Ah, the irony. Only yesterday over at the Cedar Lounge a contributor drew a rather smug distinction between the US and this country on the basis of the public role of religious extremists – over there, we were told, they are “political movers and shakers” while here they are confined merely to “prayer crusades”. My immediate reaction, as noted on the linked page, was to point out the flaw in that argument from a non-partitionist perspective. And then I went to have a look at today’s papers and found these news items from well below the border: 750 pornographic DVDs seized in Dublin and Labour calls for laws to fight sex shops.
Let’s look at these one at a time. The first article tells us that the DVDs were seized “as a result of an ongoing Community Policing Unit investigation into breaches of the Video Recording Act of 1989”. Yes, you read that correctly. A Community Policing Unit investigation into porn videos. In Dublin 2. Honestly, have the community police there no better use of their time? Maybe going after the tourist-muggers in Temple Bar? The gangs that hang round ATMs on Grafton Street waiting to distract you and grab your cash? The bicycle thieves on George’s Street? If the residential areas in that part of the city are anything like mine, I’d guess there are a few social housing estates whose residents have all but given up phoning the police when there are problems because the response is so thoroughly inadequate it isn’t even worth the effort. Well, now we know why. Maybe instead of reporting break-ins, drug dealing and cars on fire, they should tell the Gardaí there’s a porno outside.
The second article tells us that those champions of progressive, liberal values the Labour Party are shocked – shocked! – to find that not only do such DVDs exist, but the shops that sell them are subject to the same rules as any other shop. Not good enough apparently; they should have to apply for a specific change of use so that the wishes of those residents who would patronise such a shop can be vetoed by those residents who think they shouldn’t.
Labour’s Joe Costello is particularly outraged that two adult shops were able to open across from churches in his constituency. That’s my constituency too, and I know at least one of the shops he’s referring to, and frankly the fact that anyone could get exercised about it suggests to me that they are either stuck in de Valeraland or have far too much time on their hands. The part of the shop that is visible to anyone outside it is very discreetly-designed; there is no merchandise in view or any images whatsoever. If you couldn’t read enough English to know what “adult shop” meant, you wouldn’t even know what it was. Apart from the extraneous apostrophe in “DVD’s”, in fact, I’m hard pressed to find anything offensive about it. And so the fuck what if it’s across from a church? What gives people coming to or going from church the right not to encounter any reminders of how the human race reproduces?
There’s an argument to be made, from a community perspective, against having a whole conglomerate of these shops in one neighbourhood. An area that has come to be known as a red light district can be fairly unpleasant to live in, in some cases even unsafe. But that’s not the argument Labour are making. Effectively, they want local authorities to be able to prevent any sex shop from opening anywhere if enough people (and how many is “enough”?) complain that it’s unsuitable. The Council’s attempt less than ten years ago to close the Ann Summers on O’Connell Street – O’Connell Street, for fuck’s sake – suggests that such a power is likely to be interpreted broadly, making adult shops all but impossible to open in the State. Would it be the end of the world if that happened? Of course not, but it would further undermine any claim of Ireland (south) to be somehow more secularly advanced than the US.
We may not put people like Sarah Palin in high office here, but it doesn't look to me like we need them.
Showing posts with label Garda Síochána. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Garda Síochána. Show all posts
...let him wear his turban
I actually struggled with this one a bit: at first glance, it appears to pit two of my most deeply held principles – pluralism and secularism – against each other. On the one hand I most certainly agree that Ireland should make reasonable accommodation to the cultural traditions of newcomers, and allowing male Sikhs (how many are there here? A thousand or so?) to wear their turban strikes me as eminently reasonable. There is no suggestion that it will interfere with their job performance in any way, or cause anyone else any harm or offence.
On the other hand, I am strongly sympathetic to the argument (as expressed in a couple letters in today's Times, subs required) that religion should be kept out of public life entirely. The state should not be involved in promulgating faith in general, or any faith in particular – and police officers, when on duty, are agents of the state. If a Catholic Garda wanted to wear a big fuck-off crucifix I wouldn’t be complaining if he or she was told to take it off.
But there’s a key difference there - and I’m not talking about the lack of an onus on Catholics to wear crucifixes, in the way that Sikh men feel they have to wear turbans. I think the crucial issue isn’t the beliefs themselves but the socioreligious context in which this dispute is taking place. The south of Ireland is, in most respects, and notwithstanding the undeniable (if far too slow) changes that have taken place over the past couple decades, still a country permeated with Catholicism. Our population is 90% Catholic. Our schools are 95% Catholic. Our elected representatives (on a parliamentary level, anyway) are about 97% Catholic. And this is still, unfortunately, reflected in many of the laws and policies that affect our daily lives – including the lives of those of us who want nothing to do with the Church and its teachings. To have Gardaí going around wearing crucifixes would just reinforce the essentially Catholic-theocratic basis on which this state is still to an unacceptable degree run. You can hardly say the same about a Sikh policeman in a turban.
Now the logical conclusion to this is that Sikhs and Catholics would have to be treated differently: the former given permission to openly display their religion, the latter prohibited. It’s not a position I’m entirely comfortable with, framed in those terms. But in a way, I think it boils down to the same question that has divided the US in recent years with regard to affirmative action, or the Six Counties on the 50-50 PSNI recruitment issue: is differential treatment acceptable to achieve equality of outcome? I have always felt that it is, at least under some circumstances. It’s all well and good for the law to say that everyone is equal and no distinction will be made but, in practice, in societies where the dominance of one category of people has been firmly entrenched, such a policy usually just ends up reinforcing the status quo.
The questions we need to ask here are what kind of Ireland do we want, and what policy will best help us achieve it. As I've stated, I want one that is pluralist and secular. Allowing your man to wear the turban would obviously promote the first of these; as for the second, it probably wouldn’t help, but I’m hard pressed to imagine how it would hurt, either. We aren't a secular state, and we aren't going to become one by limiting the rights of minorities to practice their religion. They are the wrong target for us 'aggressive secularists'. When we have a society where belief is genuinely a matter for the individual, and the state actually is no longer promulgating religion in general or any religion in particular, I'll revisit my views on this issue. But until then...
On the other hand, I am strongly sympathetic to the argument (as expressed in a couple letters in today's Times, subs required) that religion should be kept out of public life entirely. The state should not be involved in promulgating faith in general, or any faith in particular – and police officers, when on duty, are agents of the state. If a Catholic Garda wanted to wear a big fuck-off crucifix I wouldn’t be complaining if he or she was told to take it off.
But there’s a key difference there - and I’m not talking about the lack of an onus on Catholics to wear crucifixes, in the way that Sikh men feel they have to wear turbans. I think the crucial issue isn’t the beliefs themselves but the socioreligious context in which this dispute is taking place. The south of Ireland is, in most respects, and notwithstanding the undeniable (if far too slow) changes that have taken place over the past couple decades, still a country permeated with Catholicism. Our population is 90% Catholic. Our schools are 95% Catholic. Our elected representatives (on a parliamentary level, anyway) are about 97% Catholic. And this is still, unfortunately, reflected in many of the laws and policies that affect our daily lives – including the lives of those of us who want nothing to do with the Church and its teachings. To have Gardaí going around wearing crucifixes would just reinforce the essentially Catholic-theocratic basis on which this state is still to an unacceptable degree run. You can hardly say the same about a Sikh policeman in a turban.
Now the logical conclusion to this is that Sikhs and Catholics would have to be treated differently: the former given permission to openly display their religion, the latter prohibited. It’s not a position I’m entirely comfortable with, framed in those terms. But in a way, I think it boils down to the same question that has divided the US in recent years with regard to affirmative action, or the Six Counties on the 50-50 PSNI recruitment issue: is differential treatment acceptable to achieve equality of outcome? I have always felt that it is, at least under some circumstances. It’s all well and good for the law to say that everyone is equal and no distinction will be made but, in practice, in societies where the dominance of one category of people has been firmly entrenched, such a policy usually just ends up reinforcing the status quo.
The questions we need to ask here are what kind of Ireland do we want, and what policy will best help us achieve it. As I've stated, I want one that is pluralist and secular. Allowing your man to wear the turban would obviously promote the first of these; as for the second, it probably wouldn’t help, but I’m hard pressed to imagine how it would hurt, either. We aren't a secular state, and we aren't going to become one by limiting the rights of minorities to practice their religion. They are the wrong target for us 'aggressive secularists'. When we have a society where belief is genuinely a matter for the individual, and the state actually is no longer promulgating religion in general or any religion in particular, I'll revisit my views on this issue. But until then...
Normal service resumes!
I am back from my holidays, rested and ready to get back in the swing of things around here. Slowly, though. For now, just a brief comment on today's Irish Times report that an investigation into serious allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Quinn Direct insurance company, in cahoots with serving members of the Garda Síochána, has concluded that the smoking-gun document was forged.
This investigation was carried out by ... the Garda Síochána. What did anyone expect them to find?
This investigation was carried out by ... the Garda Síochána. What did anyone expect them to find?
Another election, another Martin Ferris arrest
I've just heard the news that Martin Ferris has been arrested on suspicion of drink driving.
My first thought is that the timing of this is awfully curious. Remember this? When did that happen? Oh yes, just before the last general election. The circumstances of the latest arrest would certainly lend themselves to a stitch-up: a random check, at a roadblock near his home. And the Kerry Gardaí do have something of a track record here; see also this case.
I won't be defending Martin if it turns out that he was over the limit. There's never an excuse for drink driving, and SF have been critical enough of the Fianna Fáil politicians who've managed to get away with it, like Jim McDaid driving the wrong way down the N4, and GV Wright mowing down a nurse.
But frankly, I wouldn't put anything past the Garda Síochána. Especially at election time.
My first thought is that the timing of this is awfully curious. Remember this? When did that happen? Oh yes, just before the last general election. The circumstances of the latest arrest would certainly lend themselves to a stitch-up: a random check, at a roadblock near his home. And the Kerry Gardaí do have something of a track record here; see also this case.
I won't be defending Martin if it turns out that he was over the limit. There's never an excuse for drink driving, and SF have been critical enough of the Fianna Fáil politicians who've managed to get away with it, like Jim McDaid driving the wrong way down the N4, and GV Wright mowing down a nurse.
But frankly, I wouldn't put anything past the Garda Síochána. Especially at election time.
On the Morris Tribunal
We've said this before, but with the most recent revelations about Garda misconduct - a word which scarcely seems adequate to convey the utterly appalling actions of some members of the force - it needs to be said again:
Giving a corrupt police force the powers which the Offences Against The State Act gives them is like giving a blowtorch to a pyromaniac.
The Act needs to go. Now.
Giving a corrupt police force the powers which the Offences Against The State Act gives them is like giving a blowtorch to a pyromaniac.
The Act needs to go. Now.
The fallout continues
While the primary responsibility for the riots obviously lies with the rioters, it's clear that Saturday was a fuck-up of massive proportions on the part of the Gardaí. Why didn't their intelligence pick up what the dogs in the street knew?
It seems they were talking to the wrong dogs.
Think about it for a minute. In any other European country, whenever there's the potential for crowd trouble, who are the first people the police look out for? The football hooligans, that's who. And in fact, those of us who regularly attend League of Ireland matches have recognised a number of familiar faces in Saturday's crowd shots. But the gardaí seem not to have pursued this angle at all. Why in God's name didn't they?
The fact is that the justice system here, all the way up to the Minister, are so obsessed with what they deem "subversives" that it often blinds them to what nonpolitical offenders are up to. This is how gangland criminals have been able to build up a huge arsenal under the Gardaí's noses, while Special Branch have occupied their time following around Sinn Féin election workers and beating up members of RSF's youth wing.
We in Sinn Féin complain a lot, and rightly so, about political policing in the north. But in some respects the south really isn't much better.
It seems they were talking to the wrong dogs.
Think about it for a minute. In any other European country, whenever there's the potential for crowd trouble, who are the first people the police look out for? The football hooligans, that's who. And in fact, those of us who regularly attend League of Ireland matches have recognised a number of familiar faces in Saturday's crowd shots. But the gardaí seem not to have pursued this angle at all. Why in God's name didn't they?
The fact is that the justice system here, all the way up to the Minister, are so obsessed with what they deem "subversives" that it often blinds them to what nonpolitical offenders are up to. This is how gangland criminals have been able to build up a huge arsenal under the Gardaí's noses, while Special Branch have occupied their time following around Sinn Féin election workers and beating up members of RSF's youth wing.
We in Sinn Féin complain a lot, and rightly so, about political policing in the north. But in some respects the south really isn't much better.
For the second Monday running, the Irish Times has quoted garda sources casting doubt on some of the allegations frequently levelled at republicans. Last week the head of the Garda National Drugs Unit said there was no evidence of IRA involvement in the drugs trade. And today, "senior garda sources" acknowledge that there is no proof that Sinn Féin are funded by IRA money - Michael McDowell and Pat Rabbitte's frequent bleating notwithstanding.
Republicans, of course, have been saying both these things for years. We have challenged anybody with evidence to bring it forward. Nobody has, and now even the Garda Síochána are acknowledging that nobody can. I doubt that it will stop certain of our opponents from repeating this nonsense, but at least now we have the testimony of their own allies to refute it.
Republicans, of course, have been saying both these things for years. We have challenged anybody with evidence to bring it forward. Nobody has, and now even the Garda Síochána are acknowledging that nobody can. I doubt that it will stop certain of our opponents from repeating this nonsense, but at least now we have the testimony of their own allies to refute it.
Today, we have witnessed a disgraceful yet utterly predictable display of moral cowardice on the part of the large majority of Dáil Deputies. All but 16 TDs failed to oppose the annual extension of the Offences Against the State Act, which allows the conviction of "membership of an illegal organisation" based solely upon the word of a garda. Given recent events, this would have to strike any objective observer as completely insane. Of course us non-objective observers know it's a lot more sinister than that.
Credit where it's due: Joe Higgins, Tony Gregory, Jerry Cowley, Catherine Murphy and all six of the Greens joined the five Sinn Féin TDs in voting Níl, while Finian McGrath spoke against the motion during the debate although he was unable to be present for the vote. That is a 100% increase over last year, when we could only muster eight in opposition. Maybe next year Labour will find the courage to put their (supposed) support for justice and human rights ahead of their hatred for republicans. But I won't hold my breath.
I've copied the Sinn Féin TDs' contributions to the debate below, because I really can't say it any better myself.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Every year Deputies have the opportunity to vote on whether to continue to use repressive legislation in this State. That opportunity presents again despite the past decade of the peace process, the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. Every year the Minister publishes a slim report at the last minute, which no one has a chance to read, as has been stated here. Despite this, every year this House rubber-stamps the continuing operation of these laws, which suspend not only the ordinary rules of evidence but fundamental rights, including the right to silence.
Every year my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh or I argue the Government's obligations regarding progressive security normalisation under the Good Friday Agreement. Every year we ask what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is planning to do with the Hederman recommendations on which he has been sitting since 2002. Every year only a few join the Sinn Féin Deputies in speaking out against this coercion of democracy and human rights, and I commend all those who do.
Those in what I view as the political establishment are still locked in denial about the fact that more than 60 years of emergency law has only helped perpetuate the conflict on and between these islands. It is a contributory factor. Equally, seven years of the 1998 amendment Act powers have not stopped dissident republicans. The only thing that can have this effect - I ask the Minister of State to note it - is to make democracy really and truly work. This means making the peace process work, demonstrating that the Good Friday Agreement is not dead, as the DUP leader claims, and proving that profound political and social change can be achieved by other means. That is the commitment we have made and the challenge Sinn Féin has embraced.
Every year when this law is renewed, those Deputies who support it take it on faith that the Garda will not abuse the powers it confers. They take it on faith that no garda will fabricate the evidence used to convict in the Special Criminal Court. I put it to Deputies that the findings of the Morris tribunal to date must force them to re-examine that blind faith on this occasion. This Government is asking Deputies, even in the wake of the Morris tribunal reports, to renew legislation that will continue to allow people to be convicted on the word of a garda. As supporters of this motion, they must ask themselves, what if they are complicit in perpetuating miscarriages of justice by the suspension of the ordinary rules of evidence in order to secure convictions, especially when there continues to be no effective oversight of the Garda and knowing this situation will continue even after the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's fundamentally flawed Garda legislation passes. I put it to Deputies and the Minister of State that the renewal of this Offences Against the State Act is not at all in the interests of democracy and justice.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: History will judge this House harshly for failing to assert that the key to security is human rights and not human rights abuses. Year in, year out Deputies vote for the renewal of this legislation which is the envy of repressive regimes around the world. Only a few people in this House have the moral courage to speak out against it and fewer still have the guts to back that up when there is a vote. Surely the Morris tribunal report, which will be briefly discussed tomorrow, and particularly the revelations in the first report, the McGlinchey module, must give them pause for thought that people can be convicted in the Special Criminal Court under special laws on the word of the Garda special branch man.
History will judge harshly all those Deputies with their heads in the sand about the abuses perpetrated by the State against citizens on their watch. They are so consumed and blinded by anti-republicanism, they are failing in their duty to protect the public interest. It is incumbent on them to consider their responsibility carefully and to consider what we now know. We know the gardaí fabricated evidence of arms finds in Donegal, that the Murphy conviction in the Omagh case was overturned because of Garda fabrication, that the gardaí planted a gun on James Sheehan in north Kerry and that the father of four, Niall Binead, had no presumption of innocence as he was tried by the media and convicted of membership of an illegal organisation on the basis of exercising his right to silence. Despite media misrepresentation, he was not convicted of spying allegations. He was not convicted of unlawful collection of information under section 8. In fact, according to the Minister, no one has been charged under section 8. Does this not raise questions for Deputies about the conviction? Earlier this week, five Limerick men face up to five years in prison on the word of a senior garda. Most of the evidence against them seems to be that they laid a wreath.
Can Deputies be confident that the powers they are about to reconfirm have not been abused in nearly 700 arrests in the past year alone? Are they absolutely certain about the soundness of each of the 60 plus convictions? Do they firmly believe all the 102 awaiting trial will receive a fair one? If not, I ask them to vote against this motion.
Credit where it's due: Joe Higgins, Tony Gregory, Jerry Cowley, Catherine Murphy and all six of the Greens joined the five Sinn Féin TDs in voting Níl, while Finian McGrath spoke against the motion during the debate although he was unable to be present for the vote. That is a 100% increase over last year, when we could only muster eight in opposition. Maybe next year Labour will find the courage to put their (supposed) support for justice and human rights ahead of their hatred for republicans. But I won't hold my breath.
I've copied the Sinn Féin TDs' contributions to the debate below, because I really can't say it any better myself.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: Every year Deputies have the opportunity to vote on whether to continue to use repressive legislation in this State. That opportunity presents again despite the past decade of the peace process, the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. Every year the Minister publishes a slim report at the last minute, which no one has a chance to read, as has been stated here. Despite this, every year this House rubber-stamps the continuing operation of these laws, which suspend not only the ordinary rules of evidence but fundamental rights, including the right to silence.
Every year my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh or I argue the Government's obligations regarding progressive security normalisation under the Good Friday Agreement. Every year we ask what the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is planning to do with the Hederman recommendations on which he has been sitting since 2002. Every year only a few join the Sinn Féin Deputies in speaking out against this coercion of democracy and human rights, and I commend all those who do.
Those in what I view as the political establishment are still locked in denial about the fact that more than 60 years of emergency law has only helped perpetuate the conflict on and between these islands. It is a contributory factor. Equally, seven years of the 1998 amendment Act powers have not stopped dissident republicans. The only thing that can have this effect - I ask the Minister of State to note it - is to make democracy really and truly work. This means making the peace process work, demonstrating that the Good Friday Agreement is not dead, as the DUP leader claims, and proving that profound political and social change can be achieved by other means. That is the commitment we have made and the challenge Sinn Féin has embraced.
Every year when this law is renewed, those Deputies who support it take it on faith that the Garda will not abuse the powers it confers. They take it on faith that no garda will fabricate the evidence used to convict in the Special Criminal Court. I put it to Deputies that the findings of the Morris tribunal to date must force them to re-examine that blind faith on this occasion. This Government is asking Deputies, even in the wake of the Morris tribunal reports, to renew legislation that will continue to allow people to be convicted on the word of a garda. As supporters of this motion, they must ask themselves, what if they are complicit in perpetuating miscarriages of justice by the suspension of the ordinary rules of evidence in order to secure convictions, especially when there continues to be no effective oversight of the Garda and knowing this situation will continue even after the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's fundamentally flawed Garda legislation passes. I put it to Deputies and the Minister of State that the renewal of this Offences Against the State Act is not at all in the interests of democracy and justice.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: History will judge this House harshly for failing to assert that the key to security is human rights and not human rights abuses. Year in, year out Deputies vote for the renewal of this legislation which is the envy of repressive regimes around the world. Only a few people in this House have the moral courage to speak out against it and fewer still have the guts to back that up when there is a vote. Surely the Morris tribunal report, which will be briefly discussed tomorrow, and particularly the revelations in the first report, the McGlinchey module, must give them pause for thought that people can be convicted in the Special Criminal Court under special laws on the word of the Garda special branch man.
History will judge harshly all those Deputies with their heads in the sand about the abuses perpetrated by the State against citizens on their watch. They are so consumed and blinded by anti-republicanism, they are failing in their duty to protect the public interest. It is incumbent on them to consider their responsibility carefully and to consider what we now know. We know the gardaí fabricated evidence of arms finds in Donegal, that the Murphy conviction in the Omagh case was overturned because of Garda fabrication, that the gardaí planted a gun on James Sheehan in north Kerry and that the father of four, Niall Binead, had no presumption of innocence as he was tried by the media and convicted of membership of an illegal organisation on the basis of exercising his right to silence. Despite media misrepresentation, he was not convicted of spying allegations. He was not convicted of unlawful collection of information under section 8. In fact, according to the Minister, no one has been charged under section 8. Does this not raise questions for Deputies about the conviction? Earlier this week, five Limerick men face up to five years in prison on the word of a senior garda. Most of the evidence against them seems to be that they laid a wreath.
Can Deputies be confident that the powers they are about to reconfirm have not been abused in nearly 700 arrests in the past year alone? Are they absolutely certain about the soundness of each of the 60 plus convictions? Do they firmly believe all the 102 awaiting trial will receive a fair one? If not, I ask them to vote against this motion.
Martin Ferris in the Dáil today
Mr. Ferris: Like previous speakers, I welcome the second report of the Morris tribunal. The belief that what happened in Donegal was as a result of a small number of gardaí effectively being out of control is something that needs to be examined. If that were the case, one would assume there was never a heavy gang in the State. While a prisoner in Portlaoise Prison in the 1970s, I witnessed at first hand Nicky Kelly, a colleague of Deputy Rabbitte, being helped up the stairs after being brutally assaulted and beaten by members of the special branch. Not one member of this heavy gang was held accountable for their brutal actions.
This also calls into question the sacrosanct evidence accepted by the Special Criminal Court, where the word of a special branch man as against a defendant is taken as absolute, even to the extent that verbal admission, regardless of how it is extracted, is accepted as evidence to secure convictions. As elected representatives, we must ensure that what took place in Donegal and what is taking place in many other areas does not happen again. Since becoming a Member of this House, I have been trying to get the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to examine the planting of a gun in a man's car, but to no avail. The gun was subsequently destroyed on the orders of the Minister. This speaks volumes about this man who opposed the setting up of this inquiry. He has resisted it from the beginning. As Deputy Gormley said, he is now saying he delivered on this.
We must also examine the convictions secured on evidence produced by the senior gardaí mentioned in this report. Where do the victims stand in all of this? It is likely that many innocent people in many counties were convicted on verbal admissions or signed statements, regardless of how they were extracted. I attended meetings with Joe Costello in the 1970s and 1980s when there was an attempt to raise this issue, but the State stopped it. I recall the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition speaking out against the heavy gang, but when it went into Government it did nothing about it.
There are many issues to be examined in this regard. I suggest that the Morris tribunal should include in its terms of reference the collusion in the assassination of Donegal county councillor, Eddie Fullerton. He was shot dead in his home and nothing has been done about it. The investigation has been hindered because elements in control of the British forces were involved in the case. We must also examine the use of informers - people who would sell their soul for money. These people were being used without any accountability.
An Ceann Comhairle: As I pointed out to Deputy Rabbitte, a brief comment is in order this morning on the Morris tribunal report and a more detailed comment may be made in the debate which has been promised in coming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
