a prostitute is not a police officer before money changes hands.

The entire question of what the actual transaction is will be a criminal defence lawyer’s playground. “sexual services” hmmm. A man goes to keep company with a woman in her apartment and things get a little heated. He receives a “service”. He is so grateful he gives her a gift. Has he “purchased” the service? Sigh.

Then there is the entertaining “communicating” provision. Vancouver went through this in, what, the early 1990’s where the girls were the ones not allowed to “communicate”. It is a futile task to criminalize “communication” when a nod is as good as a wink.

On to “receiving a benefit” for the sale of the sexual services of others. Easy to say, hard to draft, next to impossible to fairly enforce. There are girls who use Facebook, Linked-in and, for all I know, Twitter to advertise their services. Each of these internet entities make money. Will they be charged? And for outfits that are a bit more explicit, MacKay is offering a grand loophole “Exceptions would be made for non-exploitative relationships.” Snort. Prove that an escort agency “exploits” its escorts. I am not saying it doesn’t, what I am saying is that at a criminal level of proof the “receipt of benefit” is going to be tough to prove, but with the added requirement that the Crown has to demonstrate “exploitation” there will be no convictions of anything other than Richmond rub and tugs run by tongs using undocumented, forced, labour.

Finally, for extra laughs, we have this “This new offence would prohibit advertising the sale of others’ sexual services in print media or on the Internet.” On its face, and we’ll have to see the poor draughtsmens’ efforts, this is a rule against running ads for blowjobs. Now I know the poor, exploited women in the sex trade are universally abused highschool dropouts but, dumb as MacKay apparently assumes them to be, they will clue into the idea that “I’ll suck the chrome off your trailer hitch” should not appear in an ad. (Actually, I speak too soon, metaphor is not, apparently, banned as yet…no doubt in the regulations there will be a list of forbidden words and images.) This is a feckless idea which will do nothing at all to improve the safety of Canada’s fallen doves.

And, as the idiotic icing on a steaming turd cake, we have the “not in front of the children” provision. I suspect this is designed to prevent…what? Copycat behaviour? Mental anguish amidst the sexting 14 year old crowd. Mothers having to explain to their six year olds what that lady on the corner in the really short, shorts is doing. This is just moral posturing.

Like any stupid law the net effect of MacKay’s prostitution idiocy will be to bring the law into further disrepute. It will keep criminal lawyers busy, bring up lots of interesting constitutional issues, I mean can you criminalize metaphor?, and leave no one the least better off.

The Cons’ narrative is that women who are prostitutes are all, to some degree, victims of some sort of exploitation. This proposed law will not change that alleged fact one iota. But what it will do – as any good economist will tell you – is decrease demand at the margins which will, in turn, reduce price. The hundred dollar girl will have fewer dates at a maximum of $80 with the added cost of having to flash her tits to prove she’s not a cop. Now she will be an exploited victim with a little less money and much less dignity.

This is a tired Government. MacKay should go and get a job.

UPDATE: Michael Den Tandt thinks MaKay has made a mess of the prostitution law. But he attributes it to politics rather than stupidity.

The answer, likely, is that it creates a wedge, in an area where public opinion is mixed, between the Conservatives and opposition, in particular the Trudeau Liberals. The Grits really have no option but to oppose this. When they do, the Tories will portray them as a pack of drug-legalizing, prostitution-loving libertines, bent on transforming Canada’s placid, tree-lined playgrounds into havens of iniquity, debauchery and vice. Game of Thrones meets Don Mills.

It is, in sum, the Conservative party’s first big foray back towards the social conservatism of its Reform party roots, and away from the libertarian-leaning model that has worked for it for a decade. montreal gazette

UPPER DATE: I should think that under the terms of MacKay’s proposed Act, St. Jack of the Rub and Tug would certainly have been charged criminally…The Layton cock was not being tugged for free.

UPPITY DATE: In case you think I am late to the brothel, I wrote about this idiocy earlier here.

Tagged , ,
%d bloggers like this: