Discuss

71 Responses to “Australian PM lances a sexist boil in Parliament”

  1. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Of course, Ms. Gillard is only doing it because her party’s majority is so thin that losing one member will crash the government.  The Speaker of the House whom she’s sort of sideways defending is a vile, sexist piece of shit.  And Ms. Gillard is an avid opponent of human rights for anyone who doesn’t look like her, as evidenced by her drooling enthusiasm for shipping illegal immigrants to camps in Malaysia, which ranks 131st out of 175 countries for positive human rights.  And of course, she had no qualms about joining Tony Abbott in defeating gay marriage.

    • Richard Burt says:

      Your efforts to change the subject are  rather pointless, Abbott is a misogynist, plain & simple. His behavior towards women has been demonstrably sexist. The Gillard Government is certainly not a particularly good one, as far as governments go, but on this Julia hit’s the nail on the head.

      • teapot says:

        Context is important. Abbott is a fucking scumbag and I will vitriolically attack my countrymen (people?) if they are retarded enough to vote that simpleton into office, but the fact remains that this spiel was inspired by an interest in distracting from her precarious political position. I don’t and won’t vote for either of these jackasses and I implore all Australians to vote for minor parties if they want any chance of ever disrupting this 2 party swamp we find ourselves in.

        • Itsumishi says:

          Hear, hear! I defend the Gillard Government here, but only because I list them higher on my preferences than the Coalition. There are numerous better parties, more worthy of our votes and thanks to not having a FPP system, there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

             and thanks to not having a FPP system, there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

            Be thankful for that.  In this country a vote for either major candidate can be completely meaningless depending on what state you live in, and basically uncounted, or a vote can have more weight than it should. Just a horrible undemocratic system.

            And despite the backgrounds of the two involved here, I’m jealous of parliamentary systems where the PM is subject to ‘question time’ and what have you.  We’ve got no situation where The President is put on the hot seat, unless you consider the rare highly managed, theatrical press conference.  It’s no surprise that Bush famously said that he counted his blessings that he never had to be subjected to that kind of back and forth with the opposition.

        • Craig_Ranapia says:

          Abbott is a fucking scumbag and I will vitriolically attack my countrymen (people?) if they are retarded enough to vote that simpleton into office

          Only if I can be equally vitriolic attack you for doing so in language that is massively demeaning both to people with intellectual disabilities and (gasp!) citizens who have the fucking gall to vote in a direction you don’t approve of.  Could you leave the latter bullshit to the Mitt (47%) Romneys of the world?

          • teapot says:

            Retarded people don’t always make rational decisions.. I’d say my use of the group, while offensive, stands. Also I can see you’re new and if you weren’t you’d know that poking my enemies is one of my hobbies.

            It’s not about the direction, it’s about the person. In the last federal election I would have gladly listed the libs as my second preference had Malcolm Turnbull been at the helm. Abbott is a simpleton, plain and simple. That guy cannot negotiate, and does not think about the words coming out of his mouth beforehand. He says whatever is politically expedient for the moment, irrespective of how contradictory it is to his previous position and irrespective of how disprovable his nonsense is.

            If you think that guy would effectively represent our nation on an international stage better than Gillard then I will question whether you’re intellectually disabled, along with anyone else who thinks so – including my family and friends. Go on, be offended.

            (PS thanks for immortalising my offensiveness in a reply despite editorial adjustment)

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        His behavior towards women has been demonstrably sexist

        By trying to ship asylum seekers to a country that’s partially under Sharia law, she’s doing something far more sexist.  But of course, those women don’t count.

        She’s using feminism as a cover to attack the opposition.  Show me what she’s done for women’s rights other than wishy-washy verbal support to keep abortion legal.

        • Itsumishi says:

          Her government introduced paid maternity leave?

          Abbott promised to as well, but we don’t know whether he would have.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Her women’s rights credentials are spare. I’m not saying that she shouldn’t have laid into him. I’d pay $49.95 to watch her strangle him with his own budgie smugglers on PPV. But her tirade doesn’t square with her own politics or with the actual content of this particular issue.

          • Itsumishi says:

            How are they spare? You’ve provided the example that she wants to send refugees to Malaysia, I’ve pointed out she also wanted to take more people out of Malaysia in return. You’ve said that she has supported abortion in “wishy washy” terms but I’ve only ever hear her speak on the matter eloquently and with conviction. She’s introduced maternity leave in a country that was waaaaay behind on the issue.

            What has she done or not done that makes you so convinced she has nothing for women? 

          • Byron Ellacott says:

            She’s also raised the tax-free threshold from $6,000/year to $18,500/year, which mostly affects part-time female workers who now no longer need to file a tax return at all.

            Her position on refugees is indefensible, and her position on gay marriage is politically motivated and puts her on the losing side of history, but about the Slipper thing? It’s ludicrous to say she supports his crass remarks because she won’t overturn 112 years of precedent by playing along with a political stunt by the opposition.

          • Blair Berkelmans says:

            Paid maternity leave has nothing to do with women’s rights. Ensuring they have work when they decide to come back does have merit, but incentivising the choice to have children is merely a political move to bolster birth rates so we don’t have to allow migration to counter the ageing population.

          • sarahnocal says:

             You don’t think that it’s a good thing to give our citizens the best start in life that they can have? And you think people choose to have children because they have maternity leave?

          • Itsumishi says:

            *facepalm*
            Paid maternity leave has nothing to do with women’s rights.

            Tell that to the women world-wide who have fought tooth and nail to secure those rights.

        • Itsumishi says:

          It is also worth noting that Abbott’s asylum policies are even more horrendous (and virtually identical to policies Howard implemented that were scrapped by Labor), and that part of the agreement of sending asylum seekers to Malaysia was that Australia would then take a higher number of processed refugees. The original figure being 800 asylum seekers for 4000 processed refugees.

          I’m not saying its a perfect solution, and it is sick playing the “you’re worthy, you’re not” game, but I still see that as a net benefit to 3,200 people.

        • Ben Harris says:

          It’s not sexist because it is being done to both men and women, not favouring either.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            It’s not sexist because it is being done to both men and women, not favouring either.

            Because men and women have equal rights under Sharia? Did I miss a memo?

        • grimc says:

          Except the speaker resigned and his harassment was that of a gay male staffer so misogyny would be a stretch.

          • DanikaZoe says:

            There was also a remark made that has been interpreted as denigrating to women as part of the exchanged text messages with the gay male staffer.

          • ocker3 says:

             Yeah, Slipper made some Pretty harsh comments about the physical appearance of female genitalia, they were a bit sickening.

    • humanresource says:

      You can dismiss any worthy act or statement that any politician makes, if you comb through all their other positions. Given that, why comment on politics at all, except to say “I hate all politicians”? 

      Its not easy for women in leadership positions to attack misogny head on, as they are open to charges of being a weakling or a ‘feminazi’. She did it brilliantly, and its worth applauding that. 

      Your grasp of the context is a bit off, as well. Slipper is a turncoat, so both sides of politics have been diminished by association with him. Legally, though, he’s entitled to retain his seat in parliament, and Abbott made it clear that he is still quite happy to accept Slipper’s vote.

      Abbott, in attacking the PM for her alliance with Slipper, committed two kinds of gross hypocrisy: condemning the PM for enjoying the support of a man whose support he covets, and condemning the PM for associating with someone who is sexist, when Abbott stands for little else but sexism. Do you think the PM should have let him get away with all of that? If your answer is no, why not applaud her for responding so well?

      Incidentally, you say that “Gillard is only doing it because her party’s majority is so thin”. Is there only one motive in your life, for each thing that you do or say? Aren’t the noble and base all mixed together, much of the time? I doubt that you are one-dimensional – so why would you assume that Julia Gillard is?

      • robuluz says:

        I think that’s a pleasant way of looking at it, and I agree that this was probably her strongest moment as prime minister, and well done. Abott is an asshole of the highest order and please God may he never govern.

        However it is hard to detach this event from the fact that she remains a leader not voted for by the Australian people, installed instead as a figurehead for labor party factions, and this instance marks one of the few times as pm she has waivered from a continuous monotone of on message marketing Ambien.

        • Marla says:

          actually Gillard and her party were elected in at the last election, though with a slim majority.

          • robuluz says:

            Bullshit. They hold a minority government because they convinced the greens and three independents to form government with them.

    • Itsumishi says:

      You’re partially right about the party majority being so thin that it would crash the government, unfortunately her party doesn’t even have a majority, it has a coalition with the Greens and two independents which keeps it afloat. 

      Unfortunately, that is also the reality she faces with regards to the asylum seeker debate and every other piece of legislation she tries to pass.

      Considering the political position the Gillard Government has been in from the onset, it has done an impressive job so far. It has passed an enormously important piece of legislation the previous Labor Government couldn’t, helped protect some of Australia’s most important forests and has got some bad legislation (from the previous Labor Gov) out of the spotlight and hopefully off the table

      Seriously, Gillard is by no means perfect, but she is an excellent negotiator and despite the bullshit 24 hour media cycle portraying her and her government as wasteful and incompetent she has done a lot more good than either Kevin Rudd (the previous Labor leader that she succeeded after a vote of no confidence) or John Howard who was a racist and angry little Bush arse kisser. Comparing Gillard to Tony Abbott is a lot like comparing Obama and Romney. Neither Gillard nor Obama are by any means perfect, but the other options are both complete nut-cases that would damage their respective countries for a long while to come.

      • teapot says:

        It’s also worth mentioning that Abbott idolises Howard and that our foreign policy would reflect Howard-era policy if the coalition gains power. The only problem is that Howard, love him or hate him, managed our economy very effectively. Abbott will not – his plans are never costed and economists dismiss basically all his ideas as unworkable.

        • Itsumishi says:

          Meh. Howard managed our economy in a time of global prosperity and a massive Australian resources boom.  He introduced a regressive tax that hurt the poor and exasberated the divide between the rich and poor. 

          Abbott would likely try to follow the same agenda and screw it up, driving our economy down, but I hardly think Howard deserves any real credit.

          However this is all getting very off the topic at hand, so I won’t regress further. (It is nice talking Australian politics on BB though!)

        • Apocatequil Death says:

           “The only problem is that Howard, love him or hate him, managed our economy very effectively.”

          John Howard tilted the playing field to the rich. Whittled away at workers rights. Created the heinous boat people problem. Sold of half of Telstra which created a massive turd when it comes to service. He didn’t create the economy that he ran nor did he leave any legacy that will create a new economy but he did manage an economy during a time of prosperity.

      • Byron Ellacott says:

        For what it’s worth, there is a Labor government, not a coalition with any other parties or independents.  They have a “Support and Supply” agreement with the Greens and three independents – this ONLY means those MPs will vote against confidence and for supply motions, everything else is negotiation and on its own merits.

        I also think the notion that the motion to preserve Slipper in the Speaker’s chair should’ve been dispelled by the fact that the Speaker resigned, yet the government still stands…

        • ocker3 says:

           It’s a Minority Government, not a coalition, yes.

        • MachineElf says:

           That was most definitely the notion. The government still stands, but they are now in a more precarious position because (a) they had to lose one of their own sure votes by putting a Labour person in the Speaker’s chair and (b) Slipper now votes again. While he’s unlikely to vote with the Liberals too much considering the relationship of the last few months, as an independent he can send his vote wherever he likes, not bound by caucus.

      • robuluz says:

        Kevin Rudd (the previous Labor leader that she succeeded after a vote of no confidence)

        Wow, really? you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

        • Itsumishi says:

          Rudd got voted in on a landslide. He could have passed carbon trading with just a little bit of give to either the Greens or the Liberals. He could have passed the Mining Super Tax with just a little bit of give to either the Greens or the Liberals. Instead his attitude was always “my way or the highway” and within a very short time, half his own party despised working with the man.

          Gillard hasn’t exactly fixed all the internal rifts throughout the party, however she’s gotten a lot more done even with a minority government then Rudd ever did.

          Rudd was an intelligent man with some great ideas and great promises, but he was never a good leader.

      • Craig_Ranapia says:

        Unfortunately, that is also the reality she faces with regards to the asylum seeker debate and every other piece of legislation she tries to pass.

        Well, except on marriage equality.  The Labour caucus has a free/conscience vote and how did Julia Gillard exercise hers?  She didn’t stand by GLBT Australians, two thirds of her own party room and a hell of a lot of the ALP’s grassroots membership.  On this, she stood with Tony Abbott, Cardinal Pell and the talkback shock jocks like her pal Alan Jones who routinely denigrate lesbian, bisexual and transwomen.

        And you know what, Julia, you fucking deserve a lecture on YOUR personal homophobia – whether it was motivated by genuine conviction (which is vile enough) or sheer expedience (which is even worse).  Whatever else you say against Tony Abbott — and I’ve got a lot, little of it fit for company — at least I know he’s my enemy.

        Neither Gillard nor Obama are by any means perfect, but the other options are both complete nut-cases that would damage their respective countries for a long while to come.

        Call me naive, but I think we should set a higher bar for supposedly progressive politicians than “please be marginally less vile than dribbling fundamentalist far-right lunatics”.  That’s just the soft bigotry of no expectations, and it actually plays right into the hands of the far right.

        • Itsumishi says:

          I wish Julia would take a stronger stand on the marriage equality agenda. However there are real political reasons she doesn’t. Namely its the sort of topic that could easily push some of the centre voters towards the coalition, whilst left voters by far and large will avoid him like the plague regardless her official views on marriage equality. If she loses power do you think we’d be any closer to marriage equality?

          Call me naive, but I think we should set a higher bar for supposedly progressive politicians than “please be marginally less vile than dribbling fundamentalist far-right lunatics”.  That’s just the soft bigotry of no expectations, and it actually plays right into the hands of the far right.

          Actually, that is political reality and it cuts both sides of the spectrum. Remember how even Howard admitted that Climate Change was real when the general Australian sentiment was shifting to the left?

          • Craig_Ranapia says:

             I wish Julia would take a stronger stand on the marriage equality agenda.

            Isn’t it funny how civil equality for GLBT people/ethnic minorities and women is always an “agenda” – a term that never seems to legislation that benefits straight, white, middle-class people like Gillard and Abbott?  Interesting framing there, and sadly revealing.

            Namely its the sort of topic that could easily push some of the centre voters towards the coalition

            So, why does the Australian Labour Party exist at all?  Hell, using that logic a supposedly center-left party better not do anything that might even slightly perturb this largely imaginary “centre”.  A centre which polling data suggests isn’t as hostile to marriage equality as you think.

          • Itsumishi says:

            Either you don’t understand the term agenda (this definition seems to fit best for this particular use: A list or program of things to be done or problems to be addressed.  or you’re choosing to take the fact that I’m realistic about the politics surrounding the issue as that I don’t care about the issue.

            Do I believe marriage equality should be not only recognised but protected by law? Absolutely. Am I passionate about it? Absolutely. Do I think it would be good if Julia outright supported marriage equality? Yes, until the ACL and Abbott (two rabid dogs I’d like to see put down) started jumping up and down with the “attacking family values” crap that would inevitably ensue. I remember what the debate was like when Howard changed the bloody marriage act in the first place. It wasn’t pretty, and Howard managed to win the next election with a landslide landing him a double majority (of course this wasn’t the only issue).

            I’ll state it again clearly; if Abbott wins the next election, Australia will only be further from marriage equality. Rudd could and should have pushed this agenda (but he wouldn’t of course, not with his strong Christian convictions), but Gillard is in a much more precarious position.

            largely imaginary “centre”

            What? I’d define the “centre” as voters that swing between centre left and centre right parties. Considering the 2004 election was a massive win for the Coalition, the 2007 election was a massive win for Labor and the 2010 election resulted in neither major party having a majority I’d say the “centre” is very much alive and well in Australian democracy.

    • Ladyfingers says:

       Thanks for saying this. While Abbott is absolutely awful, Gillard’s current canonisation in the international media for this picking of low-hanging fruit is detestable in light of her own political sycophancy to the Australian conservative community.

    • Stephan says:

      I just wanted to say the same thing.
      But the Moderator beat me to it.

    • phuzz says:

       People, people, can’t we all agree that they’re ALL shitheads?

  2. Craig_Ranapia says:

    But on the same day, her government passes “welfare reforms” that kick sole parents (disproportionately poor, working class and minority WOMEN) in the guts.  Because raising children alone isn’t real work, and nothing “incentivises” you more than cutting your benefit  AND the hardly extravagant incentive to get into further education/training.

    http://overland.org.au/blogs/lfmg/2012/10/on-that-parliamentary-smackdown/

    Great day at the office, Ms. Gillard. You managed to get international media attention for calling out sexism and misogyny the same day your government took a steaming crap on some of the most vulnerable women in Australia. Totes awesome.

    •  Thanks Craig for so eloquently raising this point and saves me typing it as well. To attack the most vulnerable of women is gutless.  

    • toyg says:

      This looks more like a faux-pas from the Opposition Leader than a planned strategy from the Government. A man attacking a woman on sexism, of all things, is basically begging to be publicly spanked — I’d struggle to name *one* powerful man *in the world* who couldn’t be attacked for sexism in one way or another… let alone one from a conservative-leaning party.

      I don’t like Gillard, I don’t like how she got to power and I don’t like how she’s clinging to it for her life, I don’t like most of her tactical choices in terms of alliances and I don’t like her positions on many policies, but you can’t ask her to pass on such a delicious opportunity to kick her political enemies in the teeth. Abbott’s political strategists tonight should probably start sending out resumes.

  3. winkybb says:

    The dire state of Australian politics makes me glad I left there many years ago. There is nothing noble nor epic about these ad hominem attacks across the floor that pass for political debate in Australian Parliament. It has been going on for years, and just keeps getting worse. How about debating some actual policy instead of this “I know you are, but what am I?” school-yard gibberish.

  4. MachineElf says:

    “Gillard didn’t take too kindly to the hypocrisy of Abbott jumping on someone else’s sexism for his own political gain”

    So she hypocritically jumped on someone else’s sexism for her own political gain. Wait a second.

    Abbott is a slimy piece of work, but lionisation of Gillard for her speech is just wrong – its whole point was to try and deflect attention from her *support* of the misognyist, sexist Speaker of the House, whose vote she needs to protect her very thin majority.

    Not to mention *both* Abbott and Gillard somehow still seem to think it’s okay to outlaw gay marriage.

    Let’s be a little more careful in who we make a hero. Both of these two are as horrible as each other.

    • Itsumishi says:

      She holds a paper-thin government. I wish she didn’t because I’m sure then she would no longer hold the same views on gay marriage. At least she’s allowed her party a conscious vote on the matter, something Mr Abbott hasn’t done.

    • Byron Ellacott says:

      “…its whole point was to try and deflect attention from her *support* of the misognyist, sexist Speaker of the House, whose vote she needs to protect her very thin majority.”

      Yes, this is true, as you can tell from the way the government toppled when Slipper resigned. /s

      • ocker3 says:

         Although it’s now going to be Very hard to get any legislation passed, she’s going to need to make all kinds of deals with the independants to get bills through both houses, kind of like what happens in the US Gov now

      • MachineElf says:

         She had to lose a Labor vote by installing a Speaker from her own ranks, and let Peter Slipper have a vote again, as an Independent. She most certainly wanted to keep Slipper in the chair, this has the potential to cause her and the government problems.

    • Marla says:

      Except she was following due process as the matter was before the courts.

  5. MonkeyBoy says:

    Good for her for defending women’s rights.

    However she is opposed to gay rights and the person she was defending, Peter Slipper, stands accused of harassing a guy because he is gay.

    • ocker3 says:

       While technically Slipper was harassing him, your statement is ambiguous. Slipper has long been known for swinging both ways, as has Ashby. I think it’s a clear case of someone abusing their position to try and have sex with an underling, but from Ashby’s actions I don’t think he’s faultless either. Still, Slipper had the greater position of power, so his actions carried more weight.

      It’s a pretty unpleasant situation, but the Coalition did little to reign in Slipper’s actions when he sat on their benches.

  6. I love the look on Abbott’s face when the subject of Peter Slipper’s wedding comes up.

  7. Poet says:

    Quick someone show President Obama this video before the next debate!

  8. judy_jetson says:

    Just to add some facts (they’re so inconvenient, aren’t they?): Slipper’s text messages were sent privately to his accuser, James Ashby, before he was speaker of the house and well before Ashby started to work for him. And yet he still took the job! Stitch-up, much?

    Yes, the PM voted against gay marriage (but civil unions are legal). Yes, she cut funding for sole parents. But she has silently endured two years of sexist attacks by Tony Abbott and his posse – most recently by his good friend, the shock jock Alan Jones, who claimed the PM’s father “died of shame over his daughter’s lies”. Her blistering attack above was a long time coming and arrived after Abbott said her “government should die of shame”.

    The PM condemned Slipper’s texts but rightly called out Abbott for his rank hypocrisy in demanding Slipper’s removal for allegations that are before the court. He has not been charged with anything and the court case is in progress. Just another little fact the Coalition and its cheerleaders conveniently ignore.

    Abbott is also on record saying abortion is “the easy way out for women” and as Minister for Health under the Howard government he prevented access to RU-486 and the cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, suggesting that a misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine might actually result in “an increase in cancer rates”.

    I could go on, but you can Google the rest.

    Australia has a rich history of misogyny and the PM nailed it. She may have been speaking to Abbott, but she spoke for generations of women and launched a debate Australia needs to have before the Coalition goes full medieval Tea Party on our asses.

  9. Inspiring speech, pity she dosn’t stand up for her county’s own citizens when faced with international injustice. (Julian Assange)

  10. Mr. Winka says:

    Choosing to ignore the context, the opposition leader’s merits (if there are any) and her politics, it was nice to see her lay into that smug-looking SOB. I would have loved to see GWB get smacked down like that when he was in office for any one of his many transgressions.

  11. oasisob1 says:

    Pardon, the strong language, but this is why I fucking hate politicians. Everything she says is probably 100% true, but she says it not because it is true, but in order to protect her own position. Sad, really.

    • rtb61 says:

       Now that’s gotta be the craziest bast shit logic ever. People who tell the truth to protect themselves from lies are evil, are you bloody serious.
      People who tell lies for personal advantage are the arse holes the ruin this whole world for us, people who struggle against those lies with the truth are the heroes who save us all.

  12. Abbott is a lap dog for Cardinal George Pell and in the long term may be a liability for the Liberal party. He has a history of misogny

    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tony-abbott-university-bigot-and-bully-and-still-one-today/

    • MachineElf says:

      I was turned off Abbott many, many years ago when ABC’s Lateline busted him lying about having a meeting with Pell. He lied through his teeth by saying he hadn’t, then they showed footage of him doing it, and he had to sit there and pretend that he forgot about the meeting.

      Slime of the highest order.

  13. quantize says:

    The parallels with Obama are deeply striking, she has faced unparalleled assassination on social media, a LOT of it extremely mysoginistic, an opposition that has waged a bizzare and hypocritical war on climate science (they supported implementing a price on carbon when THEY were in government), she’s constantly and laughably labelled a socialist… Abbott is as nasty as they come. Unfortunately Australia is also infected with the bogus Tea Party mentality that has turned public debate into baseless moronic brawling.

  14. quantize says:

    Oh and the media have swallowed it all, most of the newspapers are owned by Murdoch of course (a real bastion of quality journalism)..

    The catchcry is that Gillard is a ‘liar’ but the reality is the very next sentence she said AFTER promising not to implement a ‘tax’ was that she remained absolutely committed to putting a price on carbon pollution. We have literally thousands of idiots regurgitating that she is a liar on a daily basis. These people have absolutely NO comprehension skills.

    • Itsumishi says:

      Not to mention that Tony has held virtually every possible view on carbon pricing that is possible to hold.
      Under Turnbull Tony: Yes we should have a market price on carbon. Climate change is real.
      Just about to fight for leadership Tony: Climate change is crap. There should be no price!
      Just taken leadership Tony: Climate change is real, but Australia causes such a little impact we’re better off without a price, but if I were to introduce a price, it would be a simple tax not a market price.
      JuLIAR’s a bitch that’s ruining our country Tony (current): A GREAT BIG TAX ON EVERYTHING! IT WILL RUIN US. SHE’S TRYING TO IMPLEMENTING A SIMPLE TAX ON CARBON, WHO WOULD SUGGEST SUCH A HORRID IDEA!

      Seriously, if I was marketing for Labor I would simply run various clips of Tony’s views on carbon pricing over the years. It would make Julia’s “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” quote look small in comparison.

  15. Tom says:

    +1 for “smarmy shitheel’.

  16. Wow.How do you Americans know so much about Australian politics?

Leave a Reply