Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, November 9, 2006 | Science : Teaching Science | print version Print | Comments

Document Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

by The Ottawa Citizen

Thanks again to Linda Ward Selbie for the link!

Reposted from:
www.canada.com/ottawacitizen

We teach 'a better theory,' unlicensed school says

Dave Rogers, with files from Chris Lackner and Joanne Laucius, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The Quebec ministry of education has told unlicensed Christian evangelical schools that they must teach Darwin's theory of evolution and sex education or close their doors after an Outaouais school board complained the provincial curriculum wasn't being followed.
"Quebec children are legally required to follow the provincial curriculum ... but these evangelical schools teach their own courses on creationism and sexuality that don't follow the Quebec curriculum," said Pierre Daoust, director general of the Commission Scolaire au Coeur-des-Vallees in Thurso, whose complaint sparked the provincewide investigation.
Quebec law requires school boards assure the ministry of education that every child between the ages six of and 16, with the exception of home-schooled children, receives an adequate education, he said.

But the roughly 15 elementary and high school students who attend a school operated by l'Eglise evangelique near Saint-Andre-Avellin are being educated according to a Bible-based curriculum and their diplomas will not be recognized anywhere in Canada.
Supporters of l'Eglise evan-gelique, part of l'Association des eglises evangeliques du Quebec, counter that the school teaches a "world view" that is essential for their students.
"We offer a curriculum based on a Christian world view rather than humanistic world view," said Alan Buchanan, chairman of a committee that reorganized the school's administration this past summer, as well as a former Quebec public school teacher.

Mr. Buchanan said l'Eglise evangelique teaches evolution as well as intelligent design.
"We want the children to understand what they're going to meet in the outside world, and also what's wrong with the theory," he said. "We also teach that a better theory -- that God created the universe and so on."

While the school doesn't teach sex education, it does teach biology, he said.
"You have the Christian world view that says sex should only be in marriage and a public school system that teaches kids about sexuality," Mr. Buchanan said. "We believe students should be taught abstinence."

He said the school met provincial guidelines during two reviews conducted in the 1990s, although it was asked to add a Canadian history course.

Ministry spokeswoman Marie-France Boulay said yesterday the province will negotiate for several weeks with an unspecified number of evangelical schools to determine whether they can meet provincial standards that include the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Ms. Boulay said two or three unlicensed evangelical schools in the Outaouais are affected.
In addition to the approximately 15 students at l'Eglise evangelique, another 40 students attend an unlicensed evangelical school in Gatineau, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commission Scolaire des Draveurs. There is a third in Hull, in the area governed by the Commission scolaire des Portages-de-l'Outaouais, Mr. Daoust said. The other school boards haven't complained.

The Quebec government knows of about 30 unlicensed religious schools in the province, including Hasidic schools and several evangelical Christian schools in Montreal, said Dermod Travis, who served on Quebec's Comite sur la langue d'enseignement, a tribunal that hears special cases from the province's educational system.

Other religious denominations might operate faith-based schools as well, but no one really knows where they are.

The Quebec government has known about unaccredited religion-based schools for years, but has tolerated them, for fear of offending the denominations sponsoring them.
Members of the Pentecostal Eglise Nouvelle Alliance in Gatineau refused to discuss the ministry of education investigation because their minister, Charles Boucher, is out of the country until next month.

Mr. Buchanan said l'Eglise evangelique, as well as other members of the evangelical school association, will discuss whether to seek licences at a mid-November meeting.
In Ontario, things are different. Schools are not required to teach either evolution or sex education, said Elaine Hopkins, executive director of the 900-member Ontario Federation of Independent Schools, which has 120,000 children attending schools with a few as 10 students, and as many as 1,000.

Many parents send their children to independent schools because they object to the teaching of these subjects in the public schools, she said. "These are issues that should be decided by the parents, not the province."

At the elementary level in Ontario, there are no curriculum requirements for independent schools, although Ms. Hopkins points out that the education is market-driven.
"It's called direct accountability to the parents," she said. "If you're not going to teach reading, writing and arithmetic, the parents aren't going to pay for it."

At the high school level in Ontario, independent schools are inspected by Ministry of Education officials to ensure that they meet curriculum and hours of instruction guidelines for credits to be accepted by the Ministry of Education.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Comments 1 - 20 of 20 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #5501 by vega on November 9, 2006 at 7:07 pm

Merde...

2. Comment #5507 by Godless on November 9, 2006 at 7:46 pm

This is a bigger problem in Canada than many people realize or care about, even many Canadians.
Quebec is actually more secular than the rest of Canada, though you wouldn't know it.

I personally wish Professor Dawkins would have made a stop in a major city, other than Montreal, such as Toronto, Calgary, or Vancouver, as I suspect he would quickly realize that he and his 'scientistic', inflammatory, secular, and therefore atheist views, would not be welcomed by many. You see, in Canada multi-culturalism is everything - it is our religion, of sorts. And while I can appreciate multi-culturalism as a virtue in and of itself, atheism, unfortuneately, becomes an especially untenable 'anti-cultural' and intolerant world view in a country where religious rights and therefore, cultural rights, are more important than individual human rights.

It's not that our politicians are particularily religious, because I don't believe many of them really are. But our government thrives on and implements a form of 'relativism' trying to please everyone, regardless of their differences. Its not a melting pot here, but the rules are crafted and custom-made for everyone of differing faith and culture. Religious freedom means cultural freedom up here. Religious tolerance means that you better respect believers and church, synagogue, and mosque goers because if you don't you are a bigot and anti-Canadian.

Very few recognize this pernicious, insideous side of Canadian relativist placation of Theistic interests. I think its because we want to retain our reputation as super-tolerant, not-like-the-US, respectful of everyone, altruists.

However, the emperor of the north wears no clothes.

Richard, we need you more than you know up here in Canada. Regardless of what your book sales on Amazon.ca might indicate. A critical, uncompromising, rational voice is just what these multi-cultural, live and let live, extremely moderate, equivocators need up here.

3. Comment #5520 by Randy Ping on November 9, 2006 at 8:24 pm

Try living in New Orleans. The damned Catholic schools dominate the educational landscape, while the poor public schools have gone in an ever downward death spiral. There is absolutely NO DECENT SECULAR EDUCATION IN NEW ORLEANS. PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!

4. Comment #5522 by Janus on November 9, 2006 at 8:26 pm

Godless is, unfortunately, completely and absolutely right.

By the way, I need to point out that Prof. Dawkins' lecture in Montreal wasn't about The God Delusion or atheism as such, it was about 'the strangeness of science'. I thought it was weird at the time, since all other lectures and Q&A sessions were about TGD, but I just shrugged and forgot about it. Now I wonder, was it entirely Dawkins' choice?

5. Comment #5524 by Godless on November 9, 2006 at 8:31 pm

Janus wrote:
"Now I wonder, was it entirely Dawkins' choice?"

Funny that. I asked myself the same question.

6. Comment #5536 by Godless on November 9, 2006 at 9:11 pm

Canatheist,

I hear you man. Me three. In fact in my case I and a few of my friends were so incensed that we rebelled against participating in the LP and were sent to the principle's office where we received a lecture and a slap on the wrist. Then we were told if we didn't participate we were to stand in the hall untill it was over. So we did. That lasted a few days, then someones parents must have called to complain, so we were then able to sit quietly in class while all the other students formally prayed. Teacher ( devout christian) was pissed he didn't get his way, which was to force us to participate.

Skeptisch,

Why do you say Calgary is in a league all by itself? I've always thought of Calgary as Canada's Texas and Bible belt zone, if that's what you meant?
I mention those cities because they are the wealthiest ones, the most cosmopolitan - where Richard's message might have more of a chance to make some rather major ripples in the airwaves.

Deepak Chopra is a moron. A rich moron, but a moron nonetheless. Ofcourse Mr Chopra would be on CBC. He and others like him would probably love to live here, given all the spiritualist claptrap in this country.

Dawkins was on a show called 'The Big Picture' with Avi Lewis. Richard attended via satellite. This discussion ofcourse centred around 'The Root of all Evil', and Prof. Dawkins was hardly able to get a word in edgewise, but even so, Richard was accused of 'scientism' by one of our politicians sitting in the audience. And of course most of the more vocal of the audience were of some religious persuasion, so they totally dissed Richard as being intolerant, and atheistically religious himself. As if science and rational thought were equal, on par, with religion and spirituality. There was little time for Prof. Dawkins to speak anyhow and the so-called debate, devolved into a ridiculous gabfest.

If there were a way of getting permission to place a link to the show on this website, I would tell Josh about it, but I don't know if such a thing would be possible. Here's a link to the webpage about the show.

http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html

7. Comment #5542 by Jonathan Dore on November 9, 2006 at 10:39 pm

On a brighter note, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty this year announced that all religious-based arbitration of legal cases would cease. Previously, orthodox Jews (if I remember correctly) were able to have certain domestic legal cases arbitrated according to traditional Jewish law. Certain Muslim groups then demanded Sharia-based arbitration on the same basis, and when this was strongly opposed by protestors, McGuinty corrected the anomaly by banning *all* religious-based input into the legal system -- a result that deserves to be better known and more widely celebrated than it has been.

8. Comment #5586 by Phil on November 10, 2006 at 2:42 am

Honestly, if this is a private school, I'm not sure government has the right to step in.

Unless they're pursuing the 'child abuse' angle, it's pretty cut and dry.

9. Comment #5613 by Skeptic Jim on November 10, 2006 at 6:00 am

I don't think godless is right at all. You can keep the culture and remove the religion. You can still have national identity and maintain the customs of your peers without the need to believe in some sort of supernatural deity. The Atheist Jews do it and so can everyone else.

10. Comment #5615 by Skeptic Jim on November 10, 2006 at 6:03 am

Further to that, I still celebrate christmas and easter. To me these are family events. They lay hand in hand with the 'christian culture'. I don't have to believe in god to participate in christian culture.

11. Comment #5633 by Traytheist on November 10, 2006 at 7:11 am

Skeptish:

Calgary's not the most religious city in Canada. 3 hours southeast of Calgary(Medicine Hat), and I can't even find a copy of TGD; I had to order it in, and I bet there was an "error" with my order, 'cuz I haven't seen it yet. Same goes with "Letter...". Trust me, this is the most insanely religious city I've ever lived in.

And count me in amongst those that had to say the LP in school. I said it so many times, I just can't shake it from my brain. At least my parents tried to raise me catholic; Guaranteed Atheist!

On the plus side, I have a whole lot of people to attempt to enlighten!

12. Comment #5648 by mark on November 10, 2006 at 8:57 am

This is old news... it was in reported about 3 weeks ago as well. At the time, the principle (or whatever they're called) of one of the schools said: "We teach the theory of evolution... as well as the fact of creation."

My blood is still boiling...

13. Comment #5742 by Godless on November 10, 2006 at 6:51 pm

I like this link:

http://www.philosophy.ubc.ca/faculty/russellp/Journals/The%20supremacy%20of%20God.pdf

(make sure you have adobe acrobat)

Thank you for that elegantly written post Canadian Rower. I am of course, completely in agreement with you. You articulated the problem better than I. Question: are you familiar with any reference material, any books, links, etc, that might explore more in depth this problem Canada has gotten herself into? I'm particularily interested in our ' canadian take/understanding' on secularist ideals and principles, and how we deal with religiosity in general from a legal and governmental standpoint - our understanding of a separation of church and state and what that means to the public and the country as a whole, compared with what we actually have in reality, etc, as compared with other countries like the US, Norway, etc. There is surprisingly little on the subject, from a Canadian perspective, on the internet and what little there is is mired in obfuscation and practically indigestable legaleeze.

14. Comment #5745 by Godless on November 10, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Skeptic Jim wrote:
"I don't think godless is right at all. You can keep the culture and remove the religion. You can still have national identity and maintain the customs of your peers without the need to believe in some sort of supernatural deity. The Atheist Jews do it and so can everyone else."

Well, Jim, I wasn't saying you couldn't, not in my post at any rate. But many deeply spirtual/religious people would disagree with you vehemently - at least those who took their religion seriously by living their lives by their beliefs and actual scripture. Religion and Culture are inextricably bound for most cultures throughout the world. In fact they are considered synonymous conceptions, one impossible without the other. This bodes well with the theistic assumption/belief that spirituality must extend, not just from the private individual life; family, social circle, worklife, etc, but to community, and politics. If God is anything to any culture, HE is a Nationalistic and Cultural God, a Universal all encompassing God... or HE is nothing at all.

To separate church and state is to water down the meaning and power of the religious community and deprive them of what they desire most - one nation under God as authority, indivisable - religion must, I repeat must, demand a theocratic form of government, nothing less. If you do not strive for that ideal, then you are not a true believing Christian, Muslim, etc, who takes his beliefs seriously. Why should politics be divorced from religious ideals? That goes against everything that a faithful believer stands for.

Now if you are a moderate, well then, you can have a little sin with your Santa, a little fun with your prayers, a little monetary indulgence, a little divorce, a little extra-curiccular sex, a little materialistic possessiveness, and still go to church on sunday, or once a year at Xmas, while you twiddle your thumbs, daydreaming, and hoping the football game hasn't ended by the time the sermon is over.

I'll let you in on a secret. Really religious people? They hate, and I mean hate, moderates. Santa is NOT the reason for the season. God expects pure devotion and pure efforts/works in his name, nothing less. That means his expectations extend to education and government and anything else that's for the publics own good.

15. Comment #5909 by Riley on November 11, 2006 at 6:35 pm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Robertson [Comment #5840] wrote:
"Riley, Sadly you replied to something I did not say. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

Right, I didn't quote you. But you definitely say a lot which relies in large part on the two observational fallacies I noted above. For the sake of argument, I'll relate my points directly to a few of your statements:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy #1 Relates to your claim that: Dawkins is a fundementalist Atheist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[David Robertson Wrote:]"What is disturbing about this is that [Richard Dawkin's] fundamentalist atheism will actually be taken seriously"

[David Robertson Wrote:]"He says that the existence of God is as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now do you really for a moment think that to any degree he considers the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. In that we can know about anything, Dawkins 'knows' that neither the Flying Spaghetti Monster nor God exist. "

No, Dawkins does not say that the existence of God is as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's an understandable error on your part and very common among people who don't listen to much of what Dawkins says.

What Dawkins says is that the "God of the Bible" is as likely to exist as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

If you read and listen to Dawkins (as I believe that you have), you couldn't even really call Dawkins an Atheist, much less a fundementalist one. Dawkins, in every interview and article where the question is brought up, always acknowleges the reasonable possibilty (5%, I saw someone write) that there exists a creator of the universe.

Dawkins of course does describe himself as an "atheist" but I think he would say that such an overly simplistic label is necessary to avoid a greater confuson. It's a situation created by Christian dogma which insists that the only possible god is the God of the Bible.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy #2 Relates to your implicit claim that: Secularism promotes, or otherwise has something to do with Atheism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[David Robertson Wrote:]"Can you tell me when Channel 4 or even the BBC last gave an evangelical Christian the opportunity to produce a film demonstrating the evils of secularism?"

From this and the general tone of your writing, I think you are equating secularism and atheism. This is my reasoning:

Why would you introduce "secularism" into the debate between Theism and Atheism and as the target to be attacked in response to Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil?" documentary, unless you see secularism and atheism as so strongly connected that they are interchangeable? (in much the same way as "religion" and "belief in the supernatural" are essentially interchangeable)

What possible problem could you have with the secular idea, that an uncommited neutral position should be assumed in matters, such as faith, that are fundementally unresolveable ? It is secularism that has provided the opportunity for the enormous growth and spread of faith in the U.S..

Here's another quote:
[David Robertson Wrote:]"Colin - you are missing the point re the BBC [...] [The point] is that the default starting postion for everything is secularism and atheism. The BBC would not allow for one minute anyone to make a programme defending the existence of God"

First off, a quick check of BBC programming online reveals a five page listing of religious programming which includes the following: "In Praise of God", "Unitarians explain their faith", "Sunday Worship", "Prayer for the Day", and "Humphrys in Search of God" a program where an atheist interviews various religious leaders, each of whom argues in defense of the existance of God.

I can find gaggles of programing on the BBC that are dedicated to promoting the Christian faith. How many programs on the BBC can you find dedicated to promoting the idea that God doesn't exist ? (a small handful from what I see) How about in the United States? (none?)

Given how dramatically off-mark you are in your belief that the BBC wouldn't allow even "one minute" to anyone defending the existence of God, forgive me for assuming that the only way you could believe such a thing, is that you equate secularism with atheism. Forgive me also, because in the United States, I am bombarded by people who constantly equate the neutral non-commital position of secularism with atheism.

This phenomina is illustrated in the U.S. by the "prayer in school" debate. It is the insistence of our most vocal Christian leaders that school teachers should be instructing our children to pray. These same vocal Christian leaders characterize the neutral (or secular) position that: school children should be free to practice religion as they choose, as being anti-God and promoting atheism.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foundation of most the rest of your positions can be shot down entirely with this single quote BEFORE he became our 41st President of the United States, George H.W. Bush:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."


What would the political future be of a candidate who declared that Christians should not be considered citizens or even that they should not be considered patriots? Forgive me for saying this, but *this* *IS* *exactly* the kind of thing the Nazis said about the Jews in the years leading up to the holocaust. Can I emphasis this a little more for you? A politician, elected to the highest office in the land, prior to his election, made that statement.

When's the last time you EVER heard an American politician proudly declare himself an Atheist? An Agnostic? How about avoid being seen going into a Church on Sunday? or embarrassed to be seen shaking the hand and chit-chatting with the pastor after church? Admittedly, I haven't done much research on the subject, but since you ridiculed Dawkins and his suggestion that Atheists are marginalized in the U.S., I assume you must have done at least a little research on the matter. I'd be curious to see the results of your research.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Comment #5923 by Jenna on November 11, 2006 at 9:54 pm

Au Canada!!! Way to go! As always, Canada is one step ahead of the States when it comes to education and teaching tolerance. The government is correct, every child does have a right not to be taught backwards ideals and myths as being literally true while real science is either ignored or demonized. I hope that their views begin to trickle down to the US, or else I may be making a run for the border!

17. Comment #6204 by Andrew on November 13, 2006 at 6:00 am

Quebec after the quiet revolution has embrace rational over religion. No wonder after total oppression of the people by the church it is refreshing to know that about 60% of the population is open to other ideas then that of believing in a fictional being.

Also the leader of the opposition party in Quebec is openly gay and it does not seem to have any issues as the population at least in Quebec does not care much about the orientation of its political leader.

I truly believe that Quebec-although viewed by the rest of Canada to be somewhat backward and disliked by the political powers to the south is more evolved then its given credit for

Andrew
Montreal, Quebec

18. Comment #6242 by DaXue on November 13, 2006 at 11:05 am

I'm very puzzled by those from Ontario saying they were raised in public schools and had to pray before classes began. When did this occur? I was in the Ontario public school system in the early 90's and all we ever did was sing the national anthem before class.

Also, to echo some of the sentiments being felt, Prime Minister Harper and his good friend Stockwell Day seemed to have backed off attempting anything religious in the public square. It was a good move on their part; they wouldn't succeed in any way, shape or form.

And to Canadian_Rower #26: assuming you're referring to Section 2(a) of the Charter, we can stop the funding of these religious schools, though there'd be a considerable hurdle to overcome. Look again at Section 33(1) of the Charter:

"Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter."

Harper threatened to use this to quash the same-sex marriage Bill that was passed a year (or so) ago.

19. Comment #60445 by hoemaco on August 2, 2007 at 1:13 am

Hello,

I think that being from central-east Europe (Hungary), I have somewhat different views on this. There we don't have so much liberalism and individualism than US or Canada (though still more than East Asia). Therefore, it does not strike me as a bad act that the government tries to regulate schools - on the contrary, it strikes me deep that they actually allow private schools to work without state control, and that home education is possible (as it said "with the exception of home-schooled children" - I'm really uneducated about american systems). While there exist a few private schools in Hungary, and they are allowed their own curriculum (but those are strictly scientific, and only differ in teaching methods), those kids going there also have to complete the same requirements as everybody else at age of 18 (graduation exam). Furthermore, every child MUST attend a school from age 7 to 18.

I believe, that as long as the ministry of education is not controlled by morons, this system is good, no, even better than the american/canadian one. Most great scientists of the 20th century have come from Europe, where they received an education which made them think creatively.

It is a problem, though, that there actually are morons in our ministry, but at least they are far from being religious fanatics. And they also stopped the scientologists from gaining foothold in education.

About parents choosing their kids education: clearly you do not suggest that most (all) parents are "clever" enough to choose such an education for their kids that will serve them best in the future (and which makes them think rationally), or that they are capable of raising them in such a manner. If it were true, this forum would not exist. The big problem imho is actually that parents who have been raised without teaching them to think rationally and sceptically, and without teaching them anything on how to raise children, will have similarly ignorant children. It's not s strict rule, fortunately, as seen by personal examples seen above, but still seems to apply to too many people. I can see the results when I go to a secondary school and find that a 15 years old kid tries to shake the hand of the teacher saying 'how are ya man?'. And parents (both) working day and night (as also mentioned) does not help this.

So I say that it's still better to have the state control the curriculum, as a few man there are easier to convince, and though they're not the brightest folks, still they are better educated than many parents and they do feel in most countries that the nation's interest demands for scientific education.

Btw, it's good to hear that kids have 'sex education' in Canada / can someone explain to me what that includes? That's something I think Europe also still lacks in, though at least there are some lectures about most important things and dangers. (And we don't teach them not to have sex before marriage).

I have a feeling that if US and Canada succumb to this fanatism (which many people are afraid it will), then it'll be felt in their economy - US is already desperately trying to have more kids study science and engineering (I have personal experiences about this), though it's been a problem ever since - but it can become worse. Europe or rather Asia (China in mind) will take great advantage in tech development. (Though Islamic countries, from middle east to malaysia and indonesia also have some bad tendencies in education).

Other Comments by hoemaco

20. Comment #111174 by benji on January 13, 2008 at 9:54 pm

I am from Quebec, actually studying at Sherbrooke University.

Homeaco : Sex education in quebec is in fact education of both sex and sexuality, between which we draw some distinction.

On the sex part, it is about breaking taboos about sex. In high school, children know what is a condom and how to use it. They're told about the efficiency of contraception tools, and on inconvients of them. They're also warned about sexually transmitted diseases : what it is, and insisting on the fact that it is NOT just for the others... and so on. They are then (in theory) technically aware.

But there is also a part that is usually reserved to talk what it is to have a sexual partner. They are shown examples of what is a sane relationship. Particularly, the fact that there is no obligation in sexuality is emphasized.

Well that's what I personnally have been taught. ( Even if, I admit, I didn't take it too seriously sometimes)

Back to the subject, I believe that Quebec's Province has the biggest potential when it comes to rational thinking. The majority of people here are believers but almost never practicing their religion. Hence most of time it is a very good climate.

But then last year we had this debate over some religious minorities that wanted dumb things because of their religions, and the medias jumped on it, making the national climate a bit insane. They were really just minorities, and all the muslims I know (quite a lot, lovely people) suffered of this as they found the people who wanted those things were lunatics.

I think we just need to be clearer legally about religious rights and everything's going to be all right,I guess. And I certainly do not want Pr. Dawkins to come in here NOW starting a polemic, since we've had one that has been hard for cultural relationships.

Other Comments by benji
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: