jump to navigation

Pride: Rainbow Colours… June 29, 2013

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Irish Politics, LGBT, Rights.
trackback

images

On foot of Tomboktu’s thoughts here earlier in the week, and given that it’s the weekend of Dublin Pride, here’s an useful piece on Slate.com on the roots of rainbow flags as a symbol of lgbt rights.

One element of the genesis of the symbol is the following, which is connected with this island!

Closeted gay people historically used bright colors to signal their homosexuality to each other. Oscar Wilde was famous for wearing a trademark green carnation on his lapel, and the flower is thought to have been used by him and other Londoners and Parisians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to quietly express their orientation.

That history has a darker manifestation, in the form of the pink triangles gay men were forced to wear in Nazi Germany in the camps, and clearly the flag is an effort to rework and refashion that. As the Slate piece notes it wasn’t until 1978 that the first eight stripe gay pride flag was designed by Gilbert Baker in San Francisco. And as the piece notes:

…each [stripe is] a different color with its own symbolism: pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight, green for nature, blue for art, indigo for harmony, and violet for the human spirit.

It’s interesting because a variant of that flag is also used as the peace symbol, albeit with a different development and starting point. Indeed the Slate piece mentions it in passing, almost as an artefact of the past…

Hippies sometimes used a rainbow flag when marching for peace in the 1960s and 1970s, which may have helped inspire Baker’s design.

Though that usage remains current and argably received a boost in the 2000s during the Iraq War.

On an appropriate tangent, I got an email yesterday from Irish Ferries about fares on the Oscar Wilde, their ferry which sails between Rosslare and France. I can’t help but think that Wilde might have been amused at his legacy being commemorated in that way (and given the dispute in 2004/5 appalled at that point given his leftist sympathies).

One wonders what he would have made of the progress made so far as characterised by Dublin Pride 2013, and the way yet to go.

Comments»

1. Eamonn Crudden - June 29, 2013

A prominent gay community activist is accusing swp and eirigi of having been involved in ‘attacking and stopping’ the Labour bus on the pride march today @buzzoneill Other activist accusing PBP of being involved in assaulting a marshall at the parade. Seems there was a crossover of #anglotapes protest and pride

Like

2. Eamonn Crudden - June 29, 2013
3. WorldbyStorm - June 29, 2013

Interesting, no mention on IT or RTÉ. Presumably then quite localised and short in duration?

Like

4. CMK - June 29, 2013

Was in town today. For the first time on a Saturday since the CAHWT march on 13 April. Not for the pride march but the less noble cause of seeing ‘Dispicable Me 2’ with the bairns. Interesting to see teenagers at Connolly station draping the Rainbow flag around them. To me it was symbolic of the fact that we’ve come a long way. The train up was packed with a lot going to Pride. Great flag and event.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 29, 2013

That’s good to hear CMK. Almost astoundingly good given what things were like.

This is off topic but can I ask what was Despicable Me like?

Like

CMK - June 29, 2013

‘Despicable Me 2’? Being honest, hard work. A bit too long, some good scenes but overall not as good as the first one, that’s not just my opinion but my six year old’s. Still, probably worth going to, all the same.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

Thanks a mill, I really liked DM1 but I’m not surprised. Still I suspect the creature who is five wont care.

Btw I’ve just spent the last two hours watching Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Oddly progressive in parts.

Like

5. EWI - June 29, 2013

It’s my understanding (via reading something by Aoife Fitzgibbon O’Riordan) that this year’s Pride is under considerable fire for pasteuring the event for the benefit of the sponsors, e.g. not allowing speeches after the march.

Like

EWI - June 29, 2013

Also, I heartedly agree that Labour, IMPACT and the rest of them shouldn’t be allowed uncontested PR.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 29, 2013

In almost every other context I’d tend to agree outright. Bit conflicted on this one, not sure about the optics.

Like

EWI - June 29, 2013

I think ther presence is another sign of the co-option of ‘Pride’ by the establishment, along with the other measures to sanitise it (quite a lot like the Paddy’s Day parade, which banned 1913-themed floats).

Like

doctorfive - June 29, 2013

Anglo protest was hardly set up to target politicians at Pride but probably unwise tbh. Legitimate targets and picking your moment innit.

Not hearing good things from reliable sources either but hopefully nothing some sort of apology (to the marchers rather then Labour) couldn’t fix. Regardless of co-option of the event it’s a much bigger picture then bank bailouts for a lot of people. And Rightly.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

+1

Like

Tomboktu - June 30, 2013

pasteuring the event for the benefit of the sponsors, e.g. not allowing speeches after the march

That partcular piece of pasteurising was for the benefit of the participants. The Pride Committee did a survey last year, and strong feedback was that there were too many speeches.

heartedly agree that Labour, IMPACT and the rest of them shouldn’t be allowed uncontested PR

There is a real dilemma in trying to achieve that constest in an appropriate way, if it indeed can be achieved. It is most obvious with the INTO, many of who lesbian or gay whose members face real risks being out at work. LGB people in other organisations don’t have that easily identifiable, formal legal and political struggle, but having an explicit statement by your organisation that they support your right to an aspect of your identity that is still disparaged and belittled by others is hugely important. I think that those of us who, with justification, oppose the broader actions of those organisations need to balance that with respect for that other political battle.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

I think that’s important to remember about a balance between different aims and objectives. No one is beyond criticism but there’s a place for it too and place where it looks just wrong. I’ve no love for the LP leadership but given the context of broad and pervasive oppression against lgbt people in the past and the issues which still remain in this and other societies, in the context of Pride I’d be very very wary of any expressions of antagonism at that event. There’s plenty of alternatives where the point can be made more clearly. No end of them.

Also, and this goes re the point about speeches, sometimes it’s not about becoming more mainstream, some times its because people just want to party and celebrate. A day/week of Pride is so political in and of itself I think that’s understandable.

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

That partcular piece of pasteurising was for the benefit of the participants. The Pride Committee did a survey last year, and strong feedback was that there were too many speeches.

“No speeches at all” isn’t the only alternative to “too many speeches”. Also, is there a reason people who don’t want to hear speeches can’t just leave when they’re on?

I think that those of us who, with justification, oppose the broader actions of those organisations need to balance that with respect for that other political battle.

I would agree with this. Pride is about the struggle for the rights of a disadvantaged group in Irish society. For people who are not members of that group to disrupt the march over unrelated political issues simply reinforces the marginalisation of that group and its issues of particular concern. If it was an SWP/Éirígí contingent of, say, trans* people protesting Labour’s ongoing failure to implement gender recognition legislation that would be one thing.

Like

Reality Check - June 30, 2013

“For people who are not members of that group to disrupt the march over unrelated political issues simply reinforces the marginalisation of that group and its issues of particular concern”

So when the SWP/Éirígí protested at seeing a Labour drone they were apparently marginalising the pride march and should instead have not reacted to the Labour drone and thought to themselves ach sure this is the pride march and the real world of economic issues has no bearing at all for these people. Your idea of avoiding marginalisation is to marginalise them into a safe kids gloves zone. Look they are part of society and you are mistaken to try to put them into a box. Well intentioned as that might be.

” If it was an SWP/Éirígí contingent of, say, trans* people protesting Labour’s ongoing failure to implement gender recognition legislation that would be one thing.”

This line here is the point where you should realise you have abandoned common sense. From your words your actual position on the SWP/Eirigi disruption is:

subject to the determination of the sexuality of the members of Eirigi/SWP who objected to Labour’s presence we must provisionally condemn it

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

Your idea of avoiding marginalisation is to marginalise them into a safe kids gloves zone

No, it’s to allow them decide for themselves what their own march is for. Rather than needing someone else to remind them what the “real issues” are.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

I don’t think that’s true RC about ‘marginalising into a safe zone’. That reifies what was apparently a protest about Anglo (as its primary purpose) into something absurdly self-important in respect of what was effectively an opportunistic ad hoc protest about the LP.

I think the optics of seeing some people who are likely to be majority heterosexual shouting at a group of lgbt people who happen to be LP is bad to very bad.

I get the political protest, I share the politics, but it just doesn’t look good in a society where lgbt people are shouted at and on occasion much much worse. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong group.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

+1 Wendy to your last comment.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

One other thought I’m not ‘condemning’ it but I am suggesting contextually it is unwise and better to not have happened.

Like

smiffy - June 30, 2013

Would the SWP have any objection if a future march of theirs (or in which they were taking part) against austerity, or the Anglo issue, was disrupted by a group protesting about the Comrade Delta shenanigans in Britain. As stated above, there’s a time and place.

I don’t think the presence of political parties necessarily represents a co-option of Pride by the establishment. Parties and other groups have been participating for years (I was there 20 years ago). And Pride itself is a complicated phenomenon, with many different strands running through it, some very close to the establishment and establishment politics, with others more removed from that.

What happened yesterday is a little like protests outside the homes of political representatives. It’s not that there’s a problem with protest itself, it’s just that the form of protest is short-sighted and counter-productive.

Like

Tomboktu - June 30, 2013

“No speeches at all” isn’t the only alternative to “too many speeches”. Also, is there a reason people who don’t want to hear speeches can’t just leave when they’re on?

I would agree. I haven’t been following all of the details, and have looked at and spoken to only a hnadful of sources, so I don’t have a full picture. (Translation: If I were a journalist, I wouldn’t be prepsred to submit a story based on the limited information that I do have!)

It seems to me that there were two problems with the speeches decision. One was that it was made based on one concept of the community — those who responded to last year’s survey. The community includes those who work — as volunteers and paid professionals — in the organisations — political, social, statutory and combined — that make the lgbti community possible, the TENIs, BeLonG Tos, GLENs, GMH Clinics, Out and Abouts (‘Outs and Abouts‘?), Front Runners, etc.

The second seems to be that the communication of it was not handled well. The row broke out in the last week, but I am told Pride wrote tot he organisations three months ago. Such a big change takes more than a letter. (I don’t know what letters Pride got in reply, or when and what it did in response.)

A further challenge Dublin Pride faced is that it has becoome so big that the official organs of the state are making demands of it. When I first went in 1991 or thereabouts, the only issue was Garda traffic control from the Garden of Remembrance to the Central Bank plaza (before the bank put up a fence and prevented the steps forming a stage for speeches and performers).

Now, the City Council is involved, closing streets for the day on Merrion Square, requiring professional security services in addition to the volunteer stewards. Add “voluntary costs” like putting a fun fair at Merrion Street for fimilies with children, and you have significant costs, but shaking buckets along the route is not going to raise enough money to cover them. (Instead, the make an arrangement with the Council to set aside an are of the street at Merrion Square for food and drink franchises, who charge over €7 for a piece of southern fried chicken.)

Like

EWI - June 30, 2013

If it was an SWP/Éirígí contingent of, say, trans* people protesting Labour’s ongoing failure to implement gender recognition legislation that would be one thing.

I feel the need to point out that Quinn, Costello and Burton (the three Labour Party bigwigs in place of honour on the bus that was blocked) weren’t members of the LGBT community, so far as I’d last heard.

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

Eh… so? If you think that’s relevant to the point I was making then I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood the point.

Like

Reality Check - June 30, 2013

EWI,

but potentially the persons shouting at them may have been so we have to hold off judgement.

to all,

is there not a point where lgbt campaigns become so main stream that this attempt to keep them insulated from the wider context is a mistake. As Tombuktu says the march has turned into a big event, requiring gardai resources, shutting down streets and even having food areas and family areas. Clearly its building into a main stream event and while there is a lot and surely an awful lot of work to be done its making progress. Don’t then be surprised that the real world enters into it and parties like SWP and Eirigi who both have positive lgbt perspectives wade in.

In Ireland in 2013 if you have a large parade that needs Gardaí stewarding, shuts entire streets, has a family fun fair, and ends up being on the news then don’t be surprised if something like this happens. It means that LGBT marches are part of society and accepted as such. There is a lot of talk about optics and thats fair but it seems to be crossing over into walking on egg shell territory and the fact is that you cant build it into a very large parade without multiple issues sometimes coming to the fore.

@Smiffy, well the SWP had a hard time even hearing their own lot speaking about Comrade Delta so they would have a fit if others did. But if the SWP were to have a workers rights rally then don’t be surprised if someone did shut something out. If the SWP were to then piously complain this was about workers rights not about comrade delta it would lack force.

Like

WorldbyStorm - June 30, 2013

@EWI Problem is one could equally accuse PBPA/SWP of ‘hijacking’ the event simply by being there. If Pride felt it was okay to invite LP LGBT then that’s their decision (perhaps on foot of the actually good support the LP has done in this area over the years), unless one argues that somehow there’s a no platform policy being extended to the LP?

I didn’t realise Costello and crew were there until you said it. Again, the optics are dismal. If I had seen the incident first hand I imagine I’d have wondered who was protesting against an LGBT bus at the Pride event – from a passing pedestrian it would probably look like some sort of homophobic stunt. In light of that I’d bet lots of people woudn’t have gone too close in order to suss out what it was about which means it would be massively open to misinterpretation. Which points up the sheer uselessness of it as a political expression. What’s the point? There is no point. As can be seen on this thread few enough are impressed by it. And we’re all on the left and no fans of the current LP or its leadership. To put it at its mildest.

@RealityCheck… I think many many lgbt people are well aware of the real world, perhaps more so even than you or I. Just not the time or place for this. And I’d suspect that many people would dismiss the LP being there anyway without the need for not so helpful underlining of the fact by the SWP and éirígí or having to make a big song and dance of it. I know I would.

Like

CJR - June 30, 2013

For the SWP defenders here – the question still hasn’t been answered: would you object to a different group crashing your participation in a seperate protest over the Comrade Delta shenanigans?

Like

Tomboktu - June 30, 2013

Ironically, there was a People Before Profit presence in the Prode Parade, with activists distributing posters “LGBT Rights Matter”.

Like

EWI - June 30, 2013

@ Tombuktu

I’m not sure how that’s “ironic”.

@ CJR

I’m not an SWP defender, and never have been. I don’t see a problem with getting in the face of the Labour Party establishment though (caveat: I’ve only know what’s been reported here so far. Can someone who actually saw the incident please give a fuller account?)

@ Wendy Lyon

You’ve no problem with events being hijacked by Labour for party political purposes?

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

I’ve no problem with anyone, be it Labour or the SWP or whoever, taking part in an event organised by a particular community in a way that expresses solidarity with that community and the aims of its event. Nor – as far as I know – do the majority of members of the community in question have a problem with it, and their opinion is the one that matters. Over the years I’ve heard more criticisms from Dublin LGBTI folks about certain parties not having a visible presence at Pride.

That’s a completely different matter to a political party hijacking a community’s event in order to promote a different cause entirely. And I can’t really believe I need to say that.

Like

Reality Check - June 30, 2013

Wendy,

Again is that not trying to seal it off. You talk about a community but it is to be a community that plays no part in national life. So for a few hours they were the lgbt community and then the next day they, because of the mismanagement of Labour amongst others, are part of the soon to emigrate, cant pay the mortgage community etc. You say you cant believe you need to point things out but really that means you cant believe people who support lgbt rights have a different perspective to you.

Saying you cant believe you have to point things out is dangerous close to hinting you’ve got it all figured and the rest of us are working to catch up. Its not that others don’t do it on forums but its still off putting.

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

You talk about a community but it is to be a community that plays no part in national life. So for a few hours they were the lgbt community and then the next day they, because of the mismanagement of Labour amongst others, are part of the soon to emigrate, cant pay the mortgage community etc.

They can be all those things and still be the LGBTI community, and have an event where they can feel safe and supported to express themselves as LGBTI and to highlight the issues that are specific to them as the LGBTI community.

Frankly, your repeated suggestion that LGBTI issues aren’t “real world” (or national) issues speaks volumes. And goes some way toward showing how Comrade Delta type incidents happen on the left.

Like

Reality Check - June 30, 2013

okay Wendy I find your approach sanctimonious. Effectively your position is the quite close to WBS but where he expresses it you load it up with righteous anger, disbelief about how people cant see it your way, and the sneaking suspicion that anyone disagreeing with you is a actually not only homophobe but also indeed harbouring anti-feminist sentiments.

If you weren’t so quick to jump down on everyone who disagrees with you would see that nowhere do I say that LGBT issues are not of the real world. Of course that’s not something you might spot because your too righteous to take the time to consider other points.

LGBT issues cannot be separated from the real world and that’s what happened when the PBP protest occurred. Clear as crystal but you of course choose to misinterpret it.

Frankly your comments about not believing how un-progressive others are (compared to you), the way you twist my words to present me as disinterested in LGBT rights because I disagree with your particular interpretation, and the idea that actually I demonstrate why rape can be covered up in the SWP is disgraceful. That’s the sickest part that you bandy that charge around in a discussion with a person just cause you are disagree with them. I

Anybody who supports the same issues as you but interprets events slightly differently is going to have their words twisted and turned and distorted. Then you say I demonstrate how Comrade Delta incidents happen on the left! That’s a bit cheeky. You might look into the mirror and see the same closed minded I am right so everyone else is wrong mindset that sets women up for abuse in the SWP, their words twisted, and their integrity questioned.

You support good issues and you do fight the good fight but where does that licence you to judge others and act as if your the single most progressive force in Ireland.

All the best now.

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

Whatever, comrade. I count at least three things I said that you totally misrepresented but we’re obviously not going to agree on the fundamentals of the issue anyway.

Like

Reality Check - June 30, 2013

but we pretty much do agree on the fundamentals in every respect but you come in hard and heavy on the smallest difference. You suggested I demonstrate why the rape of women gets covered up in the SWP!!!

Where in the playbook of normal debate does that get deployed?

Your right to be passionate about these issues but try not to confuse people who slightly disagree with you, not on LGBT rights but on this particular incident involving some Labour leaders at a march, as then being diametrically opposed to the entire issue rather than slightly disagreeing about your view on one incident, and its validity as an expression, on one day.

Have I misrepresented you then I am sorry for doing that. But please try not to see every discussion where someone might disagree with you as instead an attack on the wider cause being discussed. Ie I, or others, can support LGBT issues while still disagreeing with you one incident with Labour leaders at a march. I should certainly be able to disagree with you without you suggesting I help create an environment where women can be raped.

Like

EWI - July 1, 2013

Nor – as far as I know – do the majority of members of the community in question have a problem with it, and their opinion is the one that matters.

If we are to go by “majority” opinions then there would never have been a Pride at all, I wager. The crowds now (as with all such similar events) don’t really give a toss for any of the supposed point of the day, apart from the party. One supposes that this is the demographic who are so bored by speeches.

Like

Wendy Lyon - July 1, 2013

I think that actually supports rather than contradicts my point.

Like

WorldbyStorm - July 1, 2013

+1 Wendy

I’m always a bit uneasy about discussions like this because I worry that they seem to rob agency from a given group, but in this instance what we see is precisely the agency of the group to conduct itself in its own way which is being (indirectly or directly) contested by others.

And moreover the community/group has the right to organise itself as it sees fit, even in ways which some might think incorrect, but it is its right, not that of others to determine. And that right has to be respected.

I mentioned it above, it seems to me there’s a bit of an unconscious condescension about this as well, a thought that the Irish people both specifically ie those on or watching Pride and broadly are chumps who will fall gullibly for an LP presence at Pride and have to be at all and any costs set right.

Just doesn’t ring true to me.

Like

6. Tomboktu - June 30, 2013

Dozens arrested at gay pride rally in Russia

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian police arrested several gay rights activists and Russian nationalists who confronted them at a rally Saturday that was declared illegal under a new law against “gay propaganda.”

Officials in St. Petersburg deemed that the rally, which took place in a space designated for public demonstrations, violated the law. The statute essentially prohibits public displays of homosexuality, as well as talking about it to children.

About 200 nationalists also gathered at the rally, chanting slogans such as “Sodomy will not pass,” and throwing eggs and rocks at the gay-rights activists, who numbered about 40.

The state-run Itar-TASS news agency quoted an unnamed police official as saying police arrested dozens of people, including eight nationalists.

The official said city authorities banned the rally beforehand for violating the “gay propaganda” law, even though using the space does not require the prior approval of city authorities, unlike other public rallies.

Russia’s parliament passed a law banning “gay propaganda” earlier this month. St. Petersburg was one of several cities to pass similar laws at local level before that.

The federal law imposes hefty fines for providing information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to minors or holding gay pride rallies. Those breaking the law will be fined up to 5,000 rubles ($156) for an individual and up to 1 million rubles ($31,000) for a company, including media organizations.

Gay-rights activists have staged several events aimed at violating the law in media-friendly ways. On Friday, three gay and two lesbian couples attempted to marry at a registry office in St. Petersburg, but were refused by authorities.

A widespread hostility to homosexuality is shared by much of Russia’s elite. Lawmakers have accused gays of decreasing Russia’s already low birth rates and said they should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment or be exiled.

Like

yourcousin - June 30, 2013

But it’s okay because they’re sheltering Snowden and thereby thumbing their noses at American imperialistic hegemony.You just have to remember who the real enemy is.

Like

EWI - June 30, 2013

What…?

Like

7. Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

“Sorry for misrepresenting you, now watch while I do it again.” I never said you help create an environment where women can be raped.

Like

reality check - June 30, 2013

‘Frankly, your repeated suggestion that LGBTI issues aren’t “real world” (or national) issues speaks volumes*. And goes some way toward showing how Comrade Delta type incidents happen on the left.’

comrade delta incidents? Seriously where were you going with that? Thats a horrendous charge to bandy around just cause someone believed a spontaneous protest against labour wasnt incompatible with also supporting the pride march.

I am certainly not misrepresenting you quoting the above but it could be I am misinterpreting you. If so please explain what went some way to demonstrating how comrade delta incidents or call it what it is the covering up of rape can happen in the left and what made you write that in response to me.

Maybe you made a quick call and totally misread what I wrote or my position but maybe you can appreciate why I would be curious as to how covering up rape got into this?

*but thats not my position. Nothing even close to it.

Like

Wendy Lyon - June 30, 2013

RC the underlying issue with the Pride march as I see it is the massive blind spot the left has about oppressions that don’t personally affect the bulk of the left leadership. The fact that marginalised groups have some of their own issues and it’s for those groups themselves to decide what’s the right way to confront them. This means that non-LGBTI people don’t go barging into an LGBTI event to raise issues that the LGBTI community have decided to put aside for the day while they instead highlight LGBTI-specific issues. The Comrade Delta incident (by which I mean the entire sorry saga, not just the rape and cover-up) was able to happen because of the same blind spot, which had the same effect in terms of telling women that people who don’t share our oppressions will decide whether they matter or not. (Obviously it had a much worse effect than that for the woman at the centre of it). My point was that I saw your attitude as a symptom of the same left blind spot that Comrade Delta was a symptom of, rather than the former potentially being the cause of the latter. I can see now that I worded this rather carelessly.

Now do you see how you can be interpreted when you say LGBTI people shouldn’t be “surprised that the real world enters” their event?

Like

reality check - June 30, 2013

Thanks for that. I’d appreciate the point being made but think that maybe my wording is also carrying a latent meaning which might be interpreted incorrectly. By real world entering I simply mean wider interest groups cant be shut out in a public space even if one group validly needs space to determine its own course. I can see using the word “real” can be misunderstood to imply that I dont lend weight to the issues but that wasnt the case and I’d feel that was more than indicated. I’d agree with your thoughts on the dynamics around Delta and those who seek to limits womens’ space but challenging thats not something I brought to the discussion so how could I really see what you were referring to. It could be an element alright in this particular topic, if we discuss the topic as you just now put it, but making the jump to that issue without referencing and then holding someone guilty of that as well is maybe to shoot first and then shoot later.

Like

Wendy Lyon - July 1, 2013

By real world entering I simply mean wider interest groups cant be shut out in a public space even if one group validly needs space to determine its own course.

“Wider interest groups” can choose to absent themselves from a public space being used by a group to address its own issues, except to the extent that they are there to offer support to that group. And that group has the right to expect that “wider interest groups” which claim to support its issues will respect it by doing so.

Like

8. My Blog Awards for 2013! | www.seanmunger.com - December 30, 2013

[…] I’m particularly concerned about. But in amongst articles on Irish political parties and LGBT pride in Ireland, there are interesting and quirky asides on all manner of topics, like weird 1970s Soviet sci-fi […]

Like

9. phen375 amazon - July 13, 2014

Hi everyone, it’s my first go to see at this website, and piece of
writing is genuinely fruitful designed for me, keep up posting these articles or reviews.

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: