Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland
Options
Comments
-
So when LGBT people can finally marry the person of their choice, is it going to be acceptable for the prejudice owners of hotels, florists, wedding outfitters, jewellers, car hire outlets, hairdressers etc, etc to refuse to cater for gay/transgender weddings because it goes against their religious beliefs?
I'm sure that on realising the prejudice the wedding party will not want to continue to seek their services, however do you think they are right to make a complaint to the equality commission and go public about it to save other couples the humiliation?
Should such people be in positions of providing services to the unsuspecting public if they cannot be professional enough to keep their opinions to themselves? I'd be sick if I had ever brought so much as a cream bun in that bakery to be honest.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No, I am not, I am refusing to support an organisation which, from the way I see it, engaged in a campaign to harass a business owner and used a twisted interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws when the bakery owner explained to the customer that his request was in conflict with the ethos of the business. Tolerance, respect and understanding goes both ways, and if you're not prepared to practice it yourself, you shouldn't expect it from others. It wasn't because the customer may have been LGBT that the order could not be fulfilled, it was because the political message the customer wanted to promote was in conflict with the bakery's religious ethos.
Yes, you are supporting them by your stance, your lack of realisation of this denotes a degree of cognitive dissonance in your attitude.
When a business opens to the public and they offer a service like putting names or slogans on a cake then they can't refuse to put on certain slogans because they don't like or don't agree with them, unless the slogan is against the law like an incitement to hatred.One eyed Jack wrote: »People have used politics a lot longer than religion to exercise oppression and bigotry against anyone who disagreed with them, and now they aren't allowed do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous, but at least "2,000 years of persecution" is new, as opposed to the usual bleating about "800 years...".
That's like the chewbacca defence, it just doesn't make sense. To have politics you need a political system and gods and religion have been around a lot longer than politics. Also, politicians, kings, emperors, czars and leaders of every type have used religion many times to enforce their will or stir up hatred against some minority or other.One eyed Jack wrote: »Either you want to work towards a progressive society where all people are treated equally with dignity and respect, or you just want a society where some people are more equal than others, and the second class citizens will be made to make reparations for historical events in which they played no part. Which is it?
How does not baking a cake for someone because of a legal slogan promote equality? If a Satanist went in there and ordered a cake with a satanic slogan on it and was refused, they'd be against his/hers religious affiliation then no?One eyed Jack wrote: »I would urge you not to let that little bit of power you now feel you have over other people go to your head, or else you're no different to the people you despise.
What power do you feel that I have? And why do you feel I have it? What source does this power derive from?0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »What point?
You can support discrimination all you want but thankfully the law and the likes of the UN view us all as equal so you won't get your world where you can lord over the lesser people.
That's a nice story but my point was that some people have no problem with minorities being able to discriminate but if its a white christian male then all bets are off. The UN also recognise the freedom to practice ones religion without external interference. For me freedom and liberty trumps equality.
Equality legislation is all very well meaning but what it mostly does is highlight differences whereby people are more divided with it than without it.
The whole "you want to enslave people' narrative is amusing but wrong and in some ways shows that lack of a rational argument over the emotive argument.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »So...people should be free to exercise their bigotry, is that your message from this?
The point of this story is what happens when a minority challenges another minority over some issue of 'rights'?
It shows that there is a de-facto hierarchy of rights that are bestowed on some people. In this case a Muslims mans rights to not serve women in his barber shop > A lesbian who wants to get her hair cut.
Its all very stupid I know. Why would a Lesbian deliberately go into such an establishment anyway knowing full well the response. However, this is where we are, where people can deliberately cause a fuss over the most stupid of things because of some equality authority ruling and the press gives it the legs.0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Ah, but it is being argued that the refusal to make the cake, and conscientious objection on religious grounds in general, are part of the human right to freedom of religion. If this is the case then it must apply to both employers and their employees, including civil servants no? If it is covered by a human right it cannot apply only to private business owners.
Are you now advocating that the state now has to take on a religious role or a stance on what is their official religion? The state should be secular, if you work for the state then that is the position one has to adopt. The state cannot make decisions based on religious values however, a private business in another thing altogether.0 -
Advertisement
-
Our politicians are far too backward in relation to things like that. A step like this would be far too radical and will likely take years before it happens.0
-
Are you now advocating that the state now has to take on a religious role or a stance on what is their official religion? The state should be secular, if you work for the state then that is the position one has to adopt. The state cannot make decisions based on religious values however, a private business in another thing altogether.
I'm quite unsure how you interpreted that from my post? Freedom of religion is a human right (including the right of freedom from religion), therefore if conscientious objection on religious grounds is covered by this right, it applies to every person. Not just private business owners. It has nothing to do with an 'official' religion. Muslim supermarket workers can refuse to serve pork and alcohol, Jehovah's Witness medical professionals can refuse to be involved in care/procedures that include blood transfusions, atheist hotel workers can refuse to serve communion/confirmation functions and Christian bakers, whether owners or employees, can refuse to bake cakes for LGBT weddings/events on religious grounds. This is what you are arguing for is it not? There can't be human rights that only apply for business owners and Christians and not anyone else! Either it is covered by the right to freedom of religion and applies to everyone who would object to anything on religious grounds, or it is not.0 -
Its all very stupid I know. Why would a Lesbian deliberately go into such an establishment anyway knowing full well the response.
How did she 'know full well the response'? If I were to go into a barber shop tomorrow and ask for a number 2 all over I would not expect to be refused! If I were to go into a bakery and order a cake to celebrate my gay friends 10th anniversary as a couple, I would not expect to be refused.
How is one supposed to identify these religious fundies prior to entering their establishment and engaging with them? If you have any tips please share because I would prefer not to encounter them and would certainly prefer not to give them my business.0 -
Not that I agree with this nonsense but why don't you go onto a Muslim cafe and demand a bacon buttie or else go into a kosher bakery and ask for a National Front style cake with a big swastika on it and see how far you get in Liberal UK or anywhere else for that matter.
I often eat rather sandwiches in Muslim owned cafés; most workingman's cafés in the UK are owned by Muslim Turks.0 -
The point of this story is what happens when a minority challenges another minority over some issue of 'rights'?
It shows that there is a de-facto hierarchy of rights that are bestowed on some people. In this case a Muslims mans rights to not serve women in his barber shop > A lesbian who wants to get her hair cut.
Just because something silly happens in canada doesn't mean it should also happen in Northern Ireland.
Also a presumably white male christian talking about a hierarchy of rights is kind of laughable since historically he would be the one sitting at the top of that hierarchy.Its all very stupid I know. Why would a Lesbian deliberately go into such an establishment anyway knowing full well the response. However, this is where we are, where people can deliberately cause a fuss over the most stupid of things because of some equality authority ruling and the press gives it the legs.
How is she meant to know that he is a sharia-adherer and not a non-adherer? Why should she even know what sharia is?, Canada is a western country and not one where sharia has sway. 99% of all barbers would cut her hair, why should she be refused just because she's a woman? Why should one mans interpretation of a 1400 year old book dictated by an invisible man in the sky decide where she gets her hair cut?0 -
Advertisement
-
Kiwi in IE wrote: »I'm quite unsure how you interpreted that from my post? Freedom of religion is a human right (including the right of freedom from religion), therefore if conscientious objection on religious grounds is covered by this right, it applies to every person. Not just private business owners. It has nothing to do with an 'official' religion. Muslim supermarket workers can refuse to serve pork and alcohol, Jehovah's Witness medical professionals can refuse to be involved in care/procedures that include blood transfusions, atheist hotel workers can refuse to serve communion/confirmation functions and Christian bakers, whether owners or employees, can refuse to bake cakes for LGBT weddings/events on religious grounds. This is what you are arguing for is it not? There can't be human rights that only apply for business owners and Christians and not anyone else! Either it is covered by the right to freedom of religion and applies to everyone who would object to anything on religious grounds, or it is not.
Yes
Thats an interesting point. Both Jank and One Eyed Jack seem to be arguing that the state or state organisations should not be allowed to discriminate but that private organisations should be free to do so because of freedom of conscience.
Its a completely contradictory stance. In various ways.
Firstly its contradictory because they are saying their is a human right to freedom of conscience/religion but that a private business or organisation is entitled to that human right. So in effect it is claiming human rights for non humans.
Secondly they have both suggested that allowing anti discrimination/equality laws on the statute books creates some sort of hierarchy of rights and that it places more importance on certain minorities. BUT this stance is again completely contradictory because on the one hand they argue private businesses or employees of private businesses can claim freedom of conscience rights but that state organisations and employees of state organisations cannot do so. So you have a hierarchy of rights for a person depending on who their employer is. The very thing they argue against.It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »They absolutely were expected to fulfill an order which conflicted with their religious beliefs, and secondly, given the fact that they would not produce that design for ANY customer, means that they were not discriminating against the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This was the original claim put forward by the Equality Commission, who are a publicly funded body, supposed to be independent in these matters, yet who are promoting same-sex marriage themselves. After taking legal advice from one of the top barristers in the UK, the Equality Commission changed their claim from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to discrimination on the grounds of political opinion!
That is an absolute incorrect and fact fudging statement. Asher's were expected to obey the law of the land which states that they cannot discriminate against a customer. This is exactly what they did. They refused to supply goods and services to a customer.
YOUR presumption that they would not do so for anyone is irrelevant. That is not a Defence since they offered already bespoke cakes with messages which they clearly refused this particular customer. The letter put forward by the Equality Commission clearly stated that they had refused a customer service. I suggest that you read that letter again because you are making it up at this stage.
By taking action on behalf of the customer who was refused their order and discriminated by the Bakery the EC are not by default 'supporting gay marriage' they are upholding the existing law of the land. The only reason the whole "political opinion' thing has had to be brought in is because that is what Ashers stated to claim AFTER the fact.One eyed Jack wrote: »To answer the question of whether the customer knew or not the ethos of the bakery was religious, well, a quick skim of their website -
OEJ - that is Ashers new website. That was created after they decided they had a religous ethos for the benefit of the current anti gay campaign they are running in conjunction with the Christian Institute for which they are also soliciting public funds.
No amount of twisting of existing anti discrimination legislation will make the Bakery's refusal to obey the law of the land legal or morally supportable. And no one is forcing Ashers to do anything but that. You might not like to be obliged to drive within the speed limit claiming that it's "against your beliefs" but you know what tough - we all have to obey laws so that everyone can be expected to be treated equally. People are free to hold whatever views they wish in their homes or places of worship but that does not give them permit to go and behave like dicks in the street.
.0 -
gozunda have you got a link to this 17 page letter because I couldn't find it at all. I'm on the touch site and I remember a link was posted in the thread but I couldn't find it. It'll give me a much better idea of on what grounds the Equality Commission is not for the first time taking a case against a business with a religious ethos.
Important to remember too that this business is a legal entity in it's own right and they are not a publicly funded body, so how the anti-discrimination legislation itself is applied would not apply in the same way to the bakery as it would a publicly funded body, that body of course being the Equality Commission, who have it on their website that they support marriage equality, a political statement in itself, which is in contradiction with the NI government's stance on the issue, and NI legislation which states that same-sex marriage is prohibited by law.
I'm putting that forward as an example of how the laws can contradict each other, because it has yet to be decided if Asher's actually are in breach of anti-discrimination legislation. It all depends upon how the law is applied and under what circumstances does it apply.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
Important to remember too that this business is a legal entity in it's own right and they are not a publicly funded body, so how the anti-discrimination legislation itself is applied would not apply in the same way to the bakery as it would a publicly funded body, that body of course being the Equality Commission, who have it on their website that they support marriage equality, a political statement in itself, which is in contradiction with the NI government's stance on the issue, and NI legislation which states that same-sex marriage is prohibited by law.
Well of course they support marriage equality. It is the Equality Commission! What do you expect? A homophobic Equality Commission? That would kind of defeat the purpose of their existence, which is working toward equality for all, would it not?
Saying that the Equality Commission should not promote equality that is not currently legislated for, is like saying that a political party should not publicly campaign to change/remove/add a piece of current legislation after they are elected, or that a TD should not bring a bill before the Dail which contradicts current legislation. Utter nonsense!0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Well of course they support marriage equality. It is the Equality Commission! What do you expect? A homophobic Equality Commission? That would kind of defeat the purpose of their existence, which is working toward equality for all, would it not?
Saying that the Equality Commission should not promote equality that is not currently legislated for, is like saying that a political party should not publicly campaign to change/remove/add a piece of current legislation after they are elected. Utter nonsense!
You missed my point. The Equality Commission are supposed to be an independent body funded by the State, to promote equality for all the citizens of NI. They are not supposed to be able to make political statements (that's the grounds on which they claim Asher's is discriminating against the customer), while advocating a political position themselves.
Their original mandate would have been to eliminate discrimination on any of the nine grounds, and yet here they are taking cases against business owners who are religious, on behalf of LGBT groups.
If he had such a strong case against the bakery, why did the customer not take a civil case himself? Why do that when you can have a publicly funded body do it for you instead.
Asher's bakery funding a case being taken against them by a group which claims to promote equality for all and prevent discrimination on any of the nine grounds which include religion... unless you're religious, then you're fair game.
The Equality Commission have dug themselves into a hole, and instead of dropping the case, are using public funds to pursue a case where there's every likelihood they won't win. All they'll have done is helped to drive an even bigger wedge between the various communities in NI.
Idiots. There's no other word for them.0 -
Promoting marriage equality is promoting equality for all citizens!0
-
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Promoting marriage equality is promoting equality for all citizens!
That political position is fine if you're a private citizen, not so much if you're a Commission funded by the public and you're supposed to represent the interests of all citizens with regard to public services, not services provided in the private sector.
It's beyond the remit of the Equality Commission to be promoting marriage equality while also claiming to represent the interests of people whose religious beliefs conflict with the political ideology of another group of people.
The case is due to be heard on the 26th and 27th of March, should be interesting to see how the Equality Commission tries to argue it's case without tying itself up in knots.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
It's beyond the remit of the Equality Commission to be promoting marriage equality while also claiming to represent the interests of people whose religious beliefs conflict with the political ideology of another group of people.
Are those religious people whose beliefs are in conflict with marriage equality going to be effected when equal marriage is legislated for? Will it cause them hardship, persecution, an infringement on their rights? No! It will have no effect on them what so ever. If marriage equality does not pass will this same group gain anything or be effected in any positive way? No! Either way marriage equality does not effect those who oppose it in the slightest. If it is passed they suffer no negative consequence, if it is not they do not gain any benefit. The way they go on you would swear they were going to be forced to swap their spouses for a person of the same gender. Basically it has nothing to do with them, is none of their business and therefore the promotion of equal marriage by the Equality Commission who's job it is to promote equality, does not negatively effect them as you suggest. This group of people are trying to promote inequality and it is the Equality Commissions job to counter that.
The campaign against equal marriage however is discriminatory. LGBT people have a lot to gain if it does pass, and a lot to loose if it does not!
Campaigning specifically to maintain discriminatory legislation against a certain group of people, when the outcome does not have any negative nor positive effect on anyone other than that group, is quite frankly being a dick of the highest order!0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Are those religious people whose beliefs are in conflict with marriage equality going to be effected when equal marriage is legislated for? Will it cause them hardship, persecution, an infringement on their rights? No! It will have no effect on them what so ever. If marriage equality does not pass will this same group gain anything or be effected in any positive way? No! Either way marriage equality does not effect those who oppose it in the slightest. If it is passed they suffer no negative consequence, if it is not they do not gain any benefit. The way they go on you would swear they were going to be forced to swap their spouses for a person of the same gender. Basically it has nothing to do with them, is none of their business and therefore the promotion of equal marriage does not discriminate against them.
That's all fine as long as you ignore the fact that people who hold certain religious beliefs are entitled to the same right to express their opinion as anyone else in society who disagrees with them, because they're just as much a part of society as anyone else, so they are entitled to advocate for what they believe as much as anyone else.
It IS their business, and they are entitled to protection against discrimination by the same Commission that is taking a case against them, a Commission which is supposed to be independent and is not supposed to support one political position over another.The campaign against equal marriage however is discriminatory. LGBT people have a lot to gain if it does pass, and a lot to loose if it does not!
You're right, but when groups like Queerspace go out of their way to orchestrate publicity stunts and then claim discrimination because they couldn't force a bakery with a religious ethos to support same-sex marriage, that's not doing their campaign any favours IMO. They want tolerance and understanding, but aren't prepared to give anything themselves. They're basically cutting off their noses to spite their faces IMO when support for marriage equality is even less than down here in the Republic where 82% of the population identify as Roman Catholic, and there is 78% support among the same population for marriage equality.
What gets me is that instead of supporting the 78%, some lobby groups are wasting all their resources on going after the 22%, and forgetting about the 78% that need to be supported and encouraged to come out and vote in the upcoming referendum. It's easy to say you support something, requires a bit more effort to bother voting for it though.Campaigning specifically to maintain discriminatory legislation against a certain group of people, when the outcome does not have any negative nor positive effect on anyone other than that group, is quite frankly being a dick of the highest order!
Yes it is, and so is attempting to force people to support you by using public money to pursue them through the courts. It may or may not give you a short victory in the short run, but it doesn't foster or promote good community relations in the long run.0 -
This campaign does not effect straight people (with the exception of those who are currently denied legal adoptive parents and sons, daughters, brothers and sisters in law because of the current legislation), our only obligation is to vote yes and end this inequality, and all who are decent human brings should be able to see that.0
-
Advertisement
-
One eyed jack, you're asking for the freedom to discriminate. Dishonest to say it's freedom from it.0
-
One Eyed Jack, if a black person* walked into a shoe shop to buy shoes, and the manager of the shop said "I'm sorry but my personal beliefs do not let me serve black people in this shop" so the state decided to prosecute them under equality laws, do you think that the state has a case?
Or do you think that the managers expression of their personal beliefs is a legitimate position to hold and should be considered exempt from equality laws? Do you think that the states prosecution of them constitutes discrimination against them?
* black person can be replaced by homosexual, Catholic, woman, and so on.0 -
One eyed jack, you're asking for the freedom to discriminate. Dishonest to say it's freedom from it.
Tbh Wayne I know my posts read like I'm arguing for the freedom to discriminate (and it was even mentioned to me at one stage that people may be interpreting my posts as homophobic), but I assure you that I wish a 'conscience clause' wasn't necessary. It shouldn't be, but if people are unwilling to show any tolerance towards other people whose opinion differs from their own, and they try to force their will on other people, I cannot in my own good conscience, support a system which enables people to treat each other like that.
It's the kind of stuff you'd see going on in kindergarten, and you'd separate the children from each other because they couldn't play nice together, because they couldn't respect each other. We shouldn't have to legislate for that with adults, but the embarrassing reality is that now we may have to.
I've argued previously against people on this site who have claimed that Women's support organisations are discriminating against men because they don't support men too, and I don't see this situation any differently - people of a religious belief should not be forced to support something which they do not, and by that same token, non-religious people should not be forced to support something which they do not. It's discriminatory, but you cannot force people to support something to which they have a conscientious objection.
I wanted to join Atheist Ireland once, because I like their ideas about a secular society, but because I didn't like their ideas about eliminating religion from society, I chose not to join. I can hardly claim I was discriminated against, because I wasn't. AI just choose to advocate a certain political position which I do not share. They're entitled to do that. I don't take it personally.
I did get pretty angry once alright with the priest at my local church when I heard that he had called the Gardaí because a group of people who were drug addicts had taken shelter in the Churchyard. To me it just wasn't right to force them to leave. It was discrimination, and he could have handled the situation in a much more compassionate manner.
I would also support an LGBT business' right to refuse me entry to their premises on the grounds that I am heterosexual. It's never happened, but I wouldn't go complaining to any equality authority if it did happen. They're entitled as a private business to be open to the public, but to discriminate as to the type of clientele they wish to have access to their premises. I wouldn't take that personally either. A reasonable person understands that that's the nature of their business.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
I would also support an LGBT business' right to refuse me entry to their premises on the grounds that I am heterosexual. It's never happened, but I wouldn't go complaining to any equality authority if it did happen. They're entitled as a private business to be open to the public, but to discriminate as to the type of clientele they wish to have access to their premises. I wouldn't take that personally either. A reasonable person understands that that's the nature of their business.
Regarding the first point in bold - They are not entitled to discriminate as to the clientele the wish to have access to their premises if it is in conflict with equality law. This is what the 'conscience clause' would change - it would in effect entitle businesses to do this.
On the second point - 'the nature of their business' - what kind of business? a LGBT counselling service for LGBT folk who want support? A bakery run by LGBT?
Very different 'nature' to each of those businesses. A reasonable person would probably react very differently to being refused service by each one.0 -
True that...AllGunsBlazing wrote: »NI is fast becoming this island's equivalent of America's deep south.
http://rt.com/news/169612-ireland-kkk-flag-racism/0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I would also support an LGBT business' right to refuse me entry to their premises on the grounds that I am heterosexual. It's never happened, but I wouldn't go complaining to any equality authority if it did happen. They're entitled as a private business to be open to the public, but to discriminate as to the type of clientele they wish to have access to their premises. I wouldn't take that personally either. A reasonable person understands that that's the nature of their business.
Only they are not entitled to do so. You seem to have a serious problem accepting the legal reality of business.0 -
jobbridge4life wrote: »Only they are not entitled to do so. You seem to have a serious problem accepting the legal reality of business.
No more than your good self had a serious problem accepting the legal reality that it is legally prohibited in NI for two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry.
You also seem to have difficulty with the reality that in just the same way as you have the right to advocate for laws you want changed, so too are other people entitled to advocate for laws they want changed, and then there's the people who are entitled to advocate for the laws to remain as they are.0 -
While homosexuality is a sin I am seeing no mention of persecution of others being part of Christianity.She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Being against the sin is fine but treating the person negatively is against Christian teaching is it not? Hence, anti discrimination legislation is perfectly in line with Christian teaching.
Unless someone wants to try a justify stoning people and marrying children in the name of freedom.0 -
Regarding the first point in bold - They are not entitled to discriminate as to the clientele the wish to have access to their premises if it is in conflict with equality law. This is what the 'conscience clause' would change - it would in effect entitle businesses to do this.
On the second point - 'the nature of their business' - what kind of business? a LGBT counselling service for LGBT folk who want support? A bakery run by LGBT?
Very different 'nature' to each of those businesses. A reasonable person would probably react very differently to being refused service by each one.
The key point though that is the subject of this particular thread is that it hasn't been decided by a court yet that Asher's are in breach of any anti-discrimination laws. Just because the Equality Commission claims they are, doesn't make it so.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »No more than your good self had a serious problem accepting the legal reality that it is legally prohibited in NI for two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry.
What? Of course I am aware of the law regarding legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the North. You are confusing a failure to recognize under the law with prohibition as Reprise embarrassingly and unintentionally demonstrated early in this thread there is a significant difference.One eyed Jack wrote: »You also seem to have difficulty with the reality that in just the same way as you have the right to advocate for laws you want changed, so too are other people entitled to advocate for laws they want changed, and then there's the people who are entitled to advocate for the laws to remain as they are.
Not even remotely. Your dizzying dance between different issues and standards is as transparent as it is bizarre.0
Advertisement