NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Freedom of Association

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

[SUBMITTED] Freedom of Association

Postby Boston Castle » Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:19 am

This starter bit was relevant when I started writing this. Now it is not. Do with that knowledge what you will.

Image

Freedom of Association

Category: Civil Rights| Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the many foundational freedoms previously guaranteed by this Assembly such as freedom of the press and freedom of assembly,

Recognizing that while these fundamental freedoms are guaranteed that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of affiliation that is not,

Believing that no nation should enact criminal penalties for affiliating with an organisation not involved in the commission of a crime, hereby enacts the following subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation:

  1. Governments must allow citizens to associate with any organisation of their choosing.
    1. Freedom of association with an organisation is subject to the organisation in question allowing such association.
    2. An organisation may have criminal penalties attached for association with it on the basis that it actively undermines national security, directs its members to violate national criminal law, includes the commission of crimes among its goals or activities, or spreads, or intends to spread, a message of hate directed toward a specific group.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:15 am, edited 54 times in total.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7979
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:32 am

The one-item list in Article 5 may be understandable; the one-item list in Article 1 is not ;p
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10287
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:31 pm

Your sentences don't operate in parallel construction.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:00 pm

OOC: Bump, I guess. Whole thing has basically been re-worded. Turns out I only occasionally have an excellent command of the English language. :p
Last edited by Boston Castle on Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7979
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:09 pm

My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:20 pm

Tinhampton wrote:My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)
Last edited by Boston Castle on Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10973
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:58 am

Your wording in article 3 could use some work. 'Has' spread a message of hate is very open ended. If a member nation has a political party that's been operating since 1920, it is quite likely that messages once expressed by that party in the normal course of politicking at that point in history, would be considered hateful towards some groups now. This would allow member states to ban them on this ground.
GVH has a puppet. He uses it to post in regions and on the forums. The identity of this puppet will forever remain a mystery.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:32 am

Boston Castle wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:My problem with your one-item list has not been sorted. Nor has IA's problem about your sentences ("The World Assembly hereby citizens of member nations may affiliate with any organization of their choosing?" wut?)

Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

OOC: I think you want:

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.


And keep the rest as is.

I think this is a good idea and I'm happy to see a draft on this topic. I would note that Right to Assemble protects "planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" - so the protections granted there, as well as the exceptions reserving to member states the ability to implement certain restrictions, might apply to the purview of this draft, too. I'm not sure if that causes any problems as currently written, I only had a chance to give this a brief look for now.
Last edited by Maowi on Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:30 am

Maowi wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:Yikes, noted on the latter point. Can combine 1(a) and 1.

OOC: I may be missing something, but it has been(?)

OOC: I think you want:

Further recognizing that while these rights are important in and of themselves that there is a third pillar of fundamental freedoms in freedom of thought and affiliation, hereby enacts the following:

1. “Organization” is defined as any labour union, political party, or other organized civil society or economic group.


And keep the rest as is.

I think this is a good idea and I'm happy to see a draft on this topic. I would note that Right to Assemble protects "planning, assisting, or participating in non-violent assembly or association for the purpose of articulating or advocating any belief or ambition" - so the protections granted there, as well as the exceptions reserving to member states the ability to implement certain restrictions, might apply to the purview of this draft, too. I'm not sure if that causes any problems as currently written, I only had a chance to give this a brief look for now.

"If worst comes to worst, Ambassador, I will seek a ruling on that. All it might require is changing the wording of this resolution to avoid the house of cards ruling from GenSec. And as for your concern, it shouldn't."

OOC: Literally just copy-pasted that wording, so I credit you as co-author. If you don't want it, just let me know.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:41 am

Boston Castle wrote:"If worst comes to worst, Ambassador, I will seek a ruling on that. All it might require is changing the wording of this resolution to avoid the house of cards ruling from GenSec. And as for your concern, it shouldn't."

OOC: Literally just copy-pasted that wording, so I credit you as co-author. If you don't want it, just let me know.

OOC: Co-author credit is not necessary, I just gave you a minor reformatting rather than anything of substance :>

FTR I think the solution of making these measures "subject to prior, extant World Assembly legislation" works and fixes any potential problem that may have otherwise arisen in terms of contradiction.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Mancheseva City
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Oct 05, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Mancheseva City » Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:48 am

Member nations may not disallow all organizations save for one, however, member nations may encourage the creation of a united front coalition of organizations.


I'm just not sure what you mean or intend to achieve with this clause.

Otherwise, I don't think it duplicates Right to Assemble. Maybe other resolutions? Don't think so either though. Looks like something I could support
Seva
Minister of World Assembly Affairs of Europeia
Former Minister of World Assembly Affairs of Europeia
OOC unless otherwise indicated
My nation isn't furnished, roleplay is not really my thing honestly. Only thing is, it's based on Manchester City and is a city-state.
Ambassador: Glarnutokrodduglost Setak

User avatar
Rhino-Lions
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Jan 19, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Rhino-Lions » Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:05 am

I think you're on the right track here, though as previously mentioned, some clarity would go a long way in helping persuade my nation to support this bill. But again, I like the concept but the lack of clarity and the ambiguity of some of the statements leave me on the fence for support.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:42 am

Rhino-Lions wrote:I think you're on the right track here, though as previously mentioned, some clarity would go a long way in helping persuade my nation to support this bill. But again, I like the concept but the lack of clarity and the ambiguity of some of the statements leave me on the fence for support.


Mancheseva City wrote:
Member nations may not disallow all organizations save for one, however, member nations may encourage the creation of a united front coalition of organizations.


I'm just not sure what you mean or intend to achieve with this clause.

Otherwise, I don't think it duplicates Right to Assemble. Maybe other resolutions? Don't think so either though. Looks like something I could support


[OOC: I'm quoting Seva even though we already discussed this on Discord.]

"Ambassador, the real reason behind that clause is to say that member states could not disallow all organizations save for one. Say a nation has one party and an opposition group. It could not ban the opposition group, but the moment they join a united front, all is well. It's to fit under the ideological ban rule."

OOC: One way to think about this, albeit a rather extreme example would be the two most prominent examples of this among communist governments in East Germany's National Front of the German Democratic Republic where multiple organizations were allowed albeit within one institutional framework. Where there were discernable memberships in the parties in East Germany, another more extreme "popular front" organization without (as far as we know) discernible memberships for anything besides the civil society organizations in North Korea's Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea. The idea of that clause is simply to say "you have to allow the illusion of choice, even if that choice doesn't really exist". It's a concession to dictatorships of all stripes.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:09 pm

[bump]
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Merni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1446
Founded: May 03, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Merni » Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:46 am

Why not change "national law" and "national criminal law" to "applicable law" and "criminal law" respectively, so as to include WA law and possibly-existing provincial/regional/whatever other laws apply?
COVID19 still exists! | Donate your free time
The Labyrinth | TGW Warden | GA Committee List

Admins: Please allow blocking WA TGs!
E -8.0 S -3.18
Wrote 532 GA
meth
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. — Ronald Reagan
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.' — Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. — Ardchoille
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [...] but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. — Samuel P. Huntington (even he said that!)

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:51 am

Merni wrote:Why not change "national law" and "national criminal law" to "applicable law" and "criminal law" respectively, so as to include WA law and possibly-existing provincial/regional/whatever other laws apply?

That's actually a fantastic idea. Will fix here in a few minutes.
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:59 am

_Would like_ to submit this on Friday. It will be on Hulldom if submitted then.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10287
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:24 pm

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. A few remarks.

Member nations may not ban, blacklist, or impose legal penalties for affiliation with any organization which has not spread a message of violence or hate towards a protected class or which intends to violate criminal law.

First, which classes are protected?

Second, let us go back into the history of the United Commonwealth's core. In 851 RE, T Caecilius Varro passed the lex Caecilia de pietate publica, which made it illegal for any person to adhere to Galileanism, required all citizens of the republic to offer sacrifice for its health, barred any Galilean from public service or attendance at schools accepting funds from the state (including tax exemptions), prohibited the building of any new Galilean shrines, imposed a 50 per cent tax on revenues at existing Galilean shrines, and required the Galilean population of Durovernum Cantiacorum to finance the reconstruction of the temples to Andraste, Quirinus, and Mithras (destroyed in a violent purge of non-Galileans when the Galileans were briefly in control of the town during an invasion by forces under the control of rebellious provinces). Imperial History (1st edn, 1920) ch 3.3 (OOC, the IA history sourcebook). Other laws followed, banning human sacrifice, actions glorifying human sacrifice, cannibalism, and actions celebrating cannibalism.

Let's assume resolutions like 'Freedom of Religion' do not exist and that this proposal exists in a vacuum, excluding GA 2. A few questions.

  1. Would a ban on membership of Galilean cults be permitted? Is this because it would be permitted under the provision allowing a ban on hateful organisations? Or would it instead be rescued by later laws banning the glorification of human sacrifice and cannibalism, which such organisations would inherently break, due to cannibalistic celebration of the Eucharist?

  2. Would such a law be permitted – justified by actions of Galileans in 850 RE – until 1851 RE, when the law was finally repealed by the comitia tributa? If various Galilean religious institutions building their lairs in provinces under rebellion attempted to declare religious wars against the Roman people, would such action be justified post hoc? If the laws banning the glorification of human sacrifice and cannibalism were not repealed, would such laws be permitted presently?



Member nations may interfere with the creation of an organization if the organization in question intends to violate or has violated applicable law or spreads or intends to spread a message of violence or hate towards a protected class.

This clause makes no sense. 'The creation of an organisation' implies an ongoing action. Because an organisation can only be 'created' when that ongoing creation action completes, that organisation – ie it – cannot intend to violate or have violated anything, making the conditions under which powers could be exercised unfulfillable.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:54 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:49 pm

Edits have been made to it re: IA's comments. Will wait for him to respond but expect to submit this in ~24 hours otherwise.
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:38 am

OOC: I don't think extant international law really creates any "protected classes" at all, re: clause 3. If this is to do with making sure minorities aren't targeted as I assume it is, then the anti-discrimination protections in place in the World Assembly put more emphasis on mandating equal treatment and rights for everyone, rather than pinpointing certain demographic groups as a "protected class" (e.g. as in the Charter of Civil Rights.) Why not just remove the reference to a "protected class" and leave it at spreading "a message of violence or hate" towards any person or group of people, or something like that?

I also think an issue with clause 3, where you're looking back at organisations spreading violence or hate in remote times in history as grounds for a ban, hasn't really been addressed. I think a possible fix here is changing "has not spread" to "does not spread".

I'm not sure I'm all that happy with how clause 4 works. I'm imagining it exists for the purpose of making sure member states can't target particular organisations, and have to be consistent with the enforcement of their laws on the issue, but it seems potentially counterproductive when it comes to dealing with dangerous extremist groups. I believe a clause that simply explicitly mandated that member states have a consistently enforced standard in regards to membership in organisations might work better.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 871
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Uan aa Boa » Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:34 am

Clause 3 contains firstly a double negative and then a missing negative. I think you mean to say something to the effect that nations may act against an organisation only if it spreads a message of hate or plans a crime, but you've actually said almost the opposite in the current draft.

Although I know what you mean, it also seems strange to phrase clause 3 as "nations may not set penalties" and then clause 4 as "nations may set penalties."

I'd be concerned that allowing an organisation to be banned on the basis of planning a crime against property could give governments a lot of scope for outlawing environmental and other protest groups involved in direct action. I'd also be concerned about clause 4 allowing nations to ban organisations that are merely accused of a crime with no requirement that the accusation stand up to scrutiny. A government could throw out some spurious allegations and ban the target group on the basis of that.

I don't think you should submit this, it's far from ready.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Envoy
 
Posts: 294
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Boston Castle » Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:14 pm

Uan aa Boa wrote:Clause 3 contains firstly a double negative and then a missing negative. I think you mean to say something to the effect that nations may act against an organisation only if it spreads a message of hate or plans a crime, but you've actually said almost the opposite in the current draft.

Although I know what you mean, it also seems strange to phrase clause 3 as "nations may not set penalties" and then clause 4 as "nations may set penalties."

I'd be concerned that allowing an organisation to be banned on the basis of planning a crime against property could give governments a lot of scope for outlawing environmental and other protest groups involved in direct action. I'd also be concerned about clause 4 allowing nations to ban organisations that are merely accused of a crime with no requirement that the accusation stand up to scrutiny. A government could throw out some spurious allegations and ban the target group on the basis of that.

I don't think you should submit this, it's far from ready.

I disagree with the last thing, but hopefully those things should be fixed. Nice catches on both.
WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
About Me-ish

Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Views expressed not necessarily those of TNP and her government unless stated othewise.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Thu Mar 11, 2021 12:53 pm

Member nations may not ban, blacklist, or impose legal penalties for affiliation with any organization that does not spread a message of violence or hate or that intends to undertake a crime against another person's life, property, or physical well-being.

OOC: What if the violence is aimed against state property?
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)
Deputy Minister of World Assembly Affairs, The North Pacific
Author of GAR 513

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare, Zionism.
Anti: Fascism, Sedevacantism, Socialism, Trump, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Hulldom
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 62
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hulldom » Thu Mar 11, 2021 3:06 pm

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:
Member nations may not ban, blacklist, or impose legal penalties for affiliation with any organization that does not spread a message of violence or hate or that intends to undertake a crime against another person's life, property, or physical well-being.

OOC: What if the violence is aimed against state property?

Good catch, will tweak that wording slightly.

Also, a general note: will delay submission on this until Sunday's major (so midnight Saturday if you prefer).
Card fiend. Second (but really first) nation of Boston Castle.
If I'm posting here, just assume I was too lazy to switch to BC.

Foreign Affairs Minister of Thaecia.
Views not those of Thaecia and her government. Though that should've been obvious.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 871
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Uan aa Boa » Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:24 am

Boston Castle wrote:Member nations may not ban, blacklist, or impose legal penalties for affiliation with any organization that does not spread a message of violence or hate or that intends to undertake a crime against another person's life or well-being or private or state-owned property.

I still think you need to pick your words carefully here. It's open to the interpretation that nations can't ban an organisation (a) that doesn't spread a message of hate or (b) that intends a crime. It would be clearer to put a "not" in both (a) and (b) or be more clear that the initial "not" applies to both clauses.

And seriously, what's the rush to submit? I don't mean this in an overly critical way but if in a short period you've been shown 3 things that make you say "good catch" you're not 24 hours from submission.
Last edited by Uan aa Boa on Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads