AngryFrenchGuy

Ireland’s bill 101

with 41 comments

Irish sign Montreal

A vast majority of Irish people support the adoption of legislation to protect the rights of Irish speakers in Northern Ireland.

Sixty-eight percent of some 11, 000 responders to a consultation by Northern Ireland’s government published last October responded favorably to a draft of the proposed Irish Language Act.

The proposed Irish law would use a rights-based approach. That is the same philosophy behind Québec’s language law.

Among the proposed modalities of the law is the creation of a Language commissioner who would have the power to “investigate complaints, and if necessary initiate a review, where there is failure to act on the rights of Irish speakers under the Act or any other enactment that deals with the use or status of the Irish language.”

The law would also stipulate that “Private individuals must have the right to make complaints and have court remedy if necessary.”

In 2005 the Republic of Ireland removed the legal status the English-language name of 2,000 towns, villages and roads in the Gaeltacht region of western Ireland and made the Gaelic version the only one that could be used by governement and public bodies.

Happy St-Patrick’s Day!

Written by angryfrenchguy

March 15, 2008 at 9:27 pm

41 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. agf,

    erin go bragh and a happy st. paddy’s day to you too.

    you are a leprechaun at heart.

    johnnyonline

    March 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm

  2. AngryFrenchGuy writes:

    “The proposed Irish law would use a rights-based approach. That is the same philosophy behind Québec’s language law.”

    Actually, when one reads the pdf file link found at the link provided by AngryFrenchGuy above — entitled “copy of the Consultation Paper (13th March 2007) on Proposed Irish Language Legislation for Northern Ireland” — one discovers that, no, the proposed Irish law is NOT the same philosophy behind Quebec’s language law at all. Indeed, one discovers that it is the OPPOSITE philosophy of Bill 101.

    In fact, one discovers by reading the Northern Irish document that the philosophy behind it is the same as the federal government’s Official Languages Act and the language rights found in the Canadian constitution, two documents that AngryFrenchGuy has consistently frowned upon in this blog.

    Take a gander at page 3 of the pdf document under the heading “Consultation paper on the proposed Irish Language legislation”:

    Pts. 3, 4, and 5 propose that PUBLIC SERVICES be available in the Irish language. This of course means that Irish language services would be in addition to services in English which is currently the status quo. This is parallel to the Canadian Constitution which makes both English and French the official languages of Canada, as well as the Official Languages Act. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF QUEBEC’S LANGUAGE LAW WHICH MAKES ONLY FRENCH THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF QUEBEC.

    Pt 6. proposes that Irish be available for use in legal proceedings and tribunals, adding it to the current status of English being used. Again, this is parallel to the Canadian Constitution which makes both English and French the official language of legal proceedings in federal courts as well as in Quebec. Note that Bill 101 (Quebec’s language law) had provisions in it from its inception that attempted to MINIMIZE English language rights in courts in Quebec (these were later struck down by various courts).

    Pt. 7 proposes that statutory forms be in Irish. This, again, would be in addition to English. Again, this parallels the Canadian Constitution which makes both English and French the official languages of the federal parliament as well as Quebec’s provincial parliament. And no surprise here as regards Bill 101 which in its original form attempted to remove English language rights in the National Assembly (again, struck down by the courts….see Blaikie I and II).

    So AngryFrenchGuy, as usual, gets it 180 degrees ass-backwards: Quebec’s language law is the OPPOSITE philosophy from what the Northern Irish are proposing.

    In fact, it is the government hated by AngryFrenchGuy — the federal government of Canada backed by the Canadian Cosntitution and the Official Languages Act, two documents held in scorn by AngryFrenchGuy — that promotes”the same philosophy” as that of the Northern Irish.

    Time to retract and apologise to your readers, AngryFrenchGuy.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 16, 2008 at 1:21 am

  3. A follow-up to my previous post:

    I return again to that quote of AngryFrenchGuy’s in which he said “The proposed Irish law would use a rights-based approach. That is the same philosophy behind Québec’s language law.”

    How is it that AngryFrenchGuy looks upon Bill 101 as somehow being rights-based? Bill 101 REDUCED rights and RESTRICTED freedoms!

    A while back, our friend Mathieu referred to Bill 101 in a similar manner; I believe the expression he used was that Bill 101 had five fundamental rights, or something to that effect.

    So it got me thinking: is that how Bill 101 was sold to the Quebec people? As something that GAVE rights to the people of Quebec?

    If that’s the case, then this was quite a selling job perpetrated on the Quebec people. Bill 101 is, of course, both a hate law and a race law. It is a TAKER and USURPER of rights, not a rights-giver.

    This is truly an example of “1984” in which “newspeak” was used: black was white and up was down. Bill 101 gives rights, it doesn’t take them away.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 16, 2008 at 2:18 am

  4. The difference is that very few people can actually speak irish in Ireland or Northern Ireland.

    quebecois separatiste

    March 16, 2008 at 4:07 am

  5. I was wondering whether this bill would also apply to those who speak Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland?

    Also, I have a hard time believing that 68% of the Northern Irish would support protecting the Irish language, as the majority of loyalists in N.I. have hesitations towards supporting any republican legislation.

    Alex F

    March 16, 2008 at 8:41 am

  6. Bonne St-Patrick! Vive l’Irlande, les Irlandais et encore plus les Irlandaises! :-)

    “To put two unequal tongues afoot in law is the same as putting both feet on the same tongue.”

    I was so happy when I learned in 2005 that the Irish Gaeltacht regions were moving towards getting rid of the forced English-Irish bilingualism on signs. It should have been done so long ago.

    Naturally, speakers of Irish, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, not forming a majority in any single jurisdiction with a Parliament in it, cannot (for the moment) hope to have all their linguistic human rights protected by law and effectively enjoy language freedom.

    Still, the least that can be done is to not let the State and all its tentacles participate fully in the downsizing of the very small populations that still speak those precious natural languages natively.

    Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote

    March 16, 2008 at 9:22 am

  7. Mathieu wrote:

    “Still, the least that can be done is to not let the State and all its tentacles participate fully in the downsizing of the very small populations that still speak those precious natural languages natively.”

    If you truly believe, Mathieu, what you write above, you must, by implication, despise the French language and Bill 101.

    Why?

    Because the first immigrants from France (Mathieu’s and AngryFrenchGuy’s anscestors) to the New Land that is now known as Quebec did NOT speak French but their local dialects, which were each quite different “patois”. These languages were each in their own right unique and not understandable by someone who spoke another patois from France. Little of the French language was understood by these folks.

    These “very small populations” that spoke “those precious natural languages natively”, to use the vernacular of our friend Mathieu, were therefore in need of a common language so that they could communicate with each other. And that’s how and why the French language — the one that Bill 101 so fanatically and ruthlessly protects today — was introduced in Quebec. MATHIEU’S AND ANGRYFRENCHGUY’S ANSCESTORS DID NOT SPEAK FRENCH WHEN THEY FIRST CAME TO NORTH AMERICA. IT WAS SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS, JUST AS BILL 101 ATTEMPTS TO DO TODAY TO ANGLOPHONES AND IMMIGRANTS.

    So, the French language WIPED OUT those “precious natural languages” like the colonialist, imperialist power that it was…and still is (in this regard, French makes English look like a non-violent Gandhi follower by comparison).

    Gosh, if I were Mathieu, I would really HATE Bill 101 for what it has done to his anscestral tongue! Bill 101 has done and is still currently attempting to do EXACTLY what he describes above when he wrote about not letting “the State and all its tentacles downsize” populations that speak “precious natural languages”.

    Oh, you can all read about this history at: http://tinyurl.com/333csb

    Happy reading!

    Tony Kondaks

    March 16, 2008 at 10:11 am

  8. The theory of the “choc des patois” was practically disproved recently by historical reseach indicating that, contrary to a long-standing myth, immigrants to Quebec from France during the French rule were from the rural areas of France. They were in fact mostly from the urban areas, in a relation of 5 to 1.

    The incidence of this on language is very important. Approximately two thirds of the immigrants knew French before they arrived in America.

    You can learn on this subject by searching for “Frenchmen Into Peasants. Modernity and Tradition in the Peopling of French Canada” . This is by Leslie Choquette, a Franco-American history prof.

    More specifically on language, you can read “Histoire du français au Québec”, chapter on “La Nouvelle-France (1534-1760) L’implantation du français au Canada” online on the Web site of “L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde”. This is by linguist Jacques Leclerc of Université Laval.

    Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote

    March 16, 2008 at 11:18 am

  9. Tony, I’m disapointed in you. You confuse legal philosophy with modalities of law.

    This is what the consultation paper says about the various possible approches to language legislation it studied. (I believe they started with 4 possibilities.)

    “The majority of organisations who currently work with and for the Irish language community stated a preference for a rights based approach to legislation. Those organisations providing a public service through a departmental role, or as a public body, stated a preference for a language scheme approach.”

    Tony. Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks. Diff’rent situations generate different solutions.

    angryfrenchguy

    March 16, 2008 at 11:49 am

  10. Mathieu,

    Thank you for the corrections to the historical information and the additional references to this most interesting subject. When time allows I will most certainly take a look at the sources you have kindly provided.

    However, if I am correctly understanding what you write above, I must still point out to you that, according to the very figures you cite, a full 1/3rd of all immigrants from France at that time didn’t know French. 33% may be less than what I was led to believe but, Mathieu, gosh, I think you’d agree it is still a hell of a large figure.

    Plus: of the 2/3rds that your sources claim knew French, how many had a patois as their mother tongue or knew it as a second language? Even if they were from urban areas, as you note, I suspect that many if not a vast majority of their parent(s) could have been arrivals from the countryside. This was a time in history when a migration from rural to urban areas were occurring and, certainly, the rural patois came with them. So, they very well may have been “bilingual”; that is, they spoke French AND a patois.

    Thus, at least 33% of the New France habitants spoke a patois AND, in addition, a large portion of the other 67% also probably spoke a patois as a first or second language. This still makes my point that a large percentage of the original “French” settlers to Quebec spoke languages that were usurped by French and have now disappeared from within the boundaries of Quebec.

    Of course, this has happened in France, too. I am working just on memory here but if I remember correctly from reading the first few pages of Esther Delisle’s first book “The Traitor and the Jew” that as late as around 1850 — which was well into the industrial revolution when migration to urban areas from the countryside was already in full swing — more than 50% of France’s citizens had a language other than French as their mother tongue. Today, of course, practically no one speaks any of the patois’ in France.

    So I believe the point I was making still holds despite the change in percentages that I am more than happy to be corrected upon as a result of the historical information you cite: French was imposed upon a large percentage of the French habitants in New France and usurped “precious natural languages” by the powerful elite of the day which caused their decline and eventual disappearance and that, like today’s secular French elite, are using Bill 101 in the same colonial and imperialistic way.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 16, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  11. mathieu,

    “Still, the least that can be done is to not let the State and all its tentacles participate fully in the downsizing of the very small populations that still speak those precious natural languages natively.”

    now, that’s precious.

    all languages are precious except some languages are more precious than others?

    is it the accepted wisdom that two languages cannot occupy a common space?

    is there some natural law that says when two languages come into contact with each other – one must be triumphant?

    johnnyonline

    March 17, 2008 at 1:13 am

  12. Tony writes: “33% may be less than what I was led to believe but, Mathieu, gosh, I think you’d agree it is still a hell of a large figure.”

    No, It do not think it is one hell of a figure. In addition, what the French call “patois”, when applied to the dialects of the North refer to those that a speaker of Parisian French will pick up in a month. The same goes for the varieties of English that used to be more widely spoken in England.

    When I was in France last November, I went to a festival of Picard where I saw a series of 10 humorous sketches in that language. The two actors, before each sketch, would give us the meaning of some key words used in the dialogue and start speaking Picard. Even a Quebecer like myself understood most of it. Some dialects are even closer to Parisian French than Picard, like Norman. If I read an old text in Norman French, I find it to be about as difficult to understand as one in old court French.

    There are however clearly distinct languages in metropolitan France, like in Italy and Spain and Germany. In 1999 in France, a report found that there were 3 million speakers of occitan, 900 000 speakers of alsacien, 400 000 of francique, 250 000 of Breton etc.

    johnnyonline writes: “is it the accepted wisdom that two languages cannot occupy a common space?”

    Basically, yes. Language communities are necessarily in conflict in the modern world. It has mostly to do with our social organization since the phenomenons of urbanization, mass literacy and mass media.

    Take Ireland for example. It was subjected to English rule for a very long time, yet Irish was mostly preserved in the rural areas, English penetrating only the cities and areas colonized by English or Scottish settlers. Then came the industrialization, which marked the beginning of the decline of the language when the working class became bilingual out of necessity. Native speakers of Irish numbered some 4 million people according to a 1841 census (out of some 8 million). There were still some 500 000 speakers when the Republic of Ireland was proclaimed. Today, there are less than 100,000. The good news is that native speakers of English in Ireland care about the language and a significant number of them claim some fluency in it.

    johnnyonline writes: “is there some natural law that says when two languages come into contact with each other – one must be triumphant?”

    The basic theory in this field is that for a community of speakers to pass on their language to future generations, they must form a majority on some territory where they will make use of their language for all their social needs and expect speakers of other languages to become bilingual- not the other way around. I do not know of English language references in this field, but I can search for you if you want.

    Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote

    March 17, 2008 at 10:07 am

  13. Mathieu:

    How many of the patois that were brought over to New France still exist today in Quebec?

    Tony Kondaks

    March 17, 2008 at 10:28 am

  14. “is there some natural law that says when two languages come into contact with each other – one must be triumphant?”

    Yes, the law of social darwinism: “Survival of the fittest”. The language that is the fittest will survive, the weak one will die. Binlinguism on the same territory is almost always a temporary situation.

    2 things can happen: assimilation or merging of language.

    Personally, as I view the situation, I doubt that in 200 years from now french will be the dominant language in Montreal or even in Quebec. English will have taken over, it has already started.

    Most likely the situation of the french language will be similar to the situation of french in Louisiana: a folkloric language.

    Only separation can change that.
    Vive le Quebec Libre
    Vive le Tibet libre.

    quebecois separatiste

    March 17, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  15. “How many of the patois that were brought over to New France still exist today in Quebec?”

    Why are you asking something you already know?

    Why is that relevant? My sentimental attachment is toward french not toward the language my ancestors spoke 10 generations ago.

    what is your point?

    quebecois separatiste

    March 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  16. Tony writes :

    “How many of the patois that were brought over to New France still exist today in Quebec?”

    None were ever transplanted for there never was for these dialects, in France or anywhere else, the set of institutions a language needs to keep on living. Some of the words that a part of the Quebec French lexicon can be traced to French “patois” of the North.

    As with the American colonies, linguistic unification was achieved sooner and to a greater extent than in the metropolis. It is rather the same for all other nations born out of European colonization in the Americas.

    “Charlevoix, who was here a hundred years ago, observes, “the French language is nowhere spoken with greater purity, there being no accent perceptible;” and Potherie said “they had no dialect, which, indeed, is generally lost in a colony.” – in “A Yankee in Canada”, Henry David Thoreau, 1853

    Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote

    March 17, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  17. quebecois separatiste asks me:

    “What is your point?”

    My point is to see whether you approved of New France’s “Bill 101” which wiped out the wonderful patois languages of your ancestors.

    You see, protecting and promoting cute little languages like Gaelic and Irish — “precious natural languages” in the words of Mathieu — spoken by very small populations is something that both AngryFrenchGuy and Mathieu are in favour of. It is the subject of this thread.

    The French language was NOT the language of many of the quebecois’ ancestors; indeed, the French language was used to WIPE OUT those languages. It was the Bill 101 of its day and I want to see how many of you separatists/racists approve of what happened.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm

  18. Tony, you don’t seem to understand that the differences between English and French or English and Gaelic are vastly different than French and those patois languages.

    The majority spoke French, and an even larger majority understood French. It was the French Empire, after all. Those patois languages weren’t actively “wiped out”, the French colonial government was doing what was absolutely necessary: giving the colony one language that it could operate with.

    Virtually every other Western state did the exact same thing around this time, because they all had tiny little minorities who spoke variations of the main language of the country, and it was making things unworkable. Germany, for example, actually had to choose which dialect would be THE German language. And that was absolutely necessary.

    You aren’t making much sense. It is a very good thing that French was made the language of all, because it is now the greatest source of our identity.

    And calling us separatists/racists is beyond the pale. You’re a sad, sad little man.

    Eric Grenier

    March 18, 2008 at 1:05 am

  19. Eric:

    Do you support the language of education provisions of Bill 101?

    Simple question.

    Yes or no.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 18, 2008 at 10:41 am

  20. Nice of you, Eric, to decide what language should be the “identity” of a people.

    To use your logic, because the majority of people speak English in Canada then French should be wiped out in the same way the patois languages were.

    Oh, and by the way, most if not all parts of Germany still maintain their individual dialects…usually as a first language.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 18, 2008 at 10:44 am

  21. Tony writes: “To use your logic, because the majority of people speak English in Canada then French should be wiped out in the same way the patois languages were.”

    This was the policy followed by Ottawa until the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. The new policy has yet to prove it can do something to stop and reverse the assimilation of out-of-Quebec francophones.

    Regarding Germany:

    “Selon une enquête réalisée en 1980, on estime qu’environ 50 % des Allemands utiliseraient dans leur vie quotidienne, concurremment avec l’allemand standard, l’une de ces nombreuses variantes dialectales, mais ils ne l’écrivent jamais.”

    It is probably less than 50% today. The dialectical diversity of German in Germany is similar to that of Italian in Italy.

    “En raison de ces dialectes ou langues locales, l’italien ne constituerait la langue maternelle que de 30 millions d’Italiens, soit 52 % de la population.”

    The reason why the situations in Italy and Germany are comparable on that level is because their unification, resulting from a strong central government, came after that of England and France. In England and France, where there used to be more dialects we now hear only accents.

    You can learn all about this in “L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde”.

    Mathieu Gauthier-Pilote

    March 18, 2008 at 11:47 am

  22. Mathieu writes:

    “This was the policy [i.e. impose a major language to wipe out smaller, regional languages] followed by Ottawa until the Official Languages Act was adopted in 1969. The new policy has yet to prove it can do something to stop and reverse the assimilation of out-of-Quebec francophones. ”

    I agree with you, but only partially.

    I don’t think Ottawa set out to wipe out the French language. I think it was more a case of laissez-faire; let what happens, happen. Yes, there were instances of Ottawa not stepping in to protect the French minorities in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Ontario when those provincial governments infringed on their French minorities’ rights. But that isn’t actively engaging in a policy of annihilation (and please note that, except in the case of New Brunswick, francophone Quebecers were more than happy to abandon their brothers and sisters in the other provinces).

    I do agree with you that the trend to assimilate francophones outside Quebec is irreversible.

    According to the great human-rights activist Howard Galganov, less then 4% of Canadians outside of Quebec are French-speaking and since Quebec isn’t interested in official bilingualism, then it makes sense to abandon it for Canada.

    Do you agree with him?

    Tony Kondaks

    March 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  23. “You aren’t making much sense. It is a very good thing that French was made the language of all, because it is now the greatest source of our identity.”

    For the most part, I disagree with this statement. Language is only partly a facet of identity. I speak four languages including french. I was forced to learn french, though I have no regrets at all. I’m glad I do, but I’m not Quebecoise because I just don’t feel it. In fact, some Quebecois really make me feel like I’m not because I speak with a slight accent. I don’t think that because people a language it will turn them into Quebec nationalists. I don’t share the past and customs of the quebecois and I’m catholic on top of it. My comment is not discredit anybody, all I’m saying is that true culture encompasses more than a language. I’m proof of it. Still, I really like french and wished i was better at it.

    Anonymous

    March 18, 2008 at 6:29 pm

  24. anonymous,

    don’t mind eric, he’s a chauvinist and a little confused about the nature of liberty. many people who comment on agf’s blog are socialists/collectivists and you also get totalitarians wrapped in flags who think that nobody will notice.

    it’s a bit like spelling freedom – but with only one “e”.

    they haven’t quite figured out what a principle is –
    they can talk the talk – but don’t know how to walk the walk.

    as for your french – don’t worry. a tourist in new york city once stopped the great american composer and conductor, leonard bernstein in central park and asked him, “how can i get to carnegie hall?” and bernstein replied, “that’s easy – practice,practice, practice.”

    but only if you want to….

    johnnyonline

    March 19, 2008 at 2:17 am

  25. Tony,

    Yes, I support the education provision of the Charter of the French Language.

    I haven’t decided what language should be the identity of a people. French is the language of this people, and that is pretty obvious. It’s non-sensical to support dozens of languages, especially in a small colony like New France.

    And the Canadian English/French situation is completely different from New France and the various dialects. Two languages are easily supportable when they are so concentrated. Tell me, how do you propose to organise a society with a dozen dialects distributed randomly over a large territory? Should each school have taught every patois dialact to whatever student happened to be in that school who spoke that dialect?

    Your fake outrage is ridiculous.

    “According to the great human-rights activist Howard Galganov,”

    No wait, THAT’S ridiculous.

    “don’t mind eric, he’s a chauvinist and a little confused about the nature of liberty. many people who comment on agf’s blog are socialists/collectivists and you also get totalitarians wrapped in flags who think that nobody will notice.”

    Johnnyonline, you are clueless. I am a social democrat.

    Eric Grenier

    March 19, 2008 at 7:43 am

  26. Eric writes:

    “Your fake outrage is ridiculous.”

    Of course my outrage is fake and of course it is ridiculous. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

    But if you find MY points ridiculous, what must you think of Ireland’s Bill 101, which is the subject of this thread?

    The language(s) people freely choose to speak on a territory is no one’s business but their own. It’s not YOUR place nor mine to decide what one speaks in interpersonal relationships or in business.

    Yes, I agree with you, we can’t have a Tower of Babel in which dozens of languages are spoken. But this principle should only apply TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES SCHOOLS. But “official language” status ONLY applies to government services, NOT anywhere else (one exception is parapublic services which can affect safety and health). To attempt to dictate what language(s) people speak OUTSIDE the orbit of government services is to infringe upon free speech and freedom of association.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 19, 2008 at 9:44 am

  27. Eric:

    The reason I asked you whether you supported the language of education provisions of Bill 101 (which you answered in the affirmative) was my way of telling you why I call separatists “racists”.

    Because Bill 101’s language of education provisions use the criteria of segregating one’s civil rights based upon:

    1) what classification certificate one’s parents have; and

    2) the handing down of that classification from parent to child, through generations;

    And that this discrimination procedure is used to determine access to a government service, I label Bill 101 a race law. As such, separatists, such as yourself who support the language of education provisions of Bill 101 are racists.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/2z3ryr

    Tony Kondaks

    March 19, 2008 at 9:51 am

  28. You’re absolutely right Tony.

    Québec need a single unified school system harmonized with the demography of the province: in French, with some English.

    You talk to your Equality Party buddies, I’ll talk to my gang.

    Deal?

    angryfrenchguy

    March 19, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  29. If you’re so interested in a single unifying educational system, why not consider a unilingual English one?

    After all, once Quebec becomes independent, Quebecers will need all the skills possible to compete in this globalized economy.

    Only being able to speak a folk language isn’t going to be very effective.

    Tony Kondaks

    March 19, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  30. That’s why nobody takes you seriously Tony.

    Calling French a folk language means you are either ignorant or in bad faith.

    We know you’re Cliff Clavan of Québec politics so we won’t call you ignorant…

    angryfrenchguy

    March 19, 2008 at 3:37 pm


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: