New Updates

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:
http://ymlp214.net/zapvbZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of
Speech

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court of Canada has made Canada’s
ruling elite’s contempt for traditional Christianity quite clear.
Christians got stomped and booted in a unanimous six judge decision in
the Whatcott case, rendered February 27. While much is made of
punishing only the most extreme expressions against privileged
minorities, in fact, anyone with strong opinions about homosexuals or
other privileged groups like Jews, must be very careful. Where does
ridicule, which apparently is acceptable end, and “detestation”
and “vilification” that “incite the level of abhorrence,
delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination and
other harmful effects” begin? Got that? Privileged minorities have
a superior right not to be “delegitimized”; that is, told that
there is something wrong with their behaviour. That newly minted right
erases your right to criticize them. Your words, if strong enough,
“risk” – note nothing needs be proven -- causing discrimination
(which is not always unlawful) or “other harmful effects.” What
might those be?

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of
Frankfurt School social science which has captured most Western
universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated,
cultural communism was spread by the Frankfurt School. Basically, it
sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would
be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males –
and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and
certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and
to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results –
the Frankfurt School targeted loyalty to family, country and religion.
There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby
political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional
English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and
traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have
captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly
for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:
· Truth is no defence;
· Intent is no defence;
· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a
“vulnerable” minority;
· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of
any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking,
but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;
· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a
“vulnerable minority.”

The Court outlines the conflict: “
Four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights
Commission concerning four flyers published and distributed by the
respondent, William Whatcott. The flyers were distributed to the
public and targeted homosexuals and were challenged by the
complainants on the basis that they promoted hatred against
individuals because of their sexual orientation. The Saskatchewan
Human Rights Tribunal held that the flyers constituted publications
that contravened s. 14 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S.
1979, c. S-24.1 as they exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the
basis of their sexual orientation: (2005), 52 C.H.R.R. D/264. Section
14(1)(b) of the Code prohibits the publication or display of any
representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred,
ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person
or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground”. The Code
lists “sexualorientation” as a prohibited ground (s.
2(1)(m.01)(vi)).” Mr. Whatcott was fined $17,500 which was to go to
the four homosexual who complained against him. “The Saskatchewan
Court of Queen’s Bench upheld the Tribunal’s decision: 2007 SKQB
450, 306 Sask. R. 186. That decision was reversed by the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal (“Whatcott (C.A.)”). The appellate court accepted
that s. 14(1)(b) was constitutional but held that the flyers at issue
did not meet the test for hatred and were not prohibited publications
within the meaning of s. 14(1)(b) of the

Code.”

Human Rights Censorship Victim William Whatcott

The Court went on to note “Whether or not the author of the
expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is
irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the
expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives
to reduce or eliminate discrimination.” Now, you might think that
“the likely effect” would require some proof, but NO! You see the
effects of “hate” are subtle and often there is no proof of any
harm. The Court advances the ludicrous conclusion that, although
William Whatcott, a fervent evangelical Christian, is the one silenced
and fined, somehow his very criticism of homosexuals in the leaflets
he handed out back in 2002 was alleged to have intimidated (or night
have, as no proof was offered) homosexuals from debating public
policy. “Hate speech is at some distance from the spirit of s. 2(b)
because it does little to promote, and can in fact impede, the values
underlying freedom of expression. Hate speech can also distort or
limit the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence
the voice of its target group. These are important considerations in
balancing hate speech with competing Charter rights and in assessing
the constitutionality of the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of the Code.
Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy
debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect. Finding that certain
expression falls within political speech does not close off the
enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech. Hate
speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it
is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind. Political expression
contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing
views. Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts
down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the
vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse. Speech that
has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition
on the basis that it promotes debate.”

So, neither discussing politics nor morality is a protection. All that
matters is being most delicate in any criticism of privileged
“vulnerable minorities.”

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott
handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was
shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years,
the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage
– a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001,
Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition
of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its
pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr.
Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the
“question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage,
accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and
by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the
judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave
the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same sex marriage.
Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario
forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the
schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice
of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious
freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle.
It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to
the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code,
Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence
that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever
intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one
excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong
critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the
mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from
the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the
homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the
homosexual agenda.

The Canadian Press (March 9, 2013) reported on a television
advertising campaign by the separatist government of Quebec to promote
public tolerance of homosexuals and lesbians kissing in public: “A
public display of affection between a couple shouldn't usually elicit
a reaction from people. But what if those engaging in that passionate
smooch are a same-sex couple? The Quebec government has launched a
unique advertising campaign (
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/ministere/dossiers/homophobie/homophobie-a.htm
) designed to get the province thinking about just how open-minded it
really is when it comes to homosexuality. The TV, radio and web
campaign shows routine, everyday scenes in which the viewer has no
idea until the end that the ad is about sexual orientation. One shows
a man texting his lover while awaiting him at the airport.”

The Court all but admits that Trudeau’s Charter is bogus in its
guarantee of free speech or freedom of belief. The peasants get the
speech rights the Court chooses to give them: “The limitation
imposed on freedom of expression by the prohibition in s. 14(1)(b) of
the Code is a limitation prescribed by law within the meaning of s. 1
of the Charter and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society. It appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying
freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values
essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment
to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity
owed to all human beings.[except traditional Christians.] The
objective for which the limit is imposed, namely tackling causes of
discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs
of discrimination, is pressing and substantial. Hate speech is an
effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a
group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech
seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority,
reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate
speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group
members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the
groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can
range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation,
violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

Thus, from Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting to genocide against homosexuals
on the streets of Regina. This Supreme Court fantasy is nonsense. Mr.
Whatcott never called for deportation, violence or genocide. There
was, of course, not a shred of evidence that anything negative
resulted from Mr. Whatcott’s leaflets. In the irrational world of
the judicial revolutionaries, there doesn’t have to be any evidence.
The cultural Marxists simply insist that we must believe: “The fact
that s. 14(1)(b) of the Code does not require intent by the publisher
or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it
overbroad. Systemic discrimination is more widespread than
intentional discrimination and the preventive measures found in human
rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent.
The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the
harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive
measures that do not require proof of actual harm.” The prattle
about “systemic” discrimination is absurd. Mr. Whatcott was a lone
wolf pamphleteer. He was part of no “system.”

In a crucial essay (“The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the
Origin of the Therapeutic State: A Case Study of Jewish Intellectual
Activism” Mankind Quarterly, Spring, 2006) Prof. Kevin Macdonald
shows that, despite calling themselves a “School of Social
research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that
might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined
the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the
way: “The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about
human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed
empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and
oppression. Horkheimer wrote in1937 that “if science as a whole
follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its
insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations
in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning
daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of
universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the
social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of
resistance toward contemporary societies.

The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its
handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that
is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements
Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his
leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the
psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the
pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno
line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,
without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor
dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read
Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to
the line which the journal takes.”

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is
that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases:
“The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the
provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would
meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements
must be free from restriction. Allowing the dissemination of hate
speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would provide an
absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness;”
that is, gut its purpose of suppressing strong criticisms of some
privileged minority. And later in the judgement: “The search for
truth is also an important part of self-fulfillment. However, I do not
think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all
truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statements
can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner
that would meet the definition of hate speech.”

The Canada of the future will encourage lies and liars, if they
flatter privileged groups. Active homosexuals are less likely to
contract AIDS than heterosexuals is, of course, a falsehood, but, in
the Canada envisioned by the Supremos, a cautious man may well decide
to avoid the truth and tell this lie. As in the Soviet Union of old,
we’ll be proclaiming that the most recent Five Year Plan has
succeeded beyond all expectations. Boots are plentiful, even though,
actually, we only made boots for the left foot this year.

The Supreme Court is quite content with condemning an entire pamphlet
or publication because of one strident phrase or term: “However, it
is also legitimate to proceed with a closer scrutiny of those parts of
the expression which draw nearer to the purview of s. 14(1)(b) of the
Code. If, despite the context of the entire publication, even one
phrase or sentence is found to bring the publication, as a whole, in
contravention of the Code, this precludes its publication in its
current form.”

Christians got a small sop tossed their way: They can still criticize
homosexuals “privately” among themselves but they cannot witness
to their faith publicly: “The prohibition only prohibits public
communication of hate speech; it does not restrict hateful expression
in private communications between individuals.” Can Christians use
these repressive laws against their critics? Not likely! They are not
a vulnerable group in the world view of the Court’s cultural
Marxists: “Although human rights legislation prohibits
discrimination of both majority and minority subgroups identifiable by
an enumerated characteristic, historical and jurisprudential
experience demonstrates that hate speech is virtually always aimed at
the minority subgroup. A prohibition of hate speech will only be
rationally connected to the objective if its ambit is limited to
expression publicly directed at protected group.”

And, as a parting shot for having fought, the Court saddled the
impoverished Mr. Whatcott, in addition to his now reduced fine of
$15,000, with costs, likely well over $150,000! “Given that Mr.
Whatcott was found in contravention of the Code, the Commission is
awarded costs throughout, including costs of the application for leave
to appeal in this Court.”

The Supreme Court did acquit Mr. Whatcott for two of his pamphlets and
ruled some of the hazy language of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Acts
censorship section unconstitutional: “A prohibition of any
representation that ‘ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the
dignity of’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a
prohibited ground is not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
Those words are constitutionally invalid and are severed from the
statutory provision in accordance with these reasons. The remaining
prohibition of any representation ‘that exposes or tends to expose
to hatred’ any person or class of persons on the basis of a
prohibited ground is a reasonable limit and demonstrably justified in
a free and democratic society.” A tiny victory, but it will take a
Philadelphia lawyer to sniff out the difference between ridicule,
belittling and likely exposing a privileged group to hatred. The
prudent man will just shut up rather than run the risk when commenting
on one of Canada’s privileged groups.

Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled
Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard
this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or
fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment
equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”,
invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who
was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an
over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be
remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per
cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott!
Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella
applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself
from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily
over-represented.
The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall
Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website
notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights
Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a
decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he
was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a
“reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found
state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities
perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and
“democratic society.”

At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former
journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against
Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the
Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on
“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled
Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We
were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the
concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s
incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what
you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks
to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the
human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights
Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She
married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.”
Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a
pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time
and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one
might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case
as there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

_____________________________
Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp214.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgwbqgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider

My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie -- Alex Greer

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 06 April 2013 14:05

My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie -- Alex Greer

Written by Paul Fromm

Saturday, 06 April 2013 14:04

<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F561445_157719841059780_522969646_n.jpg%3Foh%3D2bd02a20987c584ca4ab7df6a0ef6205%26oe%3D515F1C39%26__gda__%3D1365207176_1dc84fc0e95077bb5ab21b4c58b61332&fbid=157719867726444&message=mid.1365049899594%3A503e939d90cba3c844&hash=AQDZ1fhxq5vrCaTt>

03 March 2013

*My Memories of Douglas Hewson Christie*

<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F561445_157719841059780_522969646_n.jpg%3Foh%3D2bd02a20987c584ca4ab7df6a0ef6205%26oe%3D515F1C39%26__gda__%3D1365207176_1dc84fc0e95077bb5ab21b4c58b61332&fbid=157719867726444&message=mid.1365049899594%3A503e939d90cba3c844&hash=AQDZ1fhxq5vrCaTt>

I remember when I first met Doug Christie. In was in late January or
February, 1986 at a meeting in Toronto. At the time the Zundel and
Keegstra cases were still in the news. I had read about Doug in both the
mainstream press and in the “underground right-wing” newsletters. What
immediately struck me about him as he spoke was his air of authority. By
“air of authority” I do not mean that Doug was arrogant, in fact far from
that. When he spoke, either to a formal audience or when he spoke
informally to you one could tell that he was someone who knew what he was
talking about. His warnings about the threats to free speech were very
convincing and prophetic. His answers to people’s questions were always
precise and to the point. Friends and relatives who I later brought to
these meetings, some of whom had little knowledge about Doug, also made
this same observation. I can only regret that I never got to witness him
at first hand in the courtrooms. I can only guess that the opposition were
shaking in their boots each time he would get up to speak.

When I moved out to Victoria, BC, in the early 1990s I would see more of
Doug Christie. I joined the work party group who often gathered at his
house on Townsend Road in Saanich. After we stuffed the envelopes with The
Friends of Freedom and The Western Separatist Papers newsletters we would
sit down for drinks and snacks and to listen to Doug’s latest situation
reports. As with my first impressions, Doug continued to display his grasp
of the situations whether concerning his court cases, or about provincial,
national and international politics and even local Victoria politics. The
group that gathered monthly at the Christie homestead were varied in their
ethnic and religious backgrounds. There were Germans and eastern and
central Europeans as well as those of English and Scots and Irish
background like myself. There were Roman Catholics like Doug and
Protestants like myself. Some were members of the Western Canada Concept
and others might have been called “soft separatists.” Whatever our
differences we were united in our convictions for free speech and for
integrity in government.<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F532230_157719101059854_770658910_n.jpg%3Foh%3D1403c5c7efc9e6435b160b9de26ad549%26oe%3D515EFBD3%26__gda__%3D1365193058_3f76dd2888aaf9db926a353e95b38d9a&fbid=157719127726518&message=mid.1365049562388%3A17192336f5ae4f9d64&hash=AQB7ZtZmui1U6vYM>

There were occasions when taking our stands meant violent opposition and
adverse press coverage. I well remember the night at the 1992 Orwell
Dinner when the Victoria Police raided the downtown Chinese restaurant and
arrested English historian David Irving. We all followed Doug to the
police station and held an impromptu protest which made the front page of The
[Victoria] Times-Colonist the next morning. When driving along Blanchard
Street I would look at Doug’s vandalized downtown office with the graffiti:
KILL CAUSE! In the late 1990s I remember those meetings where gangs of
leftists harassed people and tried to obstruct them from entering public
libraries to hear Paul Fromm, Doug Christie and/or that other Doug, Doug
Collins. Our little group persevered.

Doug’s activism involved more than just the courtroom and the political
soapbox. During the Christmas season of 1996 an unexpected blanket of snow
covered Victoria, which put the city (not used to such weather), in a
standstill. One day I was making my way through the slush around the James
Bay area and I saw a van with Western Canada Concept posted on the side. I
knew that it was Doug Christie. I waved and Doug took me along with him to
help others whose vehicles were stuck or whose walk-ways needed to be
shovelled.

I’ve read that at Doug’s funeral Fr. Lucian Larre asked the valid question
(based on a country music song) about as to “who is going to fill his
boots.” There is another valid question. Are we all going to continue to
uphold the legacy Doug fought for? Not all of us can be lawyers to fight
the battles in the courtroom, but we all had some talent to contribute to
the fight. Doug was aided by many of us in giving him moral and financial
support over the years. Many of us wrote letters in support of him and of
the freedom for his clients to state their views. Will we keep up our end
of the fight against the tyranny of political correctness in whatever way
we can? Will the Doug Christie we knew be remembered for posterity, or
will the libellous view from the opposition be trumped?

May God give us strength?

Yours,

<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F532920_157719571059807_1787005134_n.jpg%3Foh%3D3f181127df835c477b665d51df87f277%26oe%3D515EFB29%26__gda__%3D1365214472_5b575187b22a4e218516ff8a09e2c432&fbid=157719591059805&message=mid.1365049755541%3A3375ddc8569440b485&hash=AQB9KQafHok43EMX>

Alexander David (“Alex”) Greer
<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F561445_157719841059780_522969646_n.jpg%3Foh%3D2bd02a20987c584ca4ab7df6a0ef6205%26oe%3D515F1C39%26__gda__%3D1365207176_1dc84fc0e95077bb5ab21b4c58b61332&fbid=157719867726444&message=mid.1365049899594%3A503e939d90cba3c844&hash=AQDZ1fhxq5vrCaTt>

<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F532230_157719101059854_770658910_n.jpg%3Foh%3D1403c5c7efc9e6435b160b9de26ad549%26oe%3D515EFBD3%26__gda__%3D1365193058_3f76dd2888aaf9db926a353e95b38d9a&fbid=157719127726518&message=mid.1365049562388%3A17192336f5ae4f9d64&hash=AQB7ZtZmui1U6vYM>

<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F532920_157719571059807_1787005134_n.jpg%3Foh%3D3f181127df835c477b665d51df87f277%26oe%3D515EFB29%26__gda__%3D1365214472_5b575187b22a4e218516ff8a09e2c432&fbid=157719591059805&message=mid.1365049755541%3A3375ddc8569440b485&hash=AQB9KQafHok43EMX>
<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F561445_157719841059780_522969646_n.jpg%3Foh%3D2bd02a20987c584ca4ab7df6a0ef6205%26oe%3D515F1C39%26__gda__%3D1365207176_1dc84fc0e95077bb5ab21b4c58b61332&fbid=157719867726444&message=mid.1365049899594%3A503e939d90cba3c844&hash=AQDZ1fhxq5vrCaTt>

<https://www.facebook.com/ajax/mercury/attachments/photo/view/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-prn1%2Fv%2F561445_157719841059780_522969646_n.jpg%3Foh%3D2bd02a20987c584ca4ab7df6a0ef6205%26oe%3D515F1C39%26__gda__%3D1365207176_1dc84fc0e95077bb5ab21b4c58b61332&fbid=157719867726444&message=mid.1365049899594%3A503e939d90cba3c844&hash=AQDZ1fhxq5vrCaTt>

<< Start < Prev 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next > End >>

Page 86 of 454

Media

Campaigns

Newsletters

Most Read