Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Overheard at Lunch | This Week's New Yorker Cover »

Friday, November 17, 2006

Banning the Burqa

posted by on November 17 at 14:18 PM

burqa.jpg

The Dutch have banned the wearing of burqas in public. An anti-Democratic restriction on the freedom of religious expression? A legitimate security measure? An attempt to rescue the roughly 50 Muslim women in Holland that do wear burqas from social isolation and misogynistic Islamic social customs?

Dutch to ban wearing of Muslim burqa in public

The Dutch government agreed on Friday a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds…. “The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face—including the burqa—should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens,” the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.

The Netherlands would be the first European state to impose a countrywide ban on Islamic face coverings, though other countries have already outlawed them in specific places….

The Muslim community estimates that only about 50 women in the Netherlands wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes. Dutch Muslim groups have complained a burqa ban would make the country’s 1 million Muslims feel more victimized and alienated, regardless of whether they approve of burqas or not.

“This will just lead to more girls saying ‘hey I’m also going to wear a burqa as a protest’,” Naima Azough, a member of parliament from the opposition Green Left, told an election campaign meeting for fellow members of the Moroccan community.

I hate burqas. And veils. It annoys the fuck out of me when I see them in public—particularly on young girls. And it annoys when lefties talk about things like Burqa Barbie—an Islamic doll that comes with a short dress for the doll to wear inside the house and a garbage bag for her to wear outside the house—like its some triumph of tolerance.

Lest people think that she’s all about praying, there’s In-Out Razanne, whose wardrobe also includes a short, flowery dress she can wear inside the home, in view only of men in her family.

Oh, great. Dolls for little Muslim girls that reinforce the sexist crap that her religious parents are pounding into her head at home! How… delightfully… progressive.

Teaching young women that they are the property of men—so much so that only the men in her family have a right to lay eyes on her—is tantamount to child abuse. It’s sexual enslavement and it offends me deeply. Still, I think banning burqas—or Burqa Barbies—is wrong. It will, without a doubt, result in more women wearing them—some by choice, but more women will take up the burqa on orders from husbands, fathers, and brothers.

The burqa—and Burqa Barbie—should be allowed to die a natural death in the west. Any attempt to stamp it out will only prolong its life.

RSS icon Comments

1

Does Burqa Barbie come with a sharp rock or rusty scissors for the inevitable clitoral castration?

Posted by elswinger | November 17, 2006 2:53 PM
2

Wow Dan.. Chock one up for religious tolerance. Way to "embrace diversity".

Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com | November 17, 2006 2:58 PM
3

First: Another reason the ban is a bad idea: Women who are already wearing the burqa will probably simply stop going out in public.
Second: Whoa. Y'all need to go out and meet some Muslims. One of my colleagues wears a head-scarf and wrist-to-ankle clothing every day of her life. She is a smart professional independent single mother with a PhD. For many Muslim women, the head scarf is a part of their religious tradition, like not turning on the lights on Saturday for an Orthodox Jew, or giving up something for Lent for Catholics.
Like Christianity, Islaam gets turned in many different directions depending on the values of those practicing. Not all women who wear head-scarves do it because they've been pressured into it by male relatives.

Posted by anonymous | November 17, 2006 3:14 PM
4

"Teaching young women that they are the property of men—so much so that only the men in her family have a right to lay eyes on her—is tantamount to child abuse."

So are you talking about "moddest" dress for girl in Utah or the Middle East? I went to a highschool in Eastern Washington where about half the school was mormon and there were plenty of girl who would wear the thick "Little House on the Prarie" dresses.

Posted by Jake of 8bitjoystick.com | November 17, 2006 3:19 PM
5

Yo, Anonymous, a head scarf is not a burqa. One implies modesty, the other invisibility.

Posted by Fritz | November 17, 2006 3:23 PM
6

There's a difference between modest dress and sending your daughters out into the world wearing garbage bags. And I'm not tolerant of child abuse or misogyny or religious bigotry. Never have been. Beware of people who defend bigotry with calls to respect diversity.

Posted by Dan Savage | November 17, 2006 3:24 PM
7

Yeah, let's "embrace diversity". If we haven't reached our quota of hate crimes this month yet, we still have two weeks left. Do Muslim's even acknowledge the unique (and wonderful, for the pc naysayers) American holiday of Thanksgiving?

Posted by fryday | November 17, 2006 3:26 PM
8

Yo, Fritz, it was the original post that expanded the discussion beyond burqas, not me.

Posted by anonymous | November 17, 2006 3:43 PM
9

The question comes up over and over again. Do you tolerate intolerance? Forcing women to wear such things in the Netherlands (not back at home when such dress is the norm) is intolerant.

Posted by D. | November 17, 2006 3:51 PM
10

The problem with the ban is that it misunderstands the meaning of the burka in the Netherlands.

The burka in the Netherlands is not a religious garment. It is a political one. It certainly doesn't signify "modesty" or "submission" or any of that stuff; it signifies "I am a Muslim woman, and I am feeling persecuted, and I am wearing this garment in defiance of that persecution".

Any woman Muslim or otherwise who wants to be invisible in the Netherlands wears what everyone else is wearing. Wearing a burka makes you stand out like a sore thumb.

So when you ban the garment, you reinforce the feelings of persecution. You reinforce the separatist attitudes that you are trying to prevent.

It doesn't matter whether Muslim women are really being persecuted by mainstream society in the Netherlands, or whether maybe they're being persecuted much more by their own societal norms.

Muslims in the West, especially in Europe, are in a weird position right now. Basically everybody else assumes they're terrorists, and neither knows or wants to know anything else about them; but these countries depend on these odd new immigrants, and they have liberal pretensions, so they can't just toss 'em out. Muslims themselves are challenged daily not just by discrimination, or the perception of discrimination, but by mental stress caused by the example of modernity. Their response used to be assimilation, but now, it's becoming a kind of rejectionism.

This is a POLITICAL response, not a religious one. There is nothing particularly "Muslim" about the head-to-toe burka.

Posted by Fnarf | November 17, 2006 4:03 PM
11

covering your face with anything in public is banned in the Netherlands. for example, you are not allowed to paint your face, then drive to a Halloween party.

you can buy weed there. who gives a shit what their other laws are?

Posted by dutch | November 17, 2006 4:08 PM
12

The veil is not dying out in the West. It's actually becoming more and more popular. The two big trends in religion in the West are toward greater traditionalism and greater social tolerance, sometimes within the same denomination. For instance, in Reform Jewish congregations, the rabbi will be more than happy to marry two men, but they damn well better both be Jewish.

Posted by Gitai | November 17, 2006 4:16 PM
13

Um, FRYDAY, what does celebrating Thanksgiving have to do with being a Muslim (or not)? Thanksgiving is one of the few American holidays that is basically NOT religion-oriented (thank goodness). I have Muslim American friends that celebrate Thanksgiving because, well, they're American. Curious, eh?

Posted by underworld | November 17, 2006 4:16 PM
14

GITAI Wrote:
"The veil is not dying out in the West."

There is truth to Gitai's statement.
Open up a copy of Modern Bride and
see what is new in wedding veils...

--Jensen

Posted by Jensen Interceptor | November 17, 2006 4:30 PM
15

I used to back wearing whatever the hell you want and am very uncomfortable with the idea of banning veils & the burqa--IF the woman truly chooses to wear either one instead of being coerced to do so. This recent slate article convinced me otherwise http://www.slate.com/id/2153013/ The gist is that covering your face is simply rude in Western society, and I can't agree more.

Posted by anonymous | November 17, 2006 4:33 PM
16

sorry, y'all, wrong link for post #15 above. Here's the correct link http://www.slate.com/id/2152031/

Posted by anonymous | November 17, 2006 4:35 PM
17

Also, tolerating diversity I'm down with. Totally. But you can tolerate something -- which means, roughly, "put up with" -- while also thinking it's crap. I tolerate fundies, I tolerate Republicans, I tolerate Burqa Barbie. I think they're deluded, dangerous, and bad, respectively.

But I do, however, tolerate 'em -- don't try to legislate against them or oppress them, blah blah blah. Which is more consideration and tolerance than most religious conservatives and Republicans are willing to extend my way.

Posted by Dan Savage | November 17, 2006 5:14 PM
18

I join the French and the British in applauding this wise move.

The burqua and the veil did not originate in Islam and were imposed on Muslims as a punishment, not as something that Mohammed chose.

Ignorance of history does not make it different.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 17, 2006 5:35 PM
19

But I would suppose it would be okay with you if a woman smoked cigarettes in a burka, right? Two wrongs and all that...

Posted by Boomer | November 17, 2006 6:17 PM
20

I have to say that I rather sympathize with the reasoning behind this, as a feminist. I don't think it'll do any good. The women will simply be kept at home, as someone else mentioned.

However, insofar as it will make Europe a less hospitable place for radical Muslims, I am all for it. I do not think we need to be tolerant towards the intolerant. If I were to move to a Muslim country, they'd flog me for not being "properly covered" in public. Why should we be all nicey-nice to them when they violate our social norms?

Tolerance to the intolerant leads to intolerance - because the intolerant take over. The more we "tolerate" radical Islam, the closer we are to a radical Islamic state. And I don't want to live in one, and I sympathize with the Dutch for not wanting to live in one either.

Posted by Larisa | November 17, 2006 7:20 PM
21

I'm not at all religious,but I think if Muslim women want to wear burqas they should be able to.They are not hurting anyone by doing so.The act of wearing hijab is for modesty,part of their religion.It doesn't only go for Muslim women,men are also required to practice hijab(modesty in dress).

Posted by Kendra | November 17, 2006 7:39 PM
22

No, Kendra, when they wear the burka in the Netherlands, it is not for modesty. It's a political statement.

Posted by Fnarf | November 17, 2006 7:41 PM
23

How can we know why every woman in the Netherlands who wears a burqa (or hijab) choses to do this? We can't! Yes, it may very well be a political statement or they may have been pressured or forced to do it, but they may also simply be expressing their beliefs and religious views. And if we were talking about the U.S. (I don't know much about the Dutch culture or society) I would say that the best way to ensure a liberal society that values freedom of expression would be to allow people to dress however the chose, as long as it's not endangering others. And I have a hard time believing that covering your face will always mean endangering others.

How can we object to a woman being forced to dress in a certain way and then also keep a woman from dressing in that way? They're both violations of her freedom.

Posted by Lesley | November 17, 2006 8:09 PM
24

That costume and other assorted islam nonsense needed to stay in the third-world toilet they came from. If someone wants to emmigrate I say welcome aboard but this pc pussy multi-culturalism will be be their downfall if they don't grow a pair and force people to assimilate. Look at the mess in what used to be France.

Posted by ektachrome | November 17, 2006 8:11 PM
25

"Third world toilet" Ektachrome: why don't you try that one again? I don't think you're communicating your hate accurately.

Posted by Baharam | November 17, 2006 8:56 PM
26

Offensive styles are all a matter of perception. Sometimes I like to wear a Liverpool Home jersey with a pair of tuxedo pants and sneakers. Why? because sometimes I feel like doing things like that. I feel that as long as the muslims don't start tossing me into a ditch and hurling rocks at my head for being gay, they should be allowed to wear whatever they want.

Posted by = P | November 17, 2006 9:04 PM
27

You're right but cornball sports jerseys are not typically associated with people who emmigrate to a country and murder it's citizens for writing books and cartoons. I'm all for immigration, the more the merrier. Immigrants are usually very educated and good for the economy. They get to escape from toilet islamic countries and have a better western life. That said no western society should welcome these fundimental jihad animals.

Posted by ektachrome | November 17, 2006 9:30 PM
28

Cheers to Lesley @ 23 and the other few sane voices on this thread.

The only actions that should be illegal should be the ones that hurt others.

In Canada they allow Sikh children to wear their ceremonial daggers to school. There have been no problems.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kirpan/

Posted by Wow | November 17, 2006 10:28 PM
29

No, they don't let Sikh girls wear daggers.

And they beat them. And their wives too.

In case you haven't been following the news from British Columbia. Do a search on wife battery at your CBC link.

This continual attempt to glorify people based on their religion is as foolish here as it is for the neocons.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 17, 2006 11:58 PM
30

Good article, Wow.
Let's, please, keep in mind that there is a massive difference between Muslims who murder people and Muslims who express their religion through their clothing--much in the same way that there is a massive difference between the Army of God, a militant Christian anti-abortion group, (you may want to be careful about viewing their website) and Christians who chose to wear a cross pendant.
This isn't to say that protests (and subsequent deaths) over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his turban are analagous to people who kidnap and murder abortion doctors.
But while we're on the subject of religious expression--monastics of many religions express their faith through their clothing. Roman Catholic nuns wear veils, and I've never heard anyone say that that should be prevented. Yes, some Muslim women are forced to wear veils, but many voluntarily chose to wear them. And it's no one's place to tell someone else how she can or cannot express her religion--as long as she's not hurting anyone.
So far as whether or not we should "welcome these fundimental jihad animals": first of all, how about we ban everyone who holds a "fundamental" belief? Not just Muslims, but Christians, too, and we've gotta get rid of anyone that holds to the fundamental truths of the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, I would say that Jihadists have a greater similarity with the Ku Klux Klan than they do with honorable Muslims--of whom there are millions in the world. And thirdly--as much as I may appreciate actual animals--respectful language is necessary in a civil debate, especially when the targeted group (and I'm referring to Muslim women who wear veils) hasn't done anything to lose your respect.
Have a good night, everyone!

Posted by Lesley | November 18, 2006 1:04 AM
31

The burqa (and face veiling) should *never* be defended. They are insulting, degrading, and by depersonalizing women, they suggest that a woman is property to be owned, with no rights in the public sphere. It isn't cultural expression... it is institutionalized misogyny. And anyone that enjoys living in a progressive liberal democracy should do everything in their power to oppose it, instead of wussing out and hiding behind tired catchphrases like "multiculturalism" and "tolerance".

And I do agree that they should be banned, too. We would (and do) think nothing of banning other barbaric practices like suttee, polygamy with child brides, and so on. What makes this sick kind of suppression of women's rights any better than some decrepit FLDS preacher marrying a 14-year-old girl?

Look, I have nothing wrong with people expressing their religion views through the way that they dress. In fact, I think that a modest public expression of faith is a great thing. But saying that the burqa is something which should not be banned is akin to stating that men who physically assault their wives and don't get reported to the authorities are doing nothing wrong.

Posted by bma | November 18, 2006 2:23 AM
32

hey dan,

you might want to check facts and stories first with people who know (you got a habbit of making mistakes when it comes to dutch society and muslims).

A. the burqa is not banned, the neo-con/cristian right coalition in power is looking into banning it.
most law-experts think that they won't be able to do so though since outlawing clothing that hides your identity will make it illegal to wear a crash helmet on your motorcycle. (not realy an option with a couple of thousant motorcyclists and only about 50 women in the whole of holland wearing a burqa)

wich brings me to point B. the proposed law got nothing to do with protecting women
if you see the amount of ppl we are talking about 50 to a couple of hundred (if your counting face veils wich are NOT burqa's)
its is nothing more than muslim bashing, the neo-cons and cristian right just found another stik to hit the dog with.
we spend a lot of time talking about this law but cover up our own guantanamo abuse in iraq (as is leaked out in the press yesterday, but that didn't make it to america's headlines, now did it?).

for the rest, still love your work

jailbait

ps. C. weed is NOT legal here, its "gedoogd" (de-criminalised)

Posted by amsterdamned | November 18, 2006 6:26 AM
33

I agree with Lesley.

I'm a lawyer, and I have quite a bit of experience in First Amendment law, including religious freedom issues. Obviously our constitution doesn't cover the Netherlands, but it offers some insights. The Constitution allows some interference with a person's religious rights, if the governmental need overrides it. That balance is something you can learn from reviewing the cases - the Courts weigh it pretty heavily on the individual's side.

There may be legitimate security reasons that would require removing a face covering temporarily, such as when someone needs to go through a security process (court proceeding, high-level government job, or the like) and in the US a law could constitutionally require removing a niqab for those purposes. No law could force a woman to give up a niqab for day to day reasons, I suspect. But for specific purposes, at specific times, I am sure that the woman would need to show her face for a second or three so the authorities could determine her identity.

As for female circumcision, the Constitution would allow the law to ban that practice because the governmental interest in protecting the health of women overall would override the religious interests. (This is the flip side of the abortion debate, by the way. Fascinating, eh?)

Posted by Sachi | November 18, 2006 7:25 AM
34

There are valid reasons a society might opt to not permit people to walk around in public places with their faces completely obscured. Would you feel comfortable being behind two men in ski masks in a bank teller line? The fact that it steps on religious toes is unfortunate, but it is still justified IMHO; if it was custom in my religion to be naked at all times, I would not demand all public decency laws be struck down to accomodate my religious impulse to waggle my willy around in public.

Posted by soultaco | November 18, 2006 4:47 PM
35

Listen to Amsterdammed. This law is Muslim-bashing. It's an attempt by politicians to court the ultra-Right. This whole topic is a POLITICAL one. It has nothing to do with religion or safety.

Posted by Fnarf | November 18, 2006 6:07 PM
36

I often hear muslims defend the veil as showing how much islam values modesty. Gee, wasn't it modestly dressed islamic women who were holding up signs praising 9-11 and the holocaust in the UK during the cartoon riots in February? Wasnt is modestly dressed muslim women who held hostage children in russia which ended in a few hundred children killed? I saw an interview on Al-Jazeera with a modestly dressed muslim women saying how proud she was that all 3 of her sons had become suicide bombers. I resent that some muslims continue to verbally attack women who dress provocatively as a sign of low morals. Take a look at the number of violent crimes committed by women dressed like J-Lo vs men who call Allah their God. I grew up with a lot of hispanic girls who very young wore high heels, short skirts, lots of makeup, etc. And you know what? They were some of the kindest, MODEST, and most good hearted people I've ever known. It was part of their culture and didn't reflect a lack of values or low morals. Perhaps Muslims need to educate themselves on the diversity of culture found in the nonIslamic world. If muslims were so modest they wouldn't demand society conform to them. If muslims were so modest we would know that without them stating it every damn minute.

Posted by jane doe | November 18, 2006 9:11 PM
37

Hooray! Saudi Arabia won't let women waltz around in skimpy outfits, and that's fine. It's their culture, and if you enter the culture, you should expect to live by their rules. Burqas are not Dutch, and go against Dutch culture. They should have the right to say, "mmm, no."

Posted by him | November 19, 2006 12:12 AM
38

if we are going to ban sexist culture being pressured by man on women, lets start with highheels, silicon breasts etc etc.

and calling a religion of milions evil is like saying that every cristian is the same as the pope (or hagart).

To put things in perspective again:

the netherlands have 16.000.000+ ppl, muslims make up only a few %
women wearing a burqa count about 50+
cristian fundamentalist who want to ban abortion, gay mariage, eutanasia, gay adoption, sex on tv, weed, womenvoting ect etc are looking to win 8 seats in the upcoming parlement elections, (so do the extreem right neo-cons) and might get a deciding role in the new goverment.

write about the real isues....

Posted by amsterdamned | November 19, 2006 12:59 AM
39

I don't think that the veil/burqa/hijab should be defended because those who wear it say it's a show of modesty, I think it should be defended because it's their own choice to make!
And I don't believe that a government should be able to dictate how people express themselves just because it goes outside of what the society's norms dictate. Some times people, including the government, get it wrong--as anyone who's following the same-sex marriage legislation and court rulings knows.
Similarly, the fact that we may not feel completely comfortable with something should disaude us from allowing it. Even if the argument is made that a full face-covering could allow a criminal to commit a crime without anyone knowing what she or he looks like, I would bet that the number of women who will chose to wear the burqa is so slim--and so uncommon in the Netherlands and the U.S.--that they will recieve a huge amount of attention and many stares. And even if a crime is committed by someone wearing a burqa, I still don't think we should ban them--goodness knows the use of something in a crime has never been a good enough reason for the U.S. to go through with overturning the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by Lesley | November 19, 2006 4:00 PM
40

There have been a few really terrible arguments posted. First, so covering your face is impolite in Western society? We have yet to outlaw public farting or burping because that also would be a violation of civil liberties. Those who brought up the oppression of women, I feel just as oppressed when old male politicians tell me what I can wear as when old men in my family do. Third, knowing what someone's face looks like and their gender doesn't help you to determine whether or not they are a terrorist. Perhaps, perhaps, the argument could be made that weapons could be stowed in the body portion of a burqa, but if we take that as an argument the Netherlands in morally obligated to require evryone to wear body suits in public. It's a matter of civil and political rights and, as Dan pointed out, will only be effective in further marginalizing Muslim women.

Posted by Hannah | November 20, 2006 11:03 AM
41

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by buy clonazepam | November 27, 2006 6:33 PM
42

Can you see this. Do not hesitate to choose. Look

Posted by www mecca bingo | November 27, 2006 7:58 PM
43

Hi guys its me again. Can you look

Posted by buy celexa | November 28, 2006 1:12 AM
44

Hi guys its me again. Can you look

Posted by generic wellbutrin | November 28, 2006 10:34 AM
45

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by cheap tamiflu | November 28, 2006 4:19 PM
46

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Posted by generic paxil | November 28, 2006 9:50 PM
47

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by cheap soma | November 28, 2006 10:57 PM
48

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Posted by cheap vicodin | November 30, 2006 5:00 AM
49

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by bingo cards | November 30, 2006 6:21 AM
50

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by buy fioricet | November 30, 2006 7:30 AM
51

Be so kind and click

Posted by tamiflu | November 30, 2006 9:00 AM
52

Nice but this too

Posted by mecca bingo online | November 30, 2006 4:02 PM
53

Nice but this too

Posted by pogo bingo | November 30, 2006 8:04 PM
54

niqab,burka is NOT a religious requirement for muslims, so can not be used as a guise. the reality is that this practice was done before islam was even invented. it was done by the aristocrat christians for example before mohammed.

It should be not be allowed, we do have a free society, but we also have a civilised society with laws to protect the public, and their welfare/happiness. you can not simply do what you want. we would not allow men to walk around in ninja suits as it breeds the perfect environment for crime, and it puts the public in massive ease. that is not just western people, i am originally from the east, and i see it amazing that we should allow this practice which is not mandatory in islam.

it exists solely to appease the insecurity of most muslim men. They see women without niqab/hijab as easy and flirtatious. they do not want men looking at their women. no one likes men checking out our girlfriends or wives, but we do not take the inhumane act of forcing them to cover up in this manner. If the majority of these women decided not to wear it, i assure you they will be frowned upon, and put under pressure by their insecure men, and uneducated,male immams..

until islam finds equality and allows women to be imams too, we will always see a backwards male chauvanistic islam, which 1400 years later is still what it is, just as the prophet mohammed made it...

Posted by civilisation | November 30, 2006 11:53 PM
55

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by free ringtone | December 1, 2006 7:14 AM
56

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by viagra | December 1, 2006 11:25 AM
57

Nice but this too

Posted by the slot machines | December 1, 2006 9:31 PM
58

Be so kind and click

Posted by valtrex | December 2, 2006 4:54 AM
59

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by cheap fioricet | December 2, 2006 3:24 PM
60

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by casino game | December 2, 2006 11:13 PM
61

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by biloxi casino | December 3, 2006 2:11 AM
62

Nice but this too

Posted by virtual poker | December 3, 2006 9:36 AM
63

Nice but this too

Posted by roulette game | December 3, 2006 10:00 AM
64

Check this places please.

Posted by buy diazepam | December 3, 2006 10:35 AM
65

Be so kind and click

Posted by nasonex | December 3, 2006 7:10 PM
66

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by cheap lipitor | December 4, 2006 3:12 AM
67

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

Posted by buy ambien | December 4, 2006 8:31 AM
68

Dont be angry please

Posted by cheap soma | December 5, 2006 6:28 AM
69

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by home mortgage | December 5, 2006 6:29 AM
70

Sorry for that.

Posted by cheap wellbutrin | December 5, 2006 7:38 AM
71

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by paxil | December 5, 2006 8:22 AM
72

I am looking for better life

Posted by cheap ultram | December 5, 2006 10:13 AM
73

If you have a minute check this.

Posted by cheap clonazepam | December 5, 2006 1:55 PM
74

Sorry for that.

Posted by cheap viagra | December 5, 2006 4:25 PM
75

Check this places please.

Posted by cheap viagra | December 6, 2006 6:56 AM
76

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by generic lexapro | December 7, 2006 11:20 AM
77

Be so kind and click

Posted by prozac | December 7, 2006 5:50 PM
78

Dont be angry please

Posted by generic paxil | December 7, 2006 9:30 PM
79

Check this places please.

Posted by home mortgage | December 7, 2006 11:15 PM
80

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by vicodin | December 8, 2006 1:54 PM
81

Sorry for that.

Posted by buy fioricet | December 8, 2006 7:22 PM
82

If you have a minute check this.

Posted by generic zoloft | December 8, 2006 7:45 PM
83

It is very important for you to click below. Trust me

Posted by propecia | December 8, 2006 9:29 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).