Trudeau denounces Quebec's proposed religious symbols ban

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ghislaine
Trudeau denounces Quebec's proposed religious symbols ban

I thought there already was a thread discussing this in Quebec, but I was unable to find it. 

From [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/22/pol-cp-trudeau-religious-symbols-quebec.html ]

 

Quote:

 

Justin Trudeau became the first prominent federal politician to oppose Quebec's controversial plan to ban religious headwear for public employees.

The Liberal leader castigated the idea and said the Parti Québécois government would damage Quebec's reputation if it proceeded with such a policy.

 

A media report this week published leaked details of the controversial PQ proposal — saying it would prohibit people like doctors, teachers and public-daycare workers from donning turbans, kippas, hijabs and visible crucifixes.

After his meeting with Marois, Trudeau said they agreed to disagree. The Liberal leader said the plan was motivated by a defensive "fear of the other" and unworthy of modern Quebec.

"Like we saw with the (recent) soccer turban ban, people laughed at Quebecers," said Trudeau, a Quebec MP.

"And I don't think it's who we are and I don't think it honours us to have a government that does not represent our generosity and openness of spirit as a people."

The Prime Minister's Office, for its part, said: "It's a debate that will occur at the provincial level," while Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney tweeted late Wednesday that "freedom of religion is a universal principle."

The previous day NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, whose party has nearly five-dozen seats in Quebec, sidestepped the issue by calling the leaked report a "trial balloon."

 

Obviously, this is an offensive idea and will greatly affect the lives of some public workers  if it is implemented. How would they even enforce it?? If a daycare worker is wearing a hijab, are you they going to fire her or fine her, etc.??

I am also wondering how Trudeau's statements play in Quebec? Will it help him or hurt him - and/or affect whether this ever gets passed? Similarly, why would Mulcair refuse to comment? 

lagatta

Probably because Mulcair does not want to get drawn into this trial balloon.

It is a minefield - and yes, I am opposed to these specific provisions suggested (this is not even at the level of "proposition) for the Secularism charter. However, I am in favour of secularism and in particular, for the abolition of funding of confessional schools that teach the inferiority of women and lgbt people. And for removing the crucifix - put there by Duplessis, it doesn't date back to the founding of the National Assembly - from the legislative chamber. The National Assembly has a museum, that is where the crucifix belongs, as part of the institution's heritage, but counter to secularism and equality of all MNAs of any faith or of none.

And there is a hell of a lot of bigoted Québec-bashing going on here. Countless comments from the ROC portraying us as a bunch of backward priest-ridden hicks, when the very reason people here are so strong about secularism was the epic battle against a very authoritarian and backward church.

Québec solidaire also opposes provisions about dress, and has been criticised for this as "pandering" to Muslims, Sikhs and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Amir gets the "Muslim" thing as he is Iranian, but his whole family is as secular as they come.

janfromthebruce

This is about policing bodies rather than getting to the heart of secularism. And this is a provincial matter and a trial balloon. Until the actual proposed legislation comes out, it is just a trial balloon. Also it can be amended with keeping in mind Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. It is the highest authority in the land.

Ghislaine

Everyone keeps using the phrase "trial balloon" - why send out such a racist trial balloon at all? 

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Everyone keeps using the phrase "trial balloon" - why send out such a racist trial balloon at all? 

It's not racist, Ghislaine. It's xenophobic.

 

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

Everyone keeps using the phrase "trial balloon" - why send out such a racist trial balloon at all? 

It's not racist, Ghislaine. It's xenophobic.

 

Sorry, ok xenophobic. Why would the PQ even float this nonsense though, seriously? You would think just the suggestions of doctors leaving the province would put an immediate stop to such idiocy.

Unionist

When you're otherwise indistinguishable from the Liberals, you need to find a wedge. That's why Mario Dumont floated the reasonable accommodation frenzy in 2007. It worked for a moment. The PQ is setting themselves up for the next election, rather desperately, and needs to test the waters.

CanadaOrangeCat

The cynical opportunism of Tom Mulcair makes him a delightful choice for NDP leader.

lagatta

I'm no Mulcair fan, but I see no opportunism here whatsoever. He is under no obligation to weigh in on a purely hypothetical "issue", on a provincial level.

Here is a Québec solidaire opinion on the issue, by Françoise David: http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/charte-des-valeurs-quebecoises-le-parti-q...

Tommy_Paine

The whole idea that this is "secular" is a whopping pile of stinky dog poo.  Asking Christians to tuck their crosses and crucifixes into their shirts and blouses is not even close to the same thing as the impact of this law on others.

And, speaking of public places, there's no place more public than a street.  What about all those streets named after Saints?

Secular my ass.  This is an attempt by the P.Q. government to establish Christianity as the state religion.

 

Unionist

I share your indignation, Tommy, but not your silly conclusion.

lagatta

The PQ is hardly a haunt of communion-wafer suckers. Yes, there are some traditionalist, "identitaire" Québécois in its ranks, but it comes out of the more progressive elements of the Quiet Revolution, and there is a good reason abortion and lgbt rights got a good start here. Québec has the lowest rate of church attendance in North America, the lowest rate of marriage, and (hard to quantify) the highest rate of children born to unmarried but stable couples.

This has nothing to do with wanting to promote Catholicism ("Christianity" is not a factor, the bad old Church is). It has to do with wanting to get elected by hook or by crook, or rather by adopting the discourse of the left (the student and labour movements, Québec solidaire) or the right (the CAQ). In the last election they tailed the student movement, were the sworn enemies of Harper's war on the environment, stole many planks from Québec solidaire's program.

The failure and cynicism of the PQ aligns more closely with that of New Labour and other outgrowths of social democracy.

No, "secularism" does not mean re-naming every street or pulling down statues with a religious connotation if they are not in schools or public buildings. There are certainly streets to be renamed here, but I'd start with Amherst (genocidaire of Native people) or Lionel-Groulx (anti-semitic tendencies and we can rename that métro station for Léa Roback!). Nobody even thinks of saints' names of streets, and I doubt secular Tunisia or Turkey (which had other democratic deficits, but...) renamed every name with a Muslim connotation.

Unionist

Thanks for being patient and explaining things, lagatta. I lose it sometimes with those who will not or cannot figure out what the hell Québec is.

I note that the PQ government got the constitution amended to throw the priests and nuns and their ideology out of the public school system. Ontario hasn't figured out how to do that yet. Lecture us on secularism when you do.

 

Tommy_Paine

The end result is that the government has chosen to attack all religions except Christianity.  It's a backhanded way to establish Christianity as a state religion.

lagatta

I've repeated that on countless fora, perhaps because I played a small part in that, and a nominally Muslim but secular friend, Afifa Maaninou, played a much larger one as a MEMO candidate in Côte-des-Neiges. http://www.memo.qc.ca/commissaires/elu-e-s/amaaninou/ Afifa always had practical solutions to so-called "integration problems" - many kids from backgrounds that demanded "modesty" were uncomfortable with the mandatory gym shorts - she proposed and got accepted the choice to wear trackpants instead. And a lot of shy "non-religious" kids did so as well. More importantly, she got a new school built in a district overflowing with kids!

It is so bizarre, because the more respectable religious people always supported the Liberals, and their uneducated rural brethren, the Créditistes and L'Union nationale. The PQ were seen as godless fornicators.

I can't understand why even some contributors to rabble were defending separate Catholic schools. Yes, there is a sorry history of Orangeist discrimination and persecution (marches) against French, Irish and later waves of Catholics, and I had family members in Eastern Ontario who endured that. Still, I think eliminating confessional "public" schools and funding to private schools is the way to go.

6079_Smith_W

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 It's a backhanded way to establish Christianity as a state religion.

I don't get that. I mean I'm not there, and I imagine it plays well to some religious people, but really I assume it is a big cultural blind spot. Same as their flag.

Thing is (as we have argued here before) I think the trappings they are trying to ban are in many ways just as much cultural as they are religious. The notion that it is going to stop any kind of zealotry is absurd.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 It's a backhanded way to establish Christianity as a state religion.

I don't get that.

There's nothing there to get. It's just ignorance about Québec. Too bad, really, but not uncommon.

 

lagatta

What do you mean by "their flag"?

Personally, I suport adoption of the secular tricolore of the Patriotes, but at the same time, the average person doesn't think of the original meaning of the Québec flag.

6079_Smith_W

I mean the Quebec flag. I don't mean any slight, but it's not mine.

And regarding your last point - exactly. Most people don't think twice about the religious and royal symbolism.

Thing isgiven that fact, it is a bit contradictory to lay all that symbolic meaning on people who in many cases cover their hair or wear certain things not as a sign of blind fervor, but because that is the culture in which they grew up, and that is how they feel comfortable.

That's why I say I see it as a blind spot.

Unionist

So, further to my comment #6 above, the (Québec) Liberals are positioning themselves to try to avoid the wedge:

[url=http://journalmetro.com/actualites/national/362554/charte-des-valeurs-co... of Values: Couillard will be "constructive"[/url]

He says that some months ago, the party set up a committee of MNAs, experts, and members to fine-tune their position on secularism - report coming soon.

Of course, he adds that the economy and jobs remain the chief preoccupation of Quebecers. I believe he's referring to his own.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm curious to see what this Charter of 'values' means,apart from secularism.

Will it touch on issues such as poverty and other social issues or will it be an exclusively nationalistic rag.

Alberta Observer

My take on this issue is that it will become increasinly significant that  Justin Trudeau, not Thomas Mulcair, became the first national leader to denounce the PQ "secularism" idea. The non-francophones know that the P.Q idea is an appeal to the old style intolerant pure-laine concepts. They are painfully aware that they are outside that tight circle.

The non-francophones just got a big reassurance that the Liberals still  "get it" on some of their deepest concerns, while the NDP/NPD appears to hold back while debating how a stand might play in francophone Quebec.

The comments on this page and others about the reasons why Mulclair is holding back will appear to many to be hairsplitting and semantics. On core values issues such as this one, the views are black and white and not shades of grey.

As a tangential aside, I was very pleased to see that Julius Grey "gets it" and has the courage to speak out about it.

If a francophone party appears less threatening on this basic issue, it is the Quebec Solidaire not NPD, BQ, P.Q etc.

Interesting that QS is the socially conscious party in Quebec that "gets it".

Also, I find it really incredible that Harper is remaining silent on this, but maybe the gamble/guess is that the so-called secularism initiative plays reasonably well in the Quebec City area where the CPC still has some levels of support.  

P.S. I find Marois coments today about the secularism proposals being a means to "unite' Quebecers, not to divide them,  to be cynical polticial B.S. and another indication of how narrowly she actually defines the term "Quebeckers".

 

Unionist

Further on the "wedge". A Léger poll showed 57% support for the PQ proposal (which hasn't been made public yet!!!!!). And the opportunist CAQ hacks have learned that a majority of their supporters support the (unknown) PQ proposal too!! So, CAQ has carved out its own angle. This is ostensibly bad, but actually good news for Marois, because it means that a little "hard bargaining" should produce a compromise that will pass:

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/Fran%C3%A7ois+Legault+calls+Charter+Quebe...’s François Legault calls PQ’s Charter of Quebec Values ‘too radical’[/url]

Quote:

Legault proposed a “reasonable, balanced approach” to accommodating religious differences in the province that would limit the ban to people in positions of authority, such as judges, police officers, prison guards, public school principals and teachers.

Note too that CAQ strongly supports keeping the crucifix in the Assemblée Nationale, because apparently Jesus died on the cross so that Québec could be forgiven for something or other, not sure I got it straight.

 

janfromthebruce

Unionist, you wrote this snip:

supporters support the (unknown) PQ proposal too

Exactly why Mulcair is not weighing in on provincial area in which he saw a "trial balloon" or better known as rumour and unsubstantiated position on something - unknown.

It's unknown and so why speak to something that one may have to eat words after the "known" proposal is available to all.

 

Unionist

I totally agree, jan, as did lagatta upthread. There is no reason for Mulcair to comment, certainly at this stage.

However, he did make a comment today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/26/pol-mulcair-baird-quebe...

lagatta

Mulcair commented after Louise Harel (long a PQ MNA and cabinet minister, of the PQ's erstwhile "left wing"). Harel is against the clothing nonsense as well. She commented that her husband, who had had a minor stroke, was attended to by a doctor who was wearing a hijab. It should also be added that while her spouse is not Muslim, he is a Palestinian, and had worked long with other Palestinians, Muslim, Christian or secular (as well as non-Palestinians of whatever confession or none) at Medical Aid for Palestine.

Louise Harel and Edmond Omran on a cooking show: http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/des_kiwis_et_des_hommes/2012/docume...

This is significant as some view Harel as a "hard-liner".

She actually arrived at pretty much the same viewpoint as Québec solidaire.

janfromthebruce

In other news today, former Liberal Senator Harb resigns, pays back the $231k he was trying to stiff the public purse with his fake expense accounts and also drops his legal action against the Senate.

It probably be fair to ask him if he paid that money or he got it from elsewhere - just to fair.

 

Going back to June 9th we all recall how Trudeau thought Harb's expense problem was just "an honest mistake or a misunderstanding of the rules."

Trudeau spoke way too soon considering that Harb, by his actions today, knows he got caught red handed in the Canadian taxpayer's cookiejar.

Will cross post to senate and abolish.

Alberta Observer

Mulcair stumbled on this issue and is now trying to catch up.

Principles are principles.

The trial balloon comment was just a convenient excuse to try and delay taking a stand.

Mulclair looks more like a partisan game player than a man of principle on this one.

I for one don't care for this.

I thought the NDP was about standing firm for principles, not looking for short term political dodges on matters of civil rights and human dignity.  

lagatta

Remember that the above includes the fight against national oppression, so it is rather more complex than what you portray. You don't understand how so many peoples feel about having the anglo steamroller shoved down their throat.

And no, I don't agree with dress codes either. But I sure as hell agree with secularism.

Alberta Observer

Lagatta, many people also have hard feelings about having another  steamroller shoved down their throats, in the name of righting past sins which they had nothing to do with.

There is a very dark side to the way the pure laine concepts are often expressed.

Also, you cannot claim sovereignty rights for a geographical entity if you only define "real citizens" as only a portion of the population, even if that portion is a majority or plurality.

True secularism does not involve more exclusions and creating new divisions.

It is broadening the concepts of inclusivness and tolerance.

6079_Smith_W

And out here we call it the eastern steamroller.

I do think it is a mistake to use this as a challenge - even philosophically -  of Quebec's sovereignty. Obviously they can do whatever they want.

It may not be quite the same history, but I think people from this part of Canada also don't appreciate being told what is best for us. Lagatta is right on that point, and I'd advise considering that before going down that road.

And I say that even though I have no problem saying I think this dress code is a wrong-headed course, regardless of how many people there support it.

 

Alberta Observer

My challenge is to the concept of mixing geography and ethnicity.

They are two very different concepts.

i also think it is counter to the trends, at least in most of the Western world, towards greater diversity and tolerance.

Look at the wonderful and rapid shift in attitudes to gay, lesbian and transgender rights.

We discovered the world did not fall apart because gay marriage got recognized.

Remember, I come from Darkest Alberta, where we have a deep rooted tradtiion of feeling dscriminated against and being angry at and resentful of everybody. :)

lagatta

I do hope that people read that I'm against the dress code, and many other aspects of the PQ proposal. And it must certainly be even-handed, and eliminate the crucifix in the National Assembly, and prayer at any town council meeting (this occurs in Saguenay).

6079_Smith_W

Alberta Observer wrote:

My challenge is to the concept of mixing geography and ethnicity.

Well deepest, darkest Alberta (okay... Redmonton) was where Canada's first mosque was built, but do you think we don't do that here? I know many people on the west side of Saskatoon would probably have something to say about that.

Quebec runs its own house, just as you do, and just as we do, only they are much more distinct - a nation. The difference is they are very much under the microscope for every thing they do when it comes to the rest of Canada. Kind of like some of the treatment we get for cultural and political differences out here, but way more longstanding. And if you want to talk about mixing geography and ethnicity, well, you don't have to look any further than the way they get it from the rest of the country.

And yes, I think this is not just a terrible proposal, I think it is utterly useless, will do nothing to build the separation of religion and state, and is bound to fuck up in a major way.

Never mind that big European blind spot. Are they going to tell someone to cut his braids off if he wants to work in public? I don't think so.

 

arielc

lagatta wrote:

I do hope that people read that I'm against the dress code, and many other aspects of the PQ proposal. And it must certainly be even-handed, and eliminate the crucifix in the National Assembly, and prayer at any town council meeting (this occurs in Saguenay).

They should get rid of that angway.

But what about this attack on women's fashion?

What about bad hair days when you might need to wrap  a scarf around your head? Do we lose fashion freedom just because some wear a headscarf for religious reasons? Is it really 'religious' or is it just cultural fashion? Who determines  what's religious, cultural or fashion wearing of the same headscarf? Are kilts religious? Shamrocks? Who decides?

The Supreme Court is going to become a fashion adjudicator. :lol:

Yup ... people are going to laugh at Quebec for this one.

What about goths?

kropotkin1951

In an earlier thread people from Quebec were asked where to go in Montreal and then we had a long thread discussing the merits of various bagel shops and Jewish deli's.  So for people of the Jewish faith the message sure seems to be lox and bagels are part of Quebec's cultural heritage but keep your nasty religion and its symbols out of Quebec.

Lagatta you are talking aout religion and language as if they are the same thing. What you fail to see is that outside of Quebec the language issue is not something that drives political discourse.  The Sikh turban debate in BC was divisive and nasty for a while until we reached a consensus and moved on.  No one thought it had anything to do with language.

lagatta

Also, please keep in mind that at its strongest, the ban on religious dress would only apply to public servants. The more restrictive idea would limit it to public servants in a position of exercising power (judges, police). I am not saying that in support of any code, just warding off ideas that people will not be allowed to wear such and such a garment in the streets or in public.

People who work in offices do not usually have carte blanche about what they wear. Not all offices allow tank-tops or shorts.

arielc

And ... OMG!!! ... What about the PASTAFARIANS!?! [url=http://news.yahoo.com/pastafarian-student-allowed-wear-pasta-strainer-he... Pastafarian student allowed to wear pasta strainer on head for driver’s license photo [/url]

:lol:

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So for people of the Jewish faith the message sure seems to be lox and bagels are part of Quebec's cultural heritage but keep your nasty religion and its symbols out of Quebec.

Yeah, I'm packing my kippah and tallis and t'fillin and moving to Brooklyn. Not waiting for the camps to open, that's for sure.

 

lagatta

Lox and bagels are secular symbols (of Ashkenazi Jews, of course, and more particularly in North-Eastern North America, I believe?) I'm sure we can come up with others.

You have pinpointed one of the annoying things about Trudeau's and some of the other multi-culti types about this issue. They are stereotyping and pigeonholing people based on their religious background. I'd just as soon be flogged as wear a frigging crucifix, and most of my Jewish and Muslim friends feel the same about "conspicuous symbols". I confess I don't happen to have any Sikh friends.

DaveW

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So for people of the Jewish faith the message sure seems to be lox and bagels are part of Quebec's cultural heritage but keep your nasty religion and its symbols out of Quebec.

Yeah, I'm packing my kippah and tallis and t'fillin and moving to Brooklyn. Not waiting for the camps to open, that's for sure.

 

Kropotkin: as Lagatta has repeatedly and patiently stated: ... neutrality in the public sector, nothing to do with work/life/religion elsewhere

you are using the sort of sloppy generalizations that the French rightly call an "amalgame"

 

6079_Smith_W

I don't think there is any skirting around this conflict. Pointing out those for whom this is not important only further isolates those for whom it is part of their identity, and comparing covering one's head with breaches of dress codes like slovenliness or immodest attire - well, that is the height of irony.

And again, I recognise that we agree on much of this.

I also know people have left colonies, but still wear the clothes, or a facsimile thereof.

I guess my question is what the motive is here. Giving the benefit of the doubt that it is not just out and out discrimination and wanting to erase others' culture, what is it? Is it nanny state interference, in the hopes that people will abandon their so-called superstitions?

Or is it the fear that people wearing their beliefs in government positions is going to influence how they do their jobs. Frankly, I am more concerned about the religious and other dogmatic attitudes that some people carry around inside their heads, than the things they wear on them.

And when you get right down to it, the the most threatening and oppressive of those attitudes are those coming from the dominant culture.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

@ DaveW

Sure, but let's not pretend that it is anything but putting up a wall to some people, and saying "You can't work here", because some people are not going to knuckle under.

If that's the course the Quebec government feels they have to take, fine. But I think it is worth taking a hard look at the real problem, and the effectiveness of the measures, given what we can expect some of the results will be.

 

DaveW

look, I am not in favour; but the measures affect the PUBLIC SECTOR, not society generally

as a strong feature in La Presse said today [to be posted], this is creating  a crisis out of very little, and very self-interested by the slumping PQ, as many in Quebec felt the Bouchard-Taylor commission had remained dead letter

... a Journal de Montréal poll yesterday showed stupendous apporval for measures such as: no male/female separation at public swimming pools (91 per cent approval), and for no religious denotation of State authority figures, esp. police;

this all resonates with a certain voting public

 

La Presse, Yves Boisvert:

http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/yves-boisvert/201308/27/01-4683490-dieu-fais-moi-une-crise.php

 

pookie

I find the attempt to distinguish public from private unpersuasive in this context.  It is also a wee bit ironic, since usually the public/private divide is used to limit rights guarantees TO the public sphere.  

Unionist

pookie wrote:

I find the attempt to distinguish public from private unpersuasive in this context.  It is also a wee bit ironic, since usually the public/private divide is used to limit rights guarantees TO the public sphere.  

Not entirely. It is lawful to cover one's face while walking down the street or in the privacy of one's home. But in those spaces which are normally protected by the constitution (the voting booth; courtrooms), that right may be curtailed, as we have seen.

Though I reject the proposed bans entirely, it is important to see the logic behind them for what it is. It's not "public" vs. "private". It's an attempt (poor one) to dissociate the state and its agents entirely from any conspicuous display of religion.

 

Geoff

Would nuns still be able to wear headscarves if they taught in publicly-funded schools?  (If they don't wear them anymore, my apologies.  I still watch "The Bells of St. Mary" every year.)

kropotkin1951

The reason I don't like any of these kinds of restrictions is that they discriminate on the basis of religion. It is even worse if you say it is only the state that will discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. The state should be the last body to discriminate on any basis.  It is nanny state legislation. Telling a Jewish person or a Sikh or any other minority religion adherent that they may not work for the government unless they leave behind their religious symbols is telling them they are not full citizens but rather the "other."

Unionist

Geoff wrote:

Would nuns still be able to wear headscarves if they taught in publicly-funded schools?  (If they don't wear them anymore, my apologies.  I still watch "The Bells of St. Mary" every year.)

We dumped the nuns and priests many years ago in public schools.

However, all private schools still get 60 percent funding. That's another challenge. Québec solidaire is demanding that it be stopped.

DaveW

pookie wrote:

I find the attempt to distinguish public from private unpersuasive in this context.  It is also a wee bit ironic, since usually the public/private divide is used to limit rights guarantees TO the public sphere.  

that is very Anglo; in the French tradition, the public sector /State is a neutral agent before which all citizens  must be strictly equal

hence, for example, the French ban on collecting any  ethnic information in the national census: that would divide citizens according to background when they are strictly equal citizens in the Republic ... neutral, secular equality the watchwords

pookie

DaveW wrote:

pookie wrote:

I find the attempt to distinguish public from private unpersuasive in this context.  It is also a wee bit ironic, since usually the public/private divide is used to limit rights guarantees TO the public sphere.  

that is very Anglo; in the French tradition, the public sector /State is a neutral agent before which all citizens  must be strictly equal

hence, for example, the French ban on collecting any  ethnic information in the national census: that would divide citizens according to background when they are strictly equal citizens in the Republic ... neutral, secular equality the watchwords

Your argument (a) conflates people employed by the state, with the state itself; (b) equates a lack of religious dress with "neutrality" and (c) appears to link one's personal religious affiliation with others' right to be regarded as equal citizens.

Also, does Quebec not get its own tradition - or is it to be contiunally yoked with France? 

 

 

Pages