Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee TD, outside Government Buildings today as she published the findings of the hate crime public consultation, which was carried out by the Department of Justice

This morning.

Leinster House, Dublin 2.

Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee launched consultation document Legislating for Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Ireland Report. A new law will cover both incitement to hatred and hate crime

To wit:

‘…The new hate crime offences will be aggravated versions of existing crimes, for example offences against the person, criminal damage or public order offences, where they are carried out because of prejudice against a protected characteristic.

Creating these new offences will mean that a crime can be investigated as a potential hate crime by Gardaí, and evidence of the hate element can be presented in court.

Where the jury finds that the crime was a hate crime based on the evidence, and convicts the person of a hate crime, the enhanced penalty for the new offence will available to the judge at sentencing. Where the jury finds that the hate element is not proven, they will still be able to convict the person of the ordinary form of the offence…’

Minister McEntee said:

“Regarding the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of expression, I want to assure people that this legislation will be proportionate, specific, and clear, with offences capable of being proven beyond reasonable doubt. There will be no confusion as to what constitutes criminal hate speech.”


Legislating for Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Ireland Report

Sam Boal/RollingNews

Sponsored Link

77 thoughts on “Hate That

  1. BS

    Worrying to see “gender identity” there. Hopefully there will be enough of a definition to cover stating facts like humans cannot change their sex, and gender does not equal sex.

    Interestingly misogyny is covered as a topic which will be hard speech. So hopefully the Donegal TD saying he hates “terfs” could be guilty of hate speech.

    1. Noblelocks

      This is going to be hilarious…. can you just imagine what’ll happen after this is passed and all of the Trans rights cry bullies (or “AGP males” for short) will be sitting there waiting with baited breath for someone to state a biological fact like “men cannot be women”?…. BOOM HATE SPEEEEEECH!

      Of course it’ll be shot to hell in court… it’ll be fun watching though :)

      1. Nigel

        You honestly think that’s the worst a trans person has to put up with? That’s just a petty, everyday, ill-mannered little agression used to show contempt, to put them in their place, but it barely scratches the surface. If a charge is brought against someone just for something like that, you’l be right, this is a joke, because they’ll really not be looking very hard.

        1. Noblelocks

          I do believe that the worst thing that can happen to a peson who believes that there is a “stranger in their body” (good old Tavistock!) is to be erroniously diagnosed as “trans” in the first place.

          Instead of receiving the care and compassion that they deserve, like they would if they were diagnosed with other body dysphoria mental issues such as Anorexia, they are led down a hugely destructive ideological path or in the case of children, led down a life-altering ideological path, that also includes medical experimentation which will, in over 80% of cases, mean sterility and/or an inability to ever have an orgasm.

          It’s the same as treating an Anorexic person by saying to them “You’re right! We should just let you not eat and accuse anyone who trys to help you in any other way of hate filled Conversion Therapy!”

          And you always leave out the AGP males Nige… why do you always leave out the HUGE Amount of these so called “trans” people who aren’t really trans at all and are really AGP males?

          1. Nigel

            You have no business inserting yourself into the care and treatment of other people, anorexic or dysmorphic. You are determined to take away all of their autonomy when it comes to making their own choices. You are demonising one outcome out of personal disgust, and want that disgust transferred to the patient, to the doctor, to any adults in postitions of authority and responsibility. It’s horrifying to watch.

    2. Daisy Chainsaw

      Terfs are such whiny snowflakes. They hate it when it’s pointed out that they’re blindly being led by extreme right wing religious groups who are anti choice, pro conversion therapy and when they’re done exterminating the T they’ll turn on the L and G to eradicate them too.

      1. Anonomanom

        I know nothing about you but I have to say, I find most people who use the word TERF, which really is meangless, are the most aggressive and idiotic of them all. I genuinely couldn’t give a poo how people live, it’s their business. But I remember being called TERF and worse for just stating men can’t give birth.

        1. Nigel

          You call the term meaningless but you got called it for saying something to which it could reasonably be said to accurately apply. It’s not a term of abuse, it’s just accurate. I disagree in the strongest possible terms with terfs, but too many people who aren’t feminists, who are the opposite of feminists, have jumped on the transphobia bandwagon along with the radical feminists who want to exclude trans women, for it to be a useful general term so I tend to avoid using it.

          1. Anonomanom

            How could TERF accurately describe anyone saying men can’t give birth. That’s just an absolute fact. Calling women radical for not wanting someone they see as a man in their toilets, changing rooms so on, is just completely ridiculous and idiotic. I’m not saying agree with them but I can see why they would think like that.

          2. Junkface

            What about the way they attacked Martina Navratilova for stating something that anyone from a female sporting background would be worried about, but afraid to discuss because of online woke mobs piling on?


            …and what happened? A tennis legend and a female role model for generations of girls and a feminist icon was publicly shamed so hard that she had to do the usual public apology. Bullied into submission. That’s the goal every time.

          3. Anonomanom

            Exactly, it personally doesn’t effect or bother me. If you want to be a man/woman then go for it, no big deal. But when it comes to sport, if you want to force a woman and young girls to compete with what is effectively a man in terms of physical build, fitness, strength then the problem is you not the women complaining.

          4. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

            I don’t mind sharing a space/ toilets whatever, I do mind boxing / wrestling or trying to out run a former man over a short distance, it’s dangerous and unfair, I have had a dig off a lad sparing, it’s no joke

          5. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

            and the one time I was sexually assaulted in a ladies toilet was by a ” normal ” man who followed me into it, it’s ridiculous to think a boo boo needs to wear a skirt to sneak in and then pounce

          6. Nigel

            What about it? People aren’t allowed to disagree with fanous people, be disappointed with a icon who says something that her fans think goes against the things that made her an icon? Criticise the rich and famous? Any mass online response to any subject can be characterised as a bullying mob, it is not restricted to this sort of subject, and is, in fact, far, far worse for other, less rich and famous people. You think she got a fraction of the abuse that trans people get on a regular basis? That doesn’t make any abuse directed at anyone right, and being a famous gay woman already makes her a target I’m sure, but suggesting that there is something uniquely bad about that situation that it should play a part in determining whether, say, trans women should participate in women’s sports, is radically selective and reductive.

          7. Nigel

            The ‘radical’ modifies the ‘feminist’ because that’s how it started – radical feminists suddenly deciding to exclude trans women from feminism and female spaces.

      2. BS

        LOL Daisy. Snowflake AND TERF in one sentence. you’re sooooo edgy!

        Humans cannot change sex
        A person born male will always be biologically male, regardless of changes in hormones or sex characteristics
        Saying you feel like a different gender, or sex, does not make that a material fact.
        Trans healthcare, especially for under 18’s needs to be improved.
        The affirmation model for psychological disorders such as gender dysphoria is dangerous and is the only psychological disorder where affirmation is used to treat (or not) treat it.

        None of what i have said is “trans exclusionary” or could be construed as hate by any reasonable person. I for one look forward to the first time the Gards look into any alleged crime containing the above fats.

      3. Noblelocks

        Ahh Daisy, your indoctrination is nearly complete isn’t it. Still waving the “extreme right wing” flag I see too, yet when asked all you can show is a single tiny group of nuts who, shock horror, have a Website!

        As with all things AGP T, deception is at the heart of the ideology. Take a fact, reverse it, repeat ad nauseum.

        The Fact is it’s the Autogynephile males who are doing their best to destroy the L and G. They’re not T, they are AGP straight men. Straight, mostly white men, dressed as women for their own sexual gratification are destroying the LGB community and it’s women like you who are the main enablers.

        The effeminate gay men of the past are gone, they’re now T. The vamp gay men, they hadn’t a hope… The butch lesbians of the past are gone too, swallowed by the T. Qui bono? Straight men want nothing to do with T (in the vast majority of cases) “she’s a dude”. The only one’s who really benefit are the AGPT (that nigel refuses to even admit exist, hilariously)

        The Facts also show who loses. Just have a guess how many ‘lesbian only’ bars are left in the whole state of California? Go on, guess…

        That’s right NONE. Not One left. All those that said that “this is a female only space” were protested until they opened up to the AGP males and women like you or closed their doors. How proud you must be.

        If you spent just ten minutes asking yourself some very basic questions about the beliefs you love to virtue signal, and I mean REALLY look at what you believe and the REAL facts behind it. You might just be able to see the truth for what it really is and leave Nigel to his Sunk Cost Fallacy before it swallows you too.

    3. newsjustin

      As the Minister says, these are aggravated versions of existing crimes. So not about causing offence or “compelled speech”. Thats my reading of it anyway. But I could be wrong. I’m sure the courts will thread carefully.

      Frankly, if you’re assaulting someone anyway, and you happen to throw in an old racial/sexist/bigotted slur, you deserve to have it held against you.

  2. millie bobby brownie

    That’s a fine line to be walking. Not sure how I feel about this. It veers very close to censorship, no?

    1. newsjustin

      But only censoring people who are committing a crime at the same time, or am I misunderstanding it?

      Like, I don’t care that a guy punching a person thinks he might have a valid point.

    2. Junkface

      This will be misused and abused of course. There will be people getting knocks on the door at home from the Gards for jokes deemed to be so offensive that they are hate crimes. It will lead to more innocent people losing their jobs for posting half thoughts. This is again an effort by the far left to continue changing language and enforcing censorship for adults wherever they can. These are more disciples of Critical Race theory, which is unfounded, unchallenged, fictional nonsense that has found its way into the mainstream.

      Their trick is to promote something like these laws that seems like the right thing to do to a lot of well meaning people, but they are really trying to force peoples hands on this, because if you go against this, or have any doubts they will scream that you are far right, or a TERF. It will lead to more censorship and self censorship, which is very damaging to free democratic societies where adults should be allowed to discuss anything openly and honestly. Look at what happened to Dawkins earlier in the year at Trinity. That’s the goal for this movement. Ban everyone who does not assimilate to their doctrine.

      1. Nigel

        How have you managed to internalise so thoroughly so much right-wing red-scaring race-baiting LGTBQ-bashing nonsense? By creating a particular category of crime that recognises that the particular type of crime is enough of a problem to require its own category, the ‘left’ are trying to literally control your thoughts. I honestly think you’re smarter than this.

        1. Junkface

          You see? That’s a problem right there. I am on the side of protecting free speech and not falling into more censorship. I am on the left, not THAT left though. As Stephen Fry recently said in an interview, how did we on the left allow the right wing to be the ones to protect free speech? This is all wrong. This is a developing extreme.

          Go to 1:44:40 as its a 2 hour interview with Lawrence Krauss

          I could say the same about you on this topic, I thought you were smarter than this. Because it takes a certain amount of logic bending that has to feel doubtful.

          1. Junkface

            The modern world we know today is a direct result of Enlightenment values. We should protect these values as it has led us all to a better world, a fairer world and a more scientifically advanced world.

            These new censorship/ hate crime/ hate speech laws go directly against Enlightenment values.

          2. Nigel

            The right does not protect free speech. This law does not attack free speech. People criticising Martina Navratalova were exercising free speech. If you think Enlightenment values are so fragile as to succumb to trans women usiing female rest-rooms but strong enough to resist the right-wing onslaught of hate and misinformation, funded by billionaires and monetised by massive media platforms, then I think you’ve got things upside-down.

          3. Junkface

            Did you listen or watch what Stephen Fry and Lawrence Krauss clearly stated in that last section of video? This law would go against their argument. I don’t want anyone in society to be mistreated with violence, but we should find a better way to protect people from harm than enforcing censorship on the entire population. Which is what this will lead to.

            The rest of the world is a long way from the right wing madness currently being pushed through in Poland and Hungary with their anti gay, anti abortion, anti everything movement.

          4. Nigel

            How is it censorship to give someone a slightly stiffer sentence for a violent assault because they screamed racial abuse while doing it? If you want actual threats to life and freedom, I’d take a closer look at current CAP reform and CETA. The right has persuaded you that the ‘woke’ are more of a threat than things like that, making them pretty much triumphant.

  3. ReproBertie

    “There will be no confusion as to what constitutes criminal hate speech.”

    Well that’s grand so.

  4. Nigel

    Probably easier to do this rather than regulate massive monopolistic tech companies and their social media platforms that will monetise anything including all sorts of hate speech and massive qantities of misinformation without regard for the consequences.

        1. E'Matty

          Not at all. I just don’t treat them as gospel truth that cannot be questioned. I also recognise that all media have a bias and agenda. You treat mainstream publications as arbiters of truth despite years of proven misinformation and dismiss offhand publications simply for not being mainstream. You also have no understanding of framing i.e. how mainstream media frames issues to present in a certain light.

          1. Nigel

            Are you familiar with the term ‘straw man’ at all? I tend to treat people who spend more time constructuing them than actually saying anything with scepticism.

      1. Nigel

        Ultimately, judges, as guided by legislation drafted by our elected representatives? I’m not saying this is a good thing, and at best it’s a minefield, but we already have a system of people and processes for deciding whether things are crimes or not crimes, so the question seems disingenuous.

        1. Toby

          Not really. My question is on the money. the fact that you try and dismiss it is my worry. Its a minefield, its open for misuse and it will cause much more harm than good. It gives yourself Tara and Colm bigger sticks to beat the world with and move from shaming to criminalising. no wonder your trying to down play it.

          1. Nigel

            So, like every other law, it has the capacity to be misused? The devil will be in the details? Like every other law? But this is a special law, because apparently acknowledging that people are being targeted with hate out of bigotry makes them ‘special,’ rather than vulnerable and we can’t have that.

          2. Toby

            Nope. You still don’t get it. You don’t want to. You welcome this because it turns your opinion into law and others’ opinions into crimes. Suits you Sir.

          3. Nigel

            I think your concerns are wildly overstated precisely because this laws seeks to categorise crimes targeted at paticular groups out of bigotry, because we’ve had relentless right-wing culture warriors telling us that this makes the victims ‘special’ rather than punishes people who commit crimes.. This argument has been profoundly internaised by a lot of people, and it’s actually a bit scary to see it so casually trotted out,

          4. Toby

            Of course you think we are overstaying our concerns, because they are not your concerns.
            The laws can be targeted at anyone, but misused by everyone. Look at how you push agendas that have nothing to do with you just to advance your woke policy. Colm is making a living out of it. NUp to now you wrapped it in some perverse compulsory compassion or kindness, now you have a law to enforce it. And given how subjective something like “hate” is, you will be extremely dangerous. This is McCarthyism.

          5. Nigel

            You have opinions. i have an agenda. You are making comments. I am advancing my woke policy. You disagree. I am making compassion compulsory. Your laws protect the vulnerable and punish the guilty. My laws are protect the guilty and punish the vulnerable. Talk about doublespeak.

          6. Toby

            You’re the one who has been language policing and tone policing this site for years. You are actively pushing an agenda, you are part of a movement, you are telling people what is acceptable and not. You promote the shaming, punishing and canceling of people for their beliefs. Now you have the law to do your work for you. Well done.

          7. Nigel

            Am I not as entitled as anyone else to have a point of view, an agenda, and be part of a movement? Why is my exercise of freedom of thought, speech and association unacceptable? I don’t have the power to shame, punish or cancel anybody – that’s a mighty weight to attribute to my opinions. At best I might give readers something to think about or even change their mind about something – yet you treat it as some sort of violent assault or sinister manipulation, while deploring a law that merely adds an aggravating factor to actual violent assaults or abusive crimes. Is the law not doing the work for all of us when it punishes violent and abusive crimes?

          8. Toby

            Stop playing the innocent, you’re actually smarter than that. You and your mates cancel, judge, censor, correct, impose, direct, shame, punish, preach at people in order to get them to comply to your way of thinking. Its worse than a radical church, its does zero good except to some twisted version of kindness, like Catholicism. And now you have the law. You are the new scary movement, not anyone else. Before you came along, no one would have thought it was fair to have an athlete with a male body compete with a woman. now you have the law to help you ram this nonsense through. So all those minorities that you have nothing to do with will again suffer while you guys cash in.

          9. Nigel

            Still not sure what makes my opinions so uniquely threatening or horrifying. Lots of mind-reading, straw-manning, slippery-sloping, erroneous assumptions and straight up backwards assertions. After watching the police whale on BLM all summer, ‘we have the law?’ Being socialy liberal is a ‘new movement?’ Trans women werenlt allowed to compete in women’s sports before ‘I came along?’ And all of this is out of your concern about the suffering of minorities. Incredible.

          10. Toby

            See, that’s the difference. I don’t use the suffering of minorities to push my own agenda. You and your mates fight for causes that don’t affect you for people that don’t want you, just to make you look good. It’s like priests patrolling marriage and sex. They tried to become the law as well remember? Now you have, so you can mete out your kindness and shaming with the full force of the law. Like I said, well done. Big day for you all. Lots of cash for Colm and the compassionate gang hiding behind the skirts of the afflicted.

  5. Charger Salmons

    Well I for one hope there’s a section in the law to cater for hate against wealthy, fun-loving and cheerful foreign nationals.
    It’s been a heavy cross to bear at times on here but never explain, never complain is my motto …

      1. Charger Salmons

        That’s right.You laugh away Bodger but let me tell you it’s no fun being on here when people think I’m you.
        Guilty of being woke by association.
        No fun at all at all.

        1. Toby

          When you defend alleged pedophilia, slavery and blatant anti-Irish bigotry and racism, its hard not to hate you. But people have hated the Brits for years so you probably cant tell anymore. Bodger sycophancy is nauseating when it comes to you.,

  6. E'Matty

    Such a load of woke BS. If a fella runs up to a redhead, punches him and calls him a “ginger c u next Tuesday” is that not a hate crime too? It’s a physical attribute the victim has no control over just like the pigment of their skin. Redheads have suffered terribly from persecution down through the years. Punching fat people for being fat? Fat people often suffer discrimination and snide remarks for being overweight, another physical attribute. Punching a toff for acting like a toff? He was born a toff, so can’t help being a toff. Or maybe he was born poor but realised in his adolescence he was a toff and superior, was just born under the wrong social class.

    ALL criminal assaults are “hate” crimes. Theyre not acts of love. Creating specially protected insider groups will have the opposite effect. Why is it worse to attack him/her violently but not someone else, simply because they fall into a preference group? Isn’t the aim that we become colour blind, sex blind, ethnicity blind? All being equal. No, we are to have special groups and society is to divide into these groups based on sex, gender, race, sexuality etc. You know, because all humans should be defined solely by their skin colour or sexuality or similar.

    The establishment political and media class detest their loss of control over day to day narratives and in a desperate attempt to regain control (labelling everything they dislike as fake news or conspiracy theory has only gotten them so far) they now want to impose on and undermine a pillar of democracy, the right to freedom of expression.

    If you can only express yourself in terms the fanatical and zealous virtue signalling woke crowd approve of, we’re all screwed. The woke crowd can’t even help attacking themselves. There is no actual logic underpinning their religious like beliefs so they twist themselves in knots trying to justify their indoctrinated insanity.

    1. ReproBertie

      “ALL criminal assaults are hate crimes. ”
      This is simply not true. A criminal assault may happen because the criminal wants something from the victim. This will have nothing to do with the victim themselves. They will only have been targeted because they are an easy target, or the easiest target at the time.

      If the victim was targeted because of their skin colour, hair colour or sexual orientation, for example, then that could push the assault into the hate crime sphere.

    2. Nigel

      We already have different categories of crimes. It’s a bit weird that this debate always seems to go around the victims getting special treatment, instead of punishing criminal behaviour, as if being targeted because of prejudice makes them special, and acknowledging that with a criminal category of its own is some sort of special privelege rather than a response to a problem serious enough to require police intervention. It’s ridiculous, like suggesting that dwellings are being given special priveleged status because they get ‘burgled’ when it could just as well be called a ‘mugging’ because they’re both robberies. Then it devolves into a hysterical sippery slope, as if beating someone up because they’re black is a pillar of democracy? Thinking racism is bad is religious zealotry and disliking racial abuse is indctrinated insanity? Talk about knots.

  7. JesusMadam X

    Some great legal experts here giving advice on trans issues. Much like the non medical keyboard experts on Covid 19. We’ve had all summer of them

  8. Noblelocks

    “You have no business inserting yourself into the care and treatment of other people, anorexic or dysmorphic.”
    Nor do Trans rights cry Bullies. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander or is that only ok to insert the trans ideology into dysphoria? I mean this is galactic levels of hypocracy…


    “You are determined to take away all of their autonomy”:
    Standard TRA slur.
    When it comes to making their own choices, if their choice means I have to perjur myself and believe what I know to be a lie, then it is NOT their choice. This is NOT the same as gay rights. T are demanding the right to make me speak the way they want me to speak and to think the way they want me to think. I have a two word answer for their wants, ending “off”. Can you guess the first word?


    “You are demonising one outcome out of personal disgust”:
    Once again a standard TRA Lie. I want these people to be treated PROPERLY. And that means with respect and understanding and given the support they ACTUALLY need and not the support that lies to them ala Tavistock and makes society tie itself in knots to suit their subjective wants. What about my bloody autonomy or doesn’t that count? I think I already know your answer lol


    “and want that disgust transferred to the patient, to the doctor, to any adults in postitions of authority and responsibility. It’s horrifying to watch”.
    Says the man who told me I was all kinds of monster for saying that transitioning children was medical experimentation, and then the three judges in the Keira Bell case all made that EXACT statement.

    Children were being medically experimented on! How can you ignore this ??? All the rest of your response doesn’t amount to a hill of SHITE… what is wrong with you man???

    1. Nigel

      Trans people with experience of transitioning seem like the sort of people whose opinions on transitioning would be relevant and useful, certa8nly more relevant thatn yours or mine.

      You are feeling threatened because members of avulnerable minority think you are wrong about your medical opinions that they have direct experience of and you do not. Nice.

      If your oinion on how they should be treated is driven not by medical knowledge but revulsion at the process and the outcome, then you should do that two word thing you mentioned previously.

      Children are not being medically experimented on. Children are not being transitioned. One single solitary case should not be used to determine what happens to everyone else seeking treatment.

      1. Andrew

        The Tavistock clinic in the UK were effectively experimenting on children and felt they were beyond scrutiny.

        The Tavistock argued in the recent High Court case puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were entirely separate stages of treatment and one does not automatically lead to the other.
        Except that 43 out of 44 particpants in their own study went on to take cross-sex hormones.

        The Tavistock didn’t provide this information to the court despite being asked to.
        A growing body of evidence suggesting that puberty blockers might lock children onto a medical pathway that would lead inexorably to infertility and repeat prescriptions for life – was not more widely shared.

      2. Noblelocks

        Still the slurs, still the personal attacks. You really do have no shame at all do you?

        And the “vulnerable minority” lie comes out again. Heres the facts you choose to ignore
        * Three women a week are killed in the UK
        ZERO trans were killed in the UK last year, and the year before that, and they year before that
        * Children are going to kill themselves – that’s another Susie Green classic that even the BBC challenged
        In the history of the Tavistock, one child committed sucide and that child had many underlying mental issues. And one is still too many but the way TRbullies paint it, you’d swear there is an epidemic. Deception really is in every part of the T ideology isn’t it

        “Children are not being medically experimented on.”
        Oh dear lord it is IN THE BLOODY SUMMING UP!!!

        Bell Vs Tavistock 2020
        “There is real uncertainty over the short and long term consequences of the treatment, with very little evidence as to its efficacy. This means it is, in our view, PROPERLY DESCRIBED AS EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT” Who the bloody hell do you think you are to remove the lived experience of children who have suffered at the hands of medical experimentation?

        One solitary case? Oh dear lord how many childrens lives are you willing to destroy before you are going to accept you are backing a Sunk Cost Fallacy? Will ten more lives destroyed be enough to feed your wants ? Twenty?

  9. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

    I called someone an ignorant tootler in Tesco today, better clean up my potty mouth

  10. Noblelocks


    “The ‘radical’ modifies the ‘feminist’ because that’s how it started – radical feminists suddenly deciding to exclude trans women from feminism and female spaces.”

    Dear lord can you say anything that is factual or truthful at all? Suddenly? Suddenly? Lol!

    What you call “Trans Women” the VAST majority of people call “Blokes in Dresses”. Oh and yes they’re, in the VAST majority of cases; Straight! AGP or T men are NOT Female. What is wrong with you that you cannot process this basic fact? Why do you insist upon forcing straight white males into female only spaces?

    There’s nothing “sudden” about this, the only sudden thing is that 5 years ago the T community happily stated that “we’re not saying you should call us women, we just want equal rights like everyone else” and now, 5 years later they are saying the Exact opposite. Were they lying then or are they lying now? Who knows when deception is at the heart of everything the AGPT do?

    Does it hurt you in the virtue when the nasty facts show how wrong you are?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link