Thai Academic Voices Opposition To Public Assembly Bill

[webfact]

Academic voices opposition to public assembly bill

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Despite protests, the House of Representatives is expected to go ahead with passing the Public Assembly Bill during its third and last reading tomorrow - a move that will curb people's constitutional right to assembly and give courts the power to decide whether a protest is legal or not. The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk speaks to Anusorn Unno, a leading opponent of the bill and lecturer of anthropology at Thammasat University, about what he's so unhappy about. Here are some excerpts:

Why are you so against the bill?

Not counting the right to freedom of assembly that is enshrined in the Constitution, from a sociological point of view, this bill is aimed at boosting the state's legitimacy in controlling citizens. Instead of citing national security to support a law, this bill claims to defend citizens' rights. Apparently, the public cannot take care of itself and must be protected. The bill, under the guise of protecting the public from protesters, hides and deflects conflicts that exist between the state and the people who are protesting.

In reality, what the bill seeks to protect is not the public or public spaces, but government offices that are at the heart of the state's power. This bill is a conservative piece of legislation that is disguising itself as a modern law. It constitutes an attempt by the state to extend exceptionalism [wherein some laws grant the state more power and impunity than normal]. In abnormal situations, we already have the emergency decree as well as the Internal Security Act.

In the US, there are no such laws. We're giving the state carte blanche and enabling it to combine emergency and non-emergency situations. The bill also gives officers impunity in launching crackdowns.

What should people do if the bill is passed?

I think we have to campaign to get it abolished or amended, but it will most definitely be passed. In the worst-case scenario, we must recognise that no power is absolute, that there exist cracks where resistance can be mounted. For example, the Red Sunday movement, which has been evading the emergency decree [since May 19, 2010]. The decree can't do anything. We must be creative and improvise more, making a legal interpretation more complicated. But poor people [who wish to protest about their income or other issues] have more limitations placed on them because this bill makes even symbolic protests difficult. This explains why such groups as Friends of the People, which support the grass-roots level, rose to oppose the bill.

Many people who were affected by the yellow- and red-shirt protests say they cannot allow such disruptions to occur any longer.

I would like to convince them that there are existing laws that are meant to handle protests. We can also learn from other countries as to how crowds can be controlled democratically. The bill should in fact facilitate protests instead of suppressing them. In France and Germany, the law only requires protesters to inform the authorities, not seek permission as in the case of this bill.

The [Thai] government is increasingly starting to use the judiciary as a political tool and is dragging the courts into political conflicts.

Though there have been sporadic movements from both colours to oppose the bill, why have we not seen either the red or the yellow shirts coming out in full strength to oppose it?

I think the red-shirt Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship would have no problems opposing it, but they're busy with other matters. As for the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy, some of its members have come out to oppose it, but the movement itself doesn't believe in the rule of law or the judicial system. They believe in something else, so they are ignoring this.

-- The Nation 2011-04-26

[Jawnie]

The right to free association and the right to assemble are core rights. Thais must not allow these rights to be diminished in any way. The issues of the yellow and red shirts disrupting the city should not be dealt with by limiting citizens' methods, means, and rights to seek redress for grievances. But, rather, the issues being put forward at the public assemblies need to be addressed and resolved. The large public assemblies are not the problem, the problem is the underlying issues, which have not been addressed. Thais will be extremely sorry if they allow their rights to association and assembly to be curbed. It will make getting control of their country back from the military much more difficult than it already is.

The government, the streets, and the military belong to the Thai people - not the other way around. In the meantime, the yellow and red shirts need to begin to take some responsibility for how their public assemblies affect others and how they are seen by others. Can someone post the text of the legislation?

[animatic]

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

[Jawnie]

Given that the government and Army's responses last year was to shoot people in the street and take no responsibility, the assertion for "proper regulation" rings pretty hollow. Shooting people is not a solution. Thailand still doesn't have have an elected government, and the Army is out of control and acting on its own. To say now that large crowds protesting such a situation is a threat in of need control is a ridiculous and backward assertion. It could only come from those who benefit somehow from the status quo.

For christ sake, when are the citizens and civilian government going to put an end to the Army acting on its own? Or, is Thailand now run and controlled by the military establishment as a matter of record? Anyone who thinks the current situation is the way a democracy is supposed to operate is completely and utterly wrong. This legislation only makes the situation worse by legalizing the types of criminal acts the Army engaged in last year, and in through Thailand's history.

I still don't see the parties: reds, yellows, government, and, yes, Army, sitting down to work out democratic institutions and mechanism for conflict resolution. Now, the only way they communicate is by media, mass street protest, idiotic censure "debates", Lese Majeste complaints, and threats. That's not government, not by a long shot. So, this legislation limits the Thai people, the people to whom the country belongs. That's what is backward: Thailand doesn't belong to the Army or the politicians.

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

[Buchholz]

The right to free association and the right to assemble are core rights. Thais must not allow these rights to be diminished in any way. The issues of the yellow and red shirts disrupting the city should not be dealt with by limiting citizens' methods, means, and rights to seek redress for grievances. But, rather, the issues being put forward at the public assemblies need to be addressed and resolved. The large public assemblies are not the problem, the problem is the underlying issues, which have not been addressed. Thais will be extremely sorry if they allow their rights to association and assembly to be curbed. It will make getting control of their country back from the military much more difficult than it already is.

The government, the streets, and the military belong to the Thai people - not the other way around. In the meantime, the yellow and red shirts need to begin to take some responsibility for how their public assemblies affect others and how they are seen by others. Can someone post the text of the legislation?

Given that the government and Army's responses last year was to shoot people in the street and take no responsibility, the assertion for "proper regulation" rings pretty hollow. Shooting people is not a solution. Thailand still doesn't have have an elected government, and the Army is out of control and acting on its own. To say now that large crowds protesting such a situation is a threat in of need control is a ridiculous and backward assertion. It could only come from those who benefit somehow from the status quo.

For christ sake, when are the citizens and civilian government going to put an end to the Army acting on its own? Or, is Thailand now run and controlled by the military establishment as a matter of record? Anyone who thinks the current situation is the way a democracy is supposed to operate is completely and utterly wrong. This legislation only makes the situation worse by legalizing the types of criminal acts the Army engaged in last year, and in through Thailand's history.

I still don't see the parties: reds, yellows, government, and, yes, Army, sitting down to work out democratic institutions and mechanism for conflict resolution. Now, the only way they communicate is by media, mass street protest, idiotic censure "debates", Lese Majeste complaints, and threats. That's not government, not by a long shot. So, this legislation limits the Thai people, the people to whom the country belongs. That's what is backward: Thailand doesn't belong to the Army or the politicians.

You say quite a lot without even knowing what the Act says.

The other paper provided a review of its details last month and likened it the UK Public Order Act.

There's not much to disagree with its contents that I could see.

Perhaps you could track it down with a simple Google search to inform yourself and then return to voice your opinion of its guidelines.

[arrowsdawdle]

The core issue is selective enforcement. Do what we want and assemble to your heart's content.

What is not clear is what constitutes assembly. More than 5 persons? But how close must they be to each other to be in assembly? This may see the masses gather at greater distances from each other-- 5 yards, 10 yards?--thus taking up more space and complicating the literal enforcement of the law.

[pisico]

The country does not have an elected government.

The project of law is obviously the prelude to more of the same, ostensibly, to control the outcome of elections.

When freedom of assembly is repressed, inhibited or outlawed Democracy and civil liberties are seriously impacted.

If that bill is approved, it will be an acknowledgment by the members of this administration that Thailand is in fact just one more banana republic.

[DP25]

Major protests need to have permits and be in specific zones. No Western country in the world would allow mobs of thousands of people to blockade city streets for months at a time like Thailand does. Try indefinitely taking over a major intersection in Washington DC or NYC and watch the riot police come out swinging clubs.

[Buchholz]

The country does not have an elected government.

The project of law is obviously the prelude to more of the same, ostensibly, to control the outcome of elections.

When freedom of assembly is repressed, inhibited or outlawed Democracy and civil liberties are seriously impacted.

If that bill is approved, it will be an acknowledgment by the members of this administration that Thailand is in fact just one more banana republic.

Haven't read the details of the Act, then?

See 2 posts above yours to locate on Google.

[whybother]

The country does not have an elected government.

The project of law is obviously the prelude to more of the same, ostensibly, to control the outcome of elections.

When freedom of assembly is repressed, inhibited or outlawed Democracy and civil liberties are seriously impacted.

If that bill is approved, it will be an acknowledgment by the members of this administration that Thailand is in fact just one more banana republic.

There is no difference between when Somchai was elected PM, keeping the PPP in government, and when Abhisit was elected PM bringing the Democrats into government, and the only difference between Samak and Abhisit was that Samak was elected PM by the MPs directly after an election, but Somchai and Abhisit were elected after the previous PM had to step down.

In most western countries, there are limits as to where and when you can protest. The new law will not stop people from protesting, they will just limit how much the protesters can restrict the general public's civil liberties and freedom to go about their lives.

[Buchholz]

Major protests need to have permits and be in specific zones. No Western country in the world would allow mobs of thousands of people to blockade city streets for months at a time like Thailand does. Try indefinitely taking over a major intersection in Washington DC or NYC and watch the riot police come out swinging clubs.

It appears from the details of the Act that they are trying to get to those sort of guidelines that the West utilizes.

[animatic]

Given that the government and Army's responses last year was to shoot people in the street and take no responsibility, the assertion for "proper regulation" rings pretty hollow. Shooting people is not a solution. Thailand still doesn't have have an elected government, and the Army is out of control and acting on its own. To say now that large crowds protesting such a situation is a threat in of need control is a ridiculous and backward assertion. It could only come from those who benefit somehow from the status quo.

For christ sake, when are the citizens and civilian government going to put an end to the Army acting on its own? Or, is Thailand now run and controlled by the military establishment as a matter of record? Anyone who thinks the current situation is the way a democracy is supposed to operate is completely and utterly wrong. This legislation only makes the situation worse by legalizing the types of criminal acts the Army engaged in last year, and in through Thailand's history.

I still don't see the parties: reds, yellows, government, and, yes, Army, sitting down to work out democratic institutions and mechanism for conflict resolution. Now, the only way they communicate is by media, mass street protest, idiotic censure "debates", Lese Majeste complaints, and threats. That's not government, not by a long shot. So, this legislation limits the Thai people, the people to whom the country belongs. That's what is backward: Thailand doesn't belong to the Army or the politicians.

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

One of the main reasons it spun out of control and the army had to come in was BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CLEAR LAWS to make the police act on it early. Instead of clear and logical manners to deal legally with large bellicose groups in the streets, it has been a haphazard hodge podge of inappropriate or useless laws, leaving a vacuum, that void that only the army was able to fill.

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

[pisico]

To delineate city ordinances that regulate and issue permits for gatherings of the population for religious, political or other purposes is one thing. Permits, location and length of time that such assembly will involve regulating such gatherings is one thing.

To suppress or limit freedom of assembly under the guise of protecting the country, economy etc. is quite a different matter.

Any unlawful gathering (one that has not secured the proper permits and adheres to city standards, etc.) should not take place. But, if there is a law that gives the judiciary the power to say no, when it is contrary to their political bearing that is a different matter that should make us worry.

It follows that the bill, should it ever come into fruition, can be used to detain two or more people at the enforcing officer's whim. No need for reasonable cause necessary. That is precisely one the concerns of this academic, Anusorn Unno.

I have witnessed first hand the results of like legislation in countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega's first administration.

History teaches us that countries that passed such decrees to control the individual and stifle opposition will foster insurgency and eventual civil unrest.

Edited April 26, 2011 by pisico

[animatic]

That damned hampster has many mice on the treadmill this week. They gonna do a lot of spinning between now and election day.

[animatic]

To delineate city ordinances that regulate and issue permits for gatherings of the population for religious, political or other purposes is one thing. Permits, location and length of time that such assembly will involve regulating such gatherings is one thing.

To suppress or limit freedom of assembly under the guise of protecting the country, economy etc. is quite a different matter.

Any unlawful gathering (one that has not secured the proper permits and adheres to city standards, etc.) should not take place. But, if there is a law that gives the judiciary the power to say no, when it is contrary to their political bearing that is a different matter that should make us worry.

It follows that the the bill, should it ever come into fruition, can be used to detain two or more people at the enforcing officer's whim. No need for reasonable cause necessary. That is precisely one the concerns of this academic, Anusorn Unno.

I have witnessed first hand the results of like legislation in countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega's first administration.

History teaches us that countries that passed such decrees to control the individual and stifle opposition will foster insurgency and eventual civil unrest.

Only if they are run by total despots trying to stifle all negative comments against them, as Thaksin was during his term.

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

[whybother]

I can just imagine that the first order of business for the PTP, if they win the election, will be to repeal this law.

[pisico]

Given that the government and Army's responses last year was to shoot people in the street and take no responsibility, the assertion for "proper regulation" rings pretty hollow. Shooting people is not a solution. Thailand still doesn't have have an elected government, and the Army is out of control and acting on its own. To say now that large crowds protesting such a situation is a threat in of need control is a ridiculous and backward assertion. It could only come from those who benefit somehow from the status quo.

For christ sake, when are the citizens and civilian government going to put an end to the Army acting on its own? Or, is Thailand now run and controlled by the military establishment as a matter of record? Anyone who thinks the current situation is the way a democracy is supposed to operate is completely and utterly wrong. This legislation only makes the situation worse by legalizing the types of criminal acts the Army engaged in last year, and in through Thailand's history.

I still don't see the parties: reds, yellows, government, and, yes, Army, sitting down to work out democratic institutions and mechanism for conflict resolution. Now, the only way they communicate is by media, mass street protest, idiotic censure "debates", Lese Majeste complaints, and threats. That's not government, not by a long shot. So, this legislation limits the Thai people, the people to whom the country belongs. That's what is backward: Thailand doesn't belong to the Army or the politicians.

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

One of the main reasons it spun out of control and the army had to come in was BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CLEAR LAWS to make the police act on it early. Instead of clear and logical manners to deal legally with large bellicose groups in the streets, it has been a haphazard hodge podge of inappropriate or useless laws, leaving a vacuum, that void that only the army was able to fill.

I agree.

The other problem is that if there is such a law: will it will respected and applied?

[animatic]

Given that the government and Army's responses last year was to shoot people in the street and take no responsibility, the assertion for "proper regulation" rings pretty hollow. Shooting people is not a solution. Thailand still doesn't have have an elected government, and the Army is out of control and acting on its own. To say now that large crowds protesting such a situation is a threat in of need control is a ridiculous and backward assertion. It could only come from those who benefit somehow from the status quo.

For christ sake, when are the citizens and civilian government going to put an end to the Army acting on its own? Or, is Thailand now run and controlled by the military establishment as a matter of record? Anyone who thinks the current situation is the way a democracy is supposed to operate is completely and utterly wrong. This legislation only makes the situation worse by legalizing the types of criminal acts the Army engaged in last year, and in through Thailand's history.

I still don't see the parties: reds, yellows, government, and, yes, Army, sitting down to work out democratic institutions and mechanism for conflict resolution. Now, the only way they communicate is by media, mass street protest, idiotic censure "debates", Lese Majeste complaints, and threats. That's not government, not by a long shot. So, this legislation limits the Thai people, the people to whom the country belongs. That's what is backward: Thailand doesn't belong to the Army or the politicians.

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

One of the main reasons it spun out of control and the army had to come in was BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF CLEAR LAWS to make the police act on it early. Instead of clear and logical manners to deal legally with large bellicose groups in the streets, it has been a haphazard hodge podge of inappropriate or useless laws, leaving a vacuum, that void that only the army was able to fill.

I agree.

The other problem is that if there is such a law: will it will respected and applied?

If it it is written clearly and has no wiggle room for police to squeeze out of it.

[Bakseedaa]

The country does not have an elected government.

The project of law is obviously the prelude to more of the same, ostensibly, to control the outcome of elections.

When freedom of assembly is repressed, inhibited or outlawed Democracy and civil liberties are seriously impacted.

If that bill is approved, it will be an acknowledgment by the members of this administration that Thailand is in fact just one more banana republic.

And....? But I think you will find it certainly does have an elected government, maybe not an elected (by the people) Prime minister, but certainly elected MPs who in their right, elected the prime minister.. how else would Jutaporn have gotten his job as MP...? Do you think he is there by some magic..? People voted for him...!

[philw]

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

Does your final paragraph also apply to the Army and the Government ??

[animatic]

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

Does your final paragraph also apply to the Army and the Government ??

Regardless of not liking how last springs debacle ended, it was done through the process of laws. It was not done smoothly, because of the ineptitude of the writers of several laws in conflict.

But if you compare the number of laws broken between the two sides, one went to extremes to work within the laws, and the other worked hard to avoid having those laws applied to them.

And when legal process came to a final bitter resolution, the Red Leaders shuffled off like sheeple, and left the violent ones in place to break more laws, having been left far to long to keep their better judgement intact, under an onslaught of propaganda coming from a long past illegal occupation of public spaces.

There is a crying need to not let the nation as a whole be held hostage to badly written or completely out of date and useless crowd control laws.

I believe if there had been legal mechanisms properly in place to control the hateful mobs out of control and illegal behavior, of all colors, the deaths and injuries would have been much reduced or completely avoided.

Crowd laws are as much to protect :

The majority from a violent minority,

Or one violent minority from another one,

A minority from a incited majority like a lynch mob.

Or as to set a proper frame work for minorities to have their say and still not impinge on the rights of everyone else in the process.

But also to not let those with bad intent, manipulate the law to cause rebellion, sedition or simple violence in the name of a unclear hodge-podge of causes, or a single despots hubris and glory seeking.

A large part of last springs problems was the will to cause problems

running though the loopholes of badly written laws, until critical mass of violence and hate were reached in the streets and the ONLY entity capable of pulling the country back from the abyss was the army.

They would not have been needed if laws had been effective enough to make civil functions limit the problems to manageable proportions.

Edited April 26, 2011 by animatic

[yoshiwara]

Apparently a Thammasat lecturer in anthropology without any sense of context and with a simplistic historical view to boot. One wonders at his research methodology but then coming at the issue as an abstraction he thinks he has a little wedge to help out the reds with an academic respectability badge. When one discusses free speech it is not abstract and generic. No one for example has the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Similarly last year the reds used what were liberal and undefined rights to public assembly to ratchet up both rioting and disturbance of people's livelihoods. It is the amendment of public assembly rights which is at stake here, not the principle, though red teddy bear academics might wish to frame the question as such. Sometimes Thammasat does so disappoint.

[jdinasia]

Regardless of not liking how last springs debacle ended, it was done through the process of laws. It was not done smoothly, because of the ineptitude of the writers of several laws in conflict.

But if you compare the number of laws broken between the two sides, one went to extremes to work within the laws, and the other worked hard to avoid having those laws applied to them.

And when legal process came to a final bitter resolution, the Red Leaders shuffled off like sheeple, and left the violent ones in place to break more laws, having been left far to long to keep their better judgement intact, under an onslaught of propaganda coming from a long past illegal occupation of public spaces.

There is a crying need to not let the nation as a whole be held hostage to badly written or completely out of date and useless crowd control laws.

I believe if there had been legal mechanisms properly in place to control the hateful mobs out of control and illegal behavior, of all colors, the deaths and injuries would have been much reduced or completely avoided.

Crowd laws are as much to protect :

The majority from a violent minority,

Or one violent minority from another one,

A minority from a incited majority like a lynch mob.

Or as to set a proper frame work for minorities to have their say and still not impinge on the rights of everyone else in the process.

But also to not let those with bad intent, manipulate the law to cause rebellion, sedition or simple violence in the name of a unclear hodge-podge of causes, or a single despots hubris and glory seeking.

A large part of last springs problems was the will to cause problems

running though the loopholes of badly written laws, until critical mass of violence and hate were reached in the streets and the ONLY entity capable of pulling the country back from the abyss was the army.

They would not have been needed if laws had been effective enough to make civil functions limit the problems to manageable proportions.

Excellent post!

[afx]

The excessively large public assemblies that spin out of control because of lack of proper and adequate legislation are a serious problem. This can't be minimized by saying 'SOME of the reasons purported to be behind the public gatherings need to be addressed more'. All issues need to be addressed and neither takes greater precedence. But the lack of proper regulation for public gatherings is causing grave problems for the country, and rules are in place in most modern nations for crowd control that balances human rights also.

When groups refuse to take responsibility for their group actions, that's when laws must come into effect.

And that is what is lacking here, both protest group responsibilities and laws to control them when they show no responsibility.

Yes laws must come into effect when things get out of hand; ie. existing laws; emergency decree and state of emergency -- not an egregious bill like this where the real agenda is clear to a blind man as highlighted by the academic.

[Buchholz]

For the record, the Public Assembly Bill passed its third reading in the House by a vote of 217 to 8.

It now goes on to the Senate.

.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Buchholz