Terry Jones banned from the UK

Full story at the BBC

“Controversial American pastor Terry Jones has been excluded from the UK for the public good.

The pastor had been invited to the UK to give an address to the right-wing group England Is Ours in Milton Keynes.

Mr Jones gained international attention for threatening to burn a copy of the Koran outside his church in the US on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.”

I am conflicted. On one hand I’m happy that an idiot isn’t going to be allowed to come to my country and rile up a whole bunch of other idiots – but on the other hand, I can’t help feeling that Terry Jones is a minnow who’s been made to look like a shark by a media magnifying-glass, and this just further feeds his absurdly inflated status.

I am conflicted. Conflicted is me.

  • Unladenswallow

    Terry Jones banned from the UK? WTF?

    Oh that Terry Jones. Not this Terry Jones.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones

    • http://lydiafromtexas.wordpress.com/ LRA

      LOL! I was thinking Jerry Jones at first…

    • TheWrathOfOliverKhan

      Exactly what I was thinking too.

    • drax

      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  • http://larianlequella.com Larian LeQuella

    Okay, i wasn’t the first one to think of the wrong Terry Jones. :)

    I only wish that theitards like him and his ilk would be banned form the planet. That would be a much better headline!

  • UrsaMinor

    I say let him in, don’t protest because it draws attention, and don’t attend the lecture. Nothing rings louder than silence.

    But I have an ulterior motive for sharing the wealth with our British friends. If TJ leaves the country, there is a vanishingly small (but nonzero) chance that he will be denied entry back into the U.S. Strange bureaucratic snafus do happen.

    • JK

      Can’t follow you there. Can you go into more detail? Why shouldn’t he be allowed to return to the USA? Isn’t he a US citzien?

      • UrsaMinor

        Translation: he may be a U.S. citizen, but we don’t want him back.

        • JK

          =D

  • Thin-ice

    I lived in the UK for 17 years. It’s pretty obvious that the British officials are bending over backwards not to offend the UK muslims, while not minding about offending the UK christian fundamentalists. It’s basically political correctness run amuck. I think they should treat Islamic militants with equal exclusion, but they won’t.

    • Custador

      Er, excuse me but they do. There have been several Muslim preachers banned from the UK. We’re busily trying to ship one of the arseholes out to the USA right now so that you guys can try and execute his evil ass.

      • Custador

        For example this one and this one and this one. It took me ten seconds to find those on Google – I’m sure there’s a lot more.

        • Thin-ice

          Thanks Custador, for upgrading my outdated info. I’m glad they are cracking down on both religions’ militants.

    • JohnMWhite

      Daily Mail Poe?

  • Elemenope

    Poor guy will never have the chance to sample authentic jellied eels.
    —————

    FWIW, while I think it’s silly to keep someone out because what he might say may discomfort you, I can’t level much serious criticism; it’s your country, invite who you want.

    • Custador

      You know, in thirty years of being a Britisher, I have never eaten or even seen a jellied eel.

  • Random guy

    Nobody defending freedom of speech? That’s sad.

    • Rachel

      That was my first thought. The guy didn’t actually do anything, and I’ve seen images of British Muslims out on the street holding signs encouraging violence against non-Muslims. Sounds like a pretty big double standard.

    • Elemenope

      Freedom of speech? Hey, if this guy was being barred from entering the US I’d be raising holy hell. But he’s trying to enter another country. It’s that country’s business, not mine, whether they want to accept him in.

      What it says about Britain’s state of freedom of speech is certainly nothing nice, but that is a consequence of decisions that are squarely theirs.

      • Custador

        I think you need to remember that the USA is fairly unique in its widespread belief (held with a fervour bordering religious, I must say) that an individual should be allowed to say whatever they like, whenever they like to whoever they like. The denizens of most countries are a bit more pragmatic about it; you can’t do anything you want to do if it has a meaningful negative impact on another person,or people, so why should you be able to say anything you want if it has a meaningful negative impact on another person or people? From my point of view, the UK has a significant Muslim poulation which contains the same volume of testosterone-fuelled reactive youth as any other demographic – I see nothing wrong with preventing somebody from another country from poking them with a stick. As or UK Muslims protesting – well, they’re already citizens of Britain and therefore have a right of protest here. We can’t very well ban them from their own country.

        • Kodie

          I think you need to remember that the USA is fairly unique in its widespread belief (held with a fervour bordering religious, I must say) that an individual should be allowed to say whatever they like, whenever they like to whoever they like.

          That just feels like a misrepresentation to me. “Free speech” is not that protected. I couldn’t tell my boss to go f*ck himself and keep my job. I can’t be arrested for it, though, unless I also assault him or for property damage, for example, expressing my displeasure. Freedom of speech allows idiots to call the president a Nazi. On one hand, that allows all of us to know what thoughts bubble beneath what you would like, a “polite” surface – speech is knowledge and information of thought. On the other hand, what if the president were actually a Nazi, but nobody was allowed to say so?

          Most Americans are actually too polite to say what they really think unless they’re among friends. We are similarly appalled when someone says something out of line, and use speech to counteract speech. You say something offensive to me or outright wrong, and I correct you or argue with you. There is no formal, official, federal arbiter on who is right and wrong, who is offensive and who is defensive. If the president is or isn’t a Nazi is basically for the presidency to carry on as if it isn’t, to clarify why the people who say it are mistaken, not to shut them up. That’s how it works.

          Yes, we defend that right because it’s important, and we defend it because if the government prohibits certain kinds of speech, you don’t know what side of that speech you’ll be on. If you are censored from pointing out a Nazi president, it basically gives an actual Nazi president power he/she shouldn’t have. In a lot of cases, we like to think we’re “right” and the other side should shut up. Like god favors us, that’s a religious fervor to believe a little prohibited speech comes out in your favor. We know what happens when people don’t like what we say, they argue against us. Sometimes it’s just better not to have said anything at all. The majority happens to believe being an atheist is so horrible, and most of us self-censor from poking a stick at the issue, we’re coerced to keep our jobs and our friends. Imagine if the government said we were offensive and weren’t allowed to say it at all, to face whatever social consequences there are?

          Why do you assume the government will decide everything in your favor, of course we defend the freedom of speech.

          • Yabo

            +1

          • Len

            You have freedom of speech, but you don’t have anonymity. You must take responsiblity for your words. That seems sensible.

          • Custador

            But to push the metaphor further, you can stand up on a platform and knowingly tell lies which incite hatred of an individual or group to the point that some of your audience are likely to react with violence to that individual or group and then claim innocence on the grounds of free speach.Okay, so you can’t directly advocate violence against them, but so what? There are plenty of weaselly ways around that, and besides – as Revy pointed out on another thread – incitement cases are notoriously hard to prove.

  • dutchhobbit

    I don’t like the idea of being banned from a country just because of your ideology. Only when people’s ideologies are detrimental to the safety of the public, ideologies which instill violence for example, can a case be made to forbid entry to a country. I doubt that Terry Jones is actively preaching violence so you should just let him enter the UK.

    • Thin-ice

      If press photos from the past are genuine, there would be muslim mobs (and *possible* violence) all over the UK protesting his presence if the officials allowed him in. You think they want to deal with THAT? They’re just being pragmatic.

      • dutchhobbit

        But isn’t standing up to your principles more important than appeasing a group of people? Freedom of speech is very important and should go above trying to keep one group from being offended. Remember the last time England tried to appease people.

        • Custador

          Considering the free speach that Hitler enjoyed at Nuremberg, your example is terrible and doesn’t advance your side at all :-p

          OH NOES! TEH GODWIN!

          • dutchhobbit

            But you are forgetting my first post. Hitler actively preached violence and the extermination of the Jews. Unless I am quite mistaken, Terry Jones does not say that Muslims should be killed because they are Muslim. Banning someone just because his presence might offend people is absurd. That people don’t want him in the UK is not Terry Jones’s problem but the problem of those people. Just like Revyloution says, if you ban Terry Jones for his beliefs, who knows who might not enter the UK next for their beliefs.

  • Revyloution

    Im not conflicted at all. Im disgusted. If you can ban Terry Jones because of his ideas, then you can ban Christopher Hitchens for his. This is a blow to free speech, and a shame on the UK government.

    The only response to bad speech is more speech. Censor ship is a slippery slope that we should not go down.

    • Rachel

      My thoughts exactly.

    • Mike

      I half agree with this, but I’m not convinced by ‘slippery slope’ arguments alone – they are convenient fall-backs used too often by theists, particularly in the abortion debate.

      You are pretty free to say what you like about who you like in this country, but you are not allowed to use hate speech that can reasonably be expected to cause violence. We don’t have quite such an attachment to the absolute freedom of speech most Americans feel they are entitled to (whether or not they understand the responsibility that must go with such freedom) but there is still a very healthy disregard for censorship.

      Should Jones be banned? I share Custador’s confliction.

      • Revyloution

        Wait… did you mention your’e an atheist?

        You deny the birth of Jesus? You deny that Muhammad was the one prophet of Allah!?!

        That sir is hate speech. I demand that the government shut you up. And if you refuse, then perhaps a nice stay at the local jail will cure you of your hatred.

        • Jabster

          @Revy

          “You deny the birth of Jesus? You deny that Muhammad was the one prophet of Allah!?!”

          So you think that the UK defines that as hate speech then and going down this slippery slope then and if so can you tell me how that works or indeed how this law could be applied to Hitchens?

          Mike pretty much summed it up, the UK doesn’t place freedom of speech on a “pedestal” in the way that the US would seem to do and is happy to give up a level of freedom of speech in return for a greater level, or at least perceived, of tolerance and civil discourse.

          Is it really that difficult to understand that it’s possible to have a functioning democracy that doesn’t exactly hold the same values as the US. The US doesn’t have a monopoly of what’s right or wrong you know …

          • UrsaMinor

            The US doesn’t have a monopoly of what’s right or wrong you know …

            Somebody really ought to tell that to the plebes.

          • Revyloution

            I’m not speaking from a defense of the US, or it’s constitution. My point of reference would be George Orwell, or Christopher Hitchens.

            Any law that describes anything as amorphous as ‘hate speech’ is a dangerous law. Once in the books, they can be twisted to serve any purpose. Civil discourse is fine for the dinner table, but in the world of ideas, politics and religion it won’t get you in the front door. Like the two grand authors I referenced above, I feel that any loss of liberty is just one step to totalitarianism. Slippery slope or not, the hate speech laws in the UK could be interpreted any way you want. They are just as vile as the Libel laws.

            Others have mentioned incitement. Now this IS a crime, in the UK, the US, and all other civil societies. But you have to prove it. Jones might be an idiot, but you would have a difficult case convicting him of incitement. You would have an easier job convicting Sarah Palin of incitement in the AZ shooting.

            I do put freedom of speech, assembly and the press on a pedestal. They are the three pillars that hold up democracy. And you know what happens to pedestals that have only two legs.

            • Custador

              Sadly, they are also the three things that allow anybody with sufficient resources and motivation to massively manipulate the collective mood of a nation to their own ends.

            • Kodie

              So?

            • Custador

              So you can’t stick them on a pedestal like they’re the holiest-of-holies and totally ignore the flipside.

            • Kodie

              I thought your remark ignored the positive effects of such an event. A little too much “sky is falling.”

            • Kodie

              You trust the government to tell you which one is right and which one is wrong and that they will agree with you. What if the government told Martin Luther King he couldn’t have a dream.

            • Revyloution

              Anonymous, RDF, UF (here), Wikileaks, documentaries, The Daily Shows rally at the Mall, this past year has been a testament to the power of free speech. There are plenty of people with resources who want to quiet our voices, but free speech is crushing them. Ignorance and dogma only flourish when the government has the power to shut people up.

              Allowing things to work out through free speech is ugly, painful and slow. It is the only way we have to move forward. Kodie’s reference to Dr. King is a great example. Civil rights would have never moved forward if people couldn’t assemble and protest in the 50′s. The same goes for womens suffrage, gay rights and our own secular movement. In the war of ideas, you can’t give the government the power to stifle. An idea must stand or fall on its own merits.

            • Kodie

              I am envisioning a “flipside” in which it becomes illegal to call Sarah Palin a dumbass. She has to be able to handle the truth. Whatever the government calls “hate speech” might not align so well with our own thoughts. Then how do you get out of that situation, if you can’t protest, if you can’t use your own voice to manipulate and persuade?

              Revy’s right – it’s ugly, painful, and slow, but it’s the right thing to do.

            • Jeremiah

              I guess my view of the whole free speech thing is if we have more mundane laws (murder, theft, etc) our vehicle of correcting mistakes in those laws (slavery for instance) is free speech and an exchange of ideas. (is it right? is it wrong? what should we do?) But if we start policing speech then what method is left to us in which to correct THOSE mistakes?

            • Jeremiah

              Also, I would like to add that sure any freedom could be used toward evil ends as Custador points out. However unless we can find the ultimate benevolent dictator that we can all trust to do the right thing we are always going to have to live with a certain bit of noose around our own necks that could potentially be used to hang us with. Such a flaw is built into all democracies UK and US alike, but until something better is devised those are such risks we have to live with. The question that remains then is silencing of speech a greater threat to the stability of democracy than allowing it. I would argue that allowing free speech is the lesser of two evils.

            • Kodie

              If someone says something bad, we have a choice to say something in return, to use the same power to persuade a subpopulation as they do. If one side gets governmental preference, that just doesn’t feel right to me – what if my ability to dissent is taken away. If that flies in the UK, if that’s what they prefer, and it works out for them, that’s fantastic. I just don’t get how then they come off pissing on our preferences and calling it a religious zeal or worship, you know, out of the same mouth that hates that kind of offensive speech and wants to not be able to say it. People who live overseas seem to have no idea what it’s like to live in the US and exaggerate a lot.

            • Jabster

              @Kodie

              “. If one side gets governmental preference, that just doesn’t feel right to me – what if my ability to dissent is taken away. If that flies in the UK, if that’s what they prefer, and it works out for them, that’s fantastic.”

              Which would be a great statement if it were true, but it’s not. If you’re going to be “outraged” at British laws then I suggest that you understand what they mean first … :-)

              @Revy

              The question asked was do you think you statement was defined and hate speech in UK law and could this law be used to ban Hitchens entry to the country – you’ve not demonstrated that either is true or even how they could plausible become true.

              “… the hate speech laws in the UK could be interpreted any way you want.”

              So explain a plausible scenario under which they could be interpreted in such a way as to fulfil your scenario and exactly who is going to do this interpreting?

              “Allowing things to work out through free speech is ugly, painful and slow. It is the only way we have to move forward. Kodie’s reference to Dr. King is a great example.”

              Are you really sure that it’s the only way and Dr. King is not an overly good example – are you suggesting that the UK should enact laws based on what happened in the US?

              As I’ve said to Kodie both of you seen to be “outraged” an a law that you don’t seem to clearly understand what it is and have applied fanciful scenarios where Terry Jones not being allowed into the UK means that the government would somehow managed to remove freedom of speech and the UK would still have racial segregation … to be honest it all sounds a bit like talk of “death panels” during health care reform.

            • Jabster

              @Kodie/Revy

              Oh I should of course add that there ar arguments against this law but I just don’t feel that they’re the ones you are making. For me I’m glad that we don’t have such an idiot coming to the UK and yet another right wing group of dubious views being given media space. That doesn’t mean that I fully support the law or indeed believe that the law is proportional to the problem it attempts to solve or if it any helps solve it. The last point is of particular importance and there is always a trade of between off between different and competing “rights” and a balance must be drawn between them.

            • Kodie

              Are you really sure that it’s the only way and Dr. King is not an overly good example – are you suggesting that the UK should enact laws based on what happened in the US?

              As I’ve said to Kodie both of you seen to be “outraged” an a law that you don’t seem to clearly understand what it is and have applied fanciful scenarios where Terry Jones not being allowed into the UK means that the government would somehow managed to remove freedom of speech and the UK would still have racial segregation … to be honest it all sounds a bit like talk of “death panels” during health care reform.

              I’m not outraged that the UK is not like the US – If you go back to where Custador mischaracterizes the US as being a little too zealous in a religious way about freedom of speech, you can take your mischaracterization a little further and stuff it up your English butt.

              J/k.

              Just tired of whatever you English people like to think is so horrible about the US, our laws, and our rights and the people who protect our rights and think they are good. If that’s not what works for you, go back into my posts and read where I said something to the effect of “fine by me.”

            • Jabster

              err no Kodie, I’ll go back to the bit where you clearly stated that you didn’t have a clue as to what the UK law but you were against it anyway. As as a kind sould I’ll repeat it for you …

              “If one side gets governmental preference, that just doesn’t feel right to me – what if my ability to dissent is taken away. If that flies in the UK, if that’s what they prefer, and it works out for them, that’s fantastic.”

              Now carry on ranting away with whatever you choose, howerver ill informed, but personally I prefer to stick to the topic in hand and in addition to at least try to understand what it is especially when I’m corrected about it … how about you?

              p.s. “If you go back to where Custador mischaracterizes …” so I’m just chucked in with Custy because I’m the same nationality … how very quaint Kodie, how very quaint …

              “you can take your mischaracterization a little further and stuff it up your English butt.”

              … a “butt”, what is one of those. I think you’ll find that’s rather sexist language, or at least I find it is so I don’t think you should use it.

              I must say Kodie, so far you’ve shown an excellent defence of your initial argument. Keep up the good work … ;-)

            • Kodie

              I don’t actually care what laws you are used to but I’m not outraged at your laws.

              I would not like them to be applied in the US – when someone like Custador says

              I think you need to remember that the USA is fairly unique in its widespread belief (held with a fervour bordering religious, I must say) that an individual should be allowed to say whatever they like, whenever they like to whoever they like.

              I mean, what the hell is that. “I don’t understand a culture so I will make fun of people who defend freedom.” If we didn’t want freedom, we’d still be English, right.

            • Custador

              That’s not actually why the American War of Independance started (and was certainly not something that the people who started it wanted at the time) – so what’s your point?

            • Jabster

              “I don’t actually care what laws you are used to …”

              I’ll correct that for you …

              “I don’t actually know anything about the laws you have but I still don’t like them …”

              “I would not like them to be applied in the US …”

              Not that you know what they are …

              “… when someone like Custador says …”

              Who happens to be a different person from me or do you just lump all English people as one person?

              “If we didn’t want freedom, we’d still be English, right.”

              Excellent way to defend you argument … go, go Kodie

            • Kodie

              I didn’t lump you in with what Custador said. You said I was, and Revy was, “outraged” about something. What are we “outraged” about?

              You just happen to be English. I just happen not to be English, so apparently I am outraged and a religious zealot for freedom of speech. Is that what you think of all Americans?

            • Kodie

              I think your little “outraged” comment is a troll. Custador’s was just out of line.

            • Elemenope

              As usual, there is an apropos xkcd comic.

              As much as I despair about the general truism that my fellow Americans have a tendency to be proudly ignorant of the world, there is nothing quite so irritating as people in the rest of the world who are, without any seeming self-awareness or lack of confidence, completely ignorant about Americans, but nonetheless oh so willing to spout off about us.

              Here’s a hint: the TV lies to you.

            • Custador

              @ Kodie:

              “where Custador mischaracterizes the US as being a little too zealous in a religious way about freedom of speech”

              I’m actually stunned that you can’t see the irony of what you’ve just said there. Every American I have ever spoken to, including you has given every impression that they believe “free speach” to be a sacrosanct, inviolable right. So how, exactly, does that mischaracterize you? All I’ve done is point out that most people (in my opinion) do not agree.

            • Kodie

              Firstly, I’m just not that good at arguing sometimes. If you haven’t read anything that sounds like a good reason so far for free speech without coming up with a really weak counterargument against it, I can’t help it. I’m not the one who is going to be able to explain it to you either, unfortunately. I don’t understand what it’s like to be English or have any laws that say you can’t say this or you can’t say that – seriously, when something’s offensive, you can argue over it or decide not to. If you rather the government say what that is, decide what is good or bad, decide that you agree, or however else Jabster says I’ve got it ALL WRONG, well no one so far has made it sound other than some sacrosanct inviolable way of life, with no splendid explanation, no good reason it is better that way.

              But I don’t hate on England or English people while I misinterpret your laws. Now do I.

            • Custador

              You still haven’t provided me with a cogent reason why you’re accusing me of misrepresenting you. You’ve deflected.

            • Elemenope

              Custy, I think part of the objection is characterizing the zealotry as “religious”, which, given this blog’s content and audience, is obviously not neutral in bearing.

              It is true that Americans tend to hold concepts of expressive freedom more absolutely than our European counterparts for several reasons both historical and dispositional (on both sides of the pond). That is undeniable as a tendency, though there are plenty enough Americans who do not believe such, and would gladly seek to limit certain types of speech or certain types of content.

              What isn’t generally true is that this affection for personal freedom is a dogmatic, irrational assertion. Perhaps on no other subject will you find that people, generally, in the US are more reflective, as can be evidenced by the fairly nuanced discussions that have this past week tried to balance values of comity and productive discourse with the value of expressive freedom. Quite the opposite of a dogmatic approach, or one that could be easily associated with religious thought-processes. That a conclusion is strongly held or a principle highly valued does not give leave to characterize defending it as analogous to religious zealotry unless the actual behavior bears that out. It generally does not, in this case.

            • Kodie

              @Custador – Elemenope is a lot better at explaining things to you than I am, that’s all I have left to say about this.

              @Elemenope – I’m so glad there’s a you.

            • Custador

              @ ‘Nope:

              I hope I didn’t come across as “spouting off about [you]“; I’d guess my OP would have found agreement with a majority of liberal Brits, and I found some of the responses to be (unsurprisingly) characteristically American based on my experiences of similar discussions with other Americans (including you). I pointed that out, and Kodie seems to have escalated that into me making some sort of racial slur.

              Though I will concede that the comparison with religion could have been offensive, given the setting.

            • Jabster

              @Elem/Custy

              Personally I thought the term religious zealot was taken in the wrong way (who renumbers the evangelising and atheist connection which is really offensive or not depending on what you think evangelising means in that context) as I certainly just take it as meaning the freedom of speech was held as a particularly important principle especially if you compare the UK attitude to it. As you say Custy, discussions with Americans, well at least when compared to Europeans, often seem to bear this out with the cry of what about freedom of speech going up – I also most tempted to call it playing the it’s in the Constitution card, which I often take as short hand for I don’t have to explain why I’m right because I obviously am. What I didn’t believe it was saying was that the UK was right and the US was wrong but instead that we do have different values.

              p.s. I’m just disappointed that no one has invoked Jabster’s law and mentioned the US Constitution or a specific amendment when appiled to the laws of another country!

            • Nox

              “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like.”
              -Noam Chomsky

              That pretty much covers my position on both Terry Jones and islam.

              Except that I think it would be funny if the real Terry Jones was banned from the US in retaliation for this(I think he would appreciate the humor).

      • Danny Wuvs Kittens

        “Reasonably be expected to cause violence” I can understand someone advocating violence, but if you’re just talking about how the opposition will bring violence, that’s not an okay reason for censorship in my book. They’re basically giving power to the people most willing to do violence. Don’t want to hear somebody talking bad about you? Hah! Get the fuck out. Have a baseball bat in your hand and a few hundred friends? We’ll take action right away sir. I’m not very familiar with the country’s cases, but I don’t hear of many misogynists and homophobes getting fined, jailed, and barred from entering the country.

        From the things I’ve read about the UK in regards to speech, they’re as afraid of their people as Mexico is; at least when Muslims are involved. This is as bad as the US’s old communist-phobia.

    • Len

      Maybe they could ban the pope.

      • Custador

        Actually, a group of secular Brits did try to get an arrest warrant issued for him before his state visit, on grounds of crimes against humanity. That would have been funny.

  • Mike

    Revy – I am perfectly free to deny fairy tales (or to proclaim then loudly if I want). I can rail against Islam with no danger from the state (Islamists are another matter of course) but I cannot incite people to destroy Islamists’ property, harm or kill them. What hacks me off about this law is not that it restricts my freedom of speech, but that it is not applied more rigorously to the religious nutcases (particularly Islamic nutcases) who are the one who most tend to use the hate speech the law is designed to curb. Sadly, the police are afraid of enforcing the law for fear of being accused of racism or Islamophobia.

    • UrsaMinor

      Yes,the situation does not seem very symmetrical. There is a remarkable absence of militant Anglicans or atheists blowing themselves up over religious or political issues.

  • elivent

    Huh. If he were allowed to enter the UK and give his address, it would put everyone on an even playing field – there would be no fear-based pandering to a specific demographic. If there was a violent reaction to anything said, it would be the responsibility of the reactees, wouldn’t it? It would expose that kind of irrationality for how dangerous it is – not that that isn’t known, but still, any violence would be on their heads, and they would risk putting their cause at a pretty severe disadvantage.

    [Magic edit courtesy of Custador]

  • Pingback: Praying the news | THE TITHEBARN CENTRE


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X