AngryFrenchGuy

Quebec’s Bizarre Segregated School System

with 161 comments

Montreal English Schools

In 1969, just a couple of years after the United States government had to send in the army to protect black students being integrated into Little Rock, Arkansas schools in spite of the violent opposition of a certain segment of the white population, the municipality of Saint-Léonard on the Montreal island went through it’s own episodes of violent riots over the integration of minorities.

The only difference is that in the case of Saint-Léonard, the white, French-speaking, majority was rioting against segregation, not in support of it.

Québec’s segregated school system is as old as Canada. It was a compromise of sorts between the Protestant industrialists of Montreal and the all powerful Catholic clergy who agreed that the province would have two completely separate and independently run school systems : one Protestant, one Catholic, which with time morphed into French and English-language systems. The dual school systems were constitutionalised in 1867 and, to this day, Québec is the only Canadian province constitutionally obligated to maintain « separate but equal » schools.

The Parti Québécois did it’s best in 1977 to create modern integrated system for all children, regardless of their origin, religion or home language.  Bill 101 established that all of Québec’s children would from now on study  and receive their education in French, the majority’s language.

Except for Québec’s English-speaking minority, of course, who’s right to it’s own parallel school system was protected.  To this day, anyone who has studied at least one year in an English school somewhere in Canada is allowed to opt out of the majority’s school system.

This, of course, is rationalised on the principal of some supposed right of children to receive education in their language.

That’s interesting because, at least in Montreal, the majority of English-speaking youth are not studying in English at all!

According to the English Montreal School Board as many as three out of four primary school students spend most of their schoolday in classes taught in French.  The so-called “core” program where the majority of classes are taught in English is the least popular of all the school board’s options and is being abandoned by parents who demand immersion and billitteracy curriculum for their children.

Even Québec’s stuffy English Private Schools that only a generation ago prepared kids in penny loafers to rule the world in English are now falling over themselves to provide rich people with the French the publicly-funded system can’t afford.  The students of Westmount’s Selwyn Housenow spend between 50% and 80% of their class time studying in French and have even added a French verse to their school hymn! (Which, I belive, was the number 3 demand in the FLQ manifesto.)

Outside Montreal the situation is even stranger with many English schools having a majority of French students and very few actual Anglos exercising their right to receive an English-language education in Québec.  In Québec City close to 60% of the students in English schools are Francophones.  This is possible because French-speaking, or for that matter, any family that has obtained a certificate of eligibility to English schools through, for example, a mixed marriage, can keep passing the privilege along to further generations until the End of Time.

(For example I posses one of the fabled Certificates of eligibility even though I was raised in a French-speaking household because my father was an alumni of the very English Lower Canada College. Had I exercised that right, I would have been able to pass it on to my descendants, regardless of the language they speak at home, as long as at least one kid from every generation studied for at least one year in an English school somewhere in Canada.

I, however, decided not to follow my father’s footsteps in the land of crew cuts (and also shattered my mother’s dream that I would study with the Jesuits of Brébeuf College like Pierre Elliot Trudeau) and once the ultra-nationalist unionized separatist teachers of l’École Notre-Dame-de-Grâce primary school were done thoroughly brainwashing my young impressionable mind, I decided to go to a multicultural French-language public High School instead.

So my family no longer belongs to the elusive society of the eligible…)

Hey, it’s not that it’s a bad idea for Québec’s English-speaking kids to take classes in French. What’s profoundly bizarre is the concept of English-speaking children immersing themselves in French in schools with no French kids two blocks away from an actual French school…

As even the Montreal Gazette reported, the result is technically bilingual kids who don’t know any French people and who are uncomfortable ordering a burger in French at McDonalds.

On the French side there is growing tension between proponents and opponents to the kind of bilingual programs that have become common on the English side.  While there is a lot of demand for them, opponents feel that the French schools’ mission of integrating immigrants into Québec society, especially in Montréal, could be seriously compromised if more English was introduced in the schools.

As a result, many French-speaking families in Montreal are massively abandoning the public school system for private schools that offer, among other things, better English classes.  Between 2001 and 2006 the number of students in Montreal’s private schools leaped by 30%.

All this together leads to a profoundly dyslexic school arrangement.  Immigrants to Québec are now intergrating themselves into Québec society in schools with no French-speaking Québécois, while Québec Francophones send their children to private schools.  Montréal Anglos are building their own parallel French school network with no French students while Francophones in the rest of the province are keeping an English school system alive even though there are no more actual English-speaking students.

Written by angryfrenchguy

August 18, 2009 at 3:04 pm

161 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. They are, unfortunately. The english are culturally unable to understand other cultures, you only need to read them here; they are the most imperialist people of all History, and they are culturally accustomed to be only on the top, and they will fight any attempt to relegate them to the second rank tooth and nail.

    Jean Naimard

    August 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  2. I agree and particularly take offense to his frequent use of the “N”, but I guess that is open according to some on this blog!
    It’s disgusting racism is what it is!

    You really show your lack of compehension (be it cultural towards other cultures, or simply an inability to understand written english). When I use the word “nigger”, it is in the context of “the white niggers of america”, which is the title of a book.
    There is an additionnal explanation: you brandish your offence simply to justify not having to debunk my arguments, too.

    Jean Naimard

    August 23, 2009 at 9:28 pm

  3. Your very boring Jean…desole pour toi.

    ABP

    August 23, 2009 at 11:52 pm

  4. But don’t you see the contradiction here :

    “Maybe they are even open enough, if left the choice, to one day simply accept a single French school system.”

    Why should the anglos sacrifice their english school system? They’ve been here for well over 200 years! Our whole grudge seems to be that we’re scared of getting assimilated by the anglos. But don’t you think that anglos from Québec, that have been around for a long time, might be scared that their kids forget their roots someday?

    The two school systems can work. In the past, it was failing for one reason : failure to provide their students with decent formation in their second language. There is not way in hell that I could have learned decent English with the normal classes in French school : I had to do immersion. I guess the same as to be true for English kids that want to learn French. A good solution that would also encourage English kids to speak French more would be to team up English schools and French schools, in regions where it is possible, in order to have “immersion sessions” where kids from both systems could speak together using their second language only.

    Vinster171

    August 24, 2009 at 12:04 am

  5. @ AngryFrenchGirl

    And what do you think of posters who openly threaten others in order to get their point across?

    “Jean Naimard
    August 20, 2009 at 11:37

    En France, pendant l’occupation, il y avait plein de petits crétins comme toi qui pactisaient avec l’occupant. À la libération, on s’est occupé d’eux.”

    I don’t think you need a translation, but I’ll still type it out for everybody’s benefit :

    “In France, during the occupation, there were lots of little idiots like you who were collaborating with the ennemy. After the liberation, we took care of them.”

    Vinster171

    August 24, 2009 at 12:12 am

  6. “Point Godwin! Merci d’avoir joué!”

    That was very convincing. Man, I feel SO debunked right now!

    Vinster171

    August 24, 2009 at 12:24 am

  7. That was very convincing. Man, I feel SO debunked right now!

    Jean Naimard

    August 24, 2009 at 12:25 am

  8. I have made a similar point elsewhere here; the Church in France has had to deal with numerous heretical movements in the last millenium, beginning with the Cathars, and continuing on to the Calvinists, French Republicans, and various flavors of Marxists, among others.

    In this context, I note that the first French settlements of North America occurred under Henri IV, a Calvinist turned Catholic and architect of the Edict of Nantes. I can’t help but wonder if one of the reasons for the Court’s patronage of the settlments may have been that Henri IV had it in the back of his mind that pointing French Catholic religious in the direction of a large population of (Indian) souls to convert to the Church might keep those same religious far away from the affairs of the French Calvinists whose rights Henri promised to protect in the 1598 Edict, thereby promoting peace in a kingdom that had been rent by a religious civil war in the thirty years before he became king.

    littlerob

    August 24, 2009 at 7:40 am

  9. Interesting theory. In New France, although protestants were “officially” prohibited, there always has been trhiving protestant activities. Although they were often discovered, the local scatholic clergy had no trouble converting whole villages back to scatholicism… (yeah, right).

    Jean Naimard

    August 24, 2009 at 9:11 am

  10. 1. Why say “if North America stayed mostly French, things would be this and that”? Why not say “if there was no colonialism, and the Natives were still in control of their lands, this and this would happen”. What you’re saying here gives away overwhelming sense of self-entitlement, typical of Quebecois nationalists. It also gives away your own colonialist arrogance. And ironically you are the one that throws around accusations of colonialism against other people who happen to be of English origin.

    2. The assumption that things would be much different and the world would not be in ruins if the French colonialists prevailed in NA is, let’s be charitable and say, unfounded. Given France’s exploits in her colonies, I highly doubt that. The thirst to conquer and control other nations by the French is so evident even today in Africa. I think that if France was in control today, the world be in the same ruin, if not worse.
    3.Centuries ago, France was no different than England, Spain, or Portugal. Nobody expands energy and resources to wage wars overseas because it is “fashionable”, as you claim. France didn’t follow other European nations overseas and fought bloody wars with other colonialists just because it was trendy. It did it for the same reasons as others, to gain land, resources, cheap labor, etc…

    4. All colonialism is bad, but the English have one thing going for them. The lands that they colonized are prospering today. The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, are the richest countries in the world where everyone else immigrates. You can’t say that about the French colonies, can you? Unless you’re gearing up for immigration to Haiti. So if I am ever to be colonized, I want to be colonized by the English, not the French. Thank you very much.

    allophone

    August 24, 2009 at 11:54 am

  11. “4. All colonialism is bad, but the English have one thing going for them. The lands that they colonized are prospering today. The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, are the richest countries in the world where everyone else immigrates. You can’t say that about the French colonies, can you? Unless you’re gearing up for immigration to Haiti. So if I am ever to be colonized, I want to be colonized by the English, not the French. Thank you very much.”

    Right… what about Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Bengladesh, Sri Lanka, the Philipines, Jamaica, Belize, Guyana, Nigeria, Pakistan…

    Only a retard would get into this debate about who’s the best colonizer and… yeah, that would be someone like you!

    angryfrenchguy

    August 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  12. I’m still waiting for you to engage in a debate with Jean, if only once. So far, he’s been writing a lot of crazy shit, but you just sit silently and don’t bother to comment. Not one single time. Do you happen to agree with him?

    Read everything I said about colonialism so far, and in what context.

    The only time I ever engage in discussions about colonialism is when I hear ethnocentric Quebecois nationalists bring it up. In my experience, Quebec nationalists are the only people that talk about it these days, usually with their fingers pointing at other people, but never themselves. To me, it’s a peak of hypocrisy that I can’t stand.

    But you’re a nationalist yourself. So you probably identify with Jean on these issues.

    allophone

    August 24, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  13. The American era in the Philippines was a relatively short one (1898-1942 and 1944/5-46), although certainly marred at its start by a vicious colonial war (and an aggressive one on our part) in which at least 200,000 Filipinos and about 6,000 Americans were killed.

    The Spaniards were the long term colonizers of the islands (1565-1898); they are named for Felipe II, whom some Filipinos call “el rey sifilis.”

    There was of course a Japanese era, too (1942-44/5) which is not remembered with any great fondness by people who lived through it.

    littlerob

    August 24, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  14. “if North America had stayed mostly French, the planet would not be laying in ruins today (because of the Americans)…”

    It could have. George III offered to return either New France or Guadeloupe to Louis XV at the peace that ended the Seven Years’ war; Louis chose Guadeloupe.

    Which brings me to another point that Jean has made here: the idea that France didn’t colonize as much because it is a richer country than Britain. True enough, but the climate there is too cold to grow cane sugar. And so France, like all the other Atlantic colonial powers, found it necessary to take over several areas in the Caribbean (Louisiana, St. Domingue, Guadeloupe/Martinique) where it could set up sugar plantations. And like all the other Atlantic colonial powers, France imported Africans to work the plantations, paying for them in Africa in part with rum distilled from the sugar grown on those plantations.

    What strikes me about Louis’ choice of Guadeloupe over New France is that at the time France had a large and thriving (if you happened to be white) sugar colony in St. Domingue, plus continued access to the sugar plantations in Louisiana, which was transferred to Spanish rule by the peace. I would have thought that the amount of sugar coming to France from those places would have been enough to satisfy sweet teeth even in the remotest parts of the Auvergne, but either Paris believed otherwise or the sugar merchants had a more persuasive lobby at Court than the fur merchants.

    littlerob

    August 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm

  15. 2. The assumption that things would be much different and the world would not be in ruins if the French colonialists prevailed in NA is, let’s be charitable and say, unfounded. Given France’s exploits in her colonies, I highly doubt that. The thirst to conquer and control other nations by the French is so evident even today in Africa. I think that if France was in control today, the world be in the same ruin, if not worse.

    New-France had a very big difference from the later french colonies: it was established by the king, who could not care less if there wasn’t tons of riches coming his way from New-France. Later colonies were established by the bourgeois, where, by contrast, that there was some riches coming their ways was all about colonies.
    And bourgeois never had the whole of political power in France, so they are quite unrepresentative of France.
    The later french colonies were appaling, yes. They were disgusting and just as bad as the british. That’s because they were establishe by the bourgeois to rape, pillage and plunder.

    3.Centuries ago, France was no different than England, Spain, or Portugal.  Nobody expands energy and resources to wage wars overseas because it is “fashionable”, as you claim. France didn’t follow other European nations overseas and fought bloody wars with other colonialists just because it was trendy. It did it for the same reasons as others, to gain land, resources, cheap labor, etc…

    Oh yes, France was very different. It was a bountiful country with all the ressources needed; contrast this to piss-poor Britain who was soon depleted and then had to seek ressources from overseas just to survive. France never needed it’s colonies to live; best proof of it is when France lost it’s empire after the war, it enjoyed 30 solid years of economic growth, unseen elsewhere, whilst Britain was bankrupt, destitute and prostrate. Heck! Britain had strict currency controls for 20 years following the war! The only way Britain was able to pay it’s war debt to Canada was with Grand Trunk obligations, which meant that Canada had to stop paying for them!!!

    4. All colonialism is bad, but the English have one thing going for them. The lands that they colonized are prospering today.

    Here you just established your own extremely colonialist viewpoint.
    They “prosper”, in anglo-saxon terms. They often quite not prosper in the terms of the colonized people. Go ask Saskatchewan indians if they think they are “prospering” in their terms right now, being colonized by the english. Go ask them. And ask us, the french, if we are prospering in our terms right now.

    Jean Naimard

    August 24, 2009 at 8:11 pm

  16. US, Canada, New-Zealand and Australia are, unlike those you list, colonies where the whites outnumber the natives.

    Jean Naimard

    August 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  17. “Did it turn all the immigrants into Journal de Montréal-reading, Star Academy-watching, Sainte-Thérèse-dwelling, ADQ-voting prototypical Québécois?

    Ben non.”

    True, but this is by no means unique to Quebec.

    Many people in Quebec always talk with near-admiration of the integration to the English language of all those millions of immigrants to Toronto, but that doesn’t mean they are all listening to Gordon Lightfoot, watching Corner Gas and playing curling. They aren’t. And most of what uniquely English Canadian culture does exist out there is totally ignored by New Canadians, whose interest generally lies in the culture of their country of origin and, of course, in American pop culture.

    This is also true of immigrants even in many non-anglo countries like Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands…

    You see, American popular culture is present all over the world, so people from developing countries already have plenty of exposure to it when they immigrate to a richer country. And when they arrive in the developed country (even if it is non-anglo), American pop culture is usually even more present and available than it was back home. So they are (more or less) drawn to it naturally, it seems.

    Which is why you have young Somalis living in Stockholm who are addicted to CSI but couldn’t care less about the (pretty good actually) Kurt Wallander series produced by Swedish TV based on the novels of Henning Mankell…

    After a while though, some rooting in the local host culture does take place, usually after three or four generations.

    And sometimes it even happens sooner. Even in Quebec.

    For example, AFG mentioned Star Académie. Well the most recent edition actually had a kid of Chinese origin from Montreal. His parents didn`t speak a word of French or English. But both of their kids did.

    And their son was in tune with Quebec culture enough to audition for Star Académie. Which means he had at least heard about it, which is a lot more than we can say of some people who probably would not even have known that it existed.

    Acajack

    August 25, 2009 at 7:32 am

  18. I said:

    “All colonialism is bad, but the English have one thing going for them. The lands that they colonized are prospering today”

    I should have said *some* lands. There are places like India that the Brits occupied and they left it in utter ruins.

    But *some* is still better than *none*.

    I said:

    “So if I am ever to be colonized, I want to be colonized by the English, not the French”

    Was meant to be a cheap shot at Jean. I just can’t resist it sometimes on this forum. Like I said before, if you wrestle with a chimneysweep, you don’t always come out clean. His dirt rubs off on you. And there are a few “chimneysweeps” on this forum, even female ones.

    But on colonialism, whether it’s a condescending Brit or an arrogant Frenchman that is “bringing civilization” to my “savage nation” makes no difference. One is no better than the other.

    allophone

    August 25, 2009 at 10:57 am

  19. Congrats, you just won the Joshua T. Vandepoele backpedaling award!!!

    Jean Naimard

    August 25, 2009 at 11:46 am

  20. “Self inflicted”, yeah, right,

    It’s a recurring canard in the commentaries on this blog isn’t it? Speaking of black is white, up is down, left is right… Bienvenue au monde à l’envers, au pays des merveilles!

    For starters, how was the complete cutting off of all cultural contact with and immigration from the French-speaking world following the forcible incorporation of New France into British North America a case of “self-inflicted” segregation on the part of francophones? Hmm? Chercher l’erreur…

    And if St-Léonard was a case of “self-segregation” on the part of francophones, how come all the impetus for integrating immigrants into francophone schools came from the community’s francophones themselves, against the combined forces of a) Italian immigrant community leaders, who had *demanded* English-language schools in the first place b) English Catholic school officials and c) English Protestant school officials, the latter two both having a clear pecuniary interest in maintaining the bloated clientèle of their own school systems? And how come a referendum showed 75% of francophones wanted immigrants integrated into the francophone school system?

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=1CwhnBqgSpwC&dq=levine+%22reconquest+of+montreal%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ZubBuVZcEH&sig=TAbBlyLW_kO51XwOPymdXXhhwB8&hl=en&ei=M4eUSo2cOpCsMa3U5fkH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=true

    And if Québec francophones want “self-segregation,” as the Equality Party noble in exile and his dumbass vendu stepandfetchophone pal mononcle Vinnie contend, then how come the French Language Charter, which mandates that school-age allophone immigrants integrate to the francophone school system, is massively supported by Québec francophones and massively demonized by English Canadians, who endlessly posture on this blog and elsewhere as paragons of multicultural virtue? And how come the Equality Party intello doesn’t know that the opposite of segregation is not “freedom” but “integration”? Should we take up a collection to buy him a thesaurus?

    And since Québec anglophones have *no institutional or legal barriers whatsoever* preventing them from attending the francophone school system and institutions of higher learning, how come anglophones (many of whom are probably not even Quebeckers…) comprise only 1% of the student body of UQAM and 2% of the student body of UdeM (and many of whom are perhaps not even Quebeckers?) while francophones comprise 20% of the student body at McGill and Carpetbaggercordia? You’re right JN, if they really wanted their children to have French education, they’d *send them to the French-language system.* Pas si compliqué, ça.

    Bref, les gens qui se ségrèguent, c’est *qui*?

    James

    August 25, 2009 at 8:37 pm

  21. “Oh yes, France was very different. It was a bountiful country with all the ressources needed; contrast this to piss-poor Britain who was soon depleted and then had to seek ressources from overseas just to survive.”

    Just a though here… But Britain was, at some point in time, invaded by France, and, at some point in time, the King of England had to swear alliegeance to the King of France. France has had much more of an expansionist history than England has. In fact, the reason why England spent a lot in the “colonies” strategy can be explained by its geographic and also by its “painful” relations with France. So, in other terms : since “les Français” were such pain in the a$$ back in those days, “les maudits Anglais” had few other alternatives than to try to get their ressources where they could.

    Vinster171

    August 26, 2009 at 12:09 am

  22. Just a though[t] here…

    I beg to differ.

    James

    August 26, 2009 at 12:14 am

  23. While I appreciate you going over my writing skills (one can always improve), I also have to wonder why you could not produce any argumentation in order to counter mine.

    Vinster171

    August 26, 2009 at 12:24 am

  24. I wasn’t differing over your writing skills. I was differing over your claim you were producing thought.

    James

    August 26, 2009 at 12:28 am

  25. Well, it’s simple: the self-segregating people are the immigrants (prodded by the english), the english, (and, since I am a politically-incorrect “antisemite”), the jews. The latter have a solid track record of segregating themselves in ghettoes throughout history, too, so it’s no surprising that they would do the same here.

    Jean Naimard

    August 26, 2009 at 9:40 am

  26. Just a though here… But Britain was, at some point in time, invaded by France, and, at some point in time, the King of England had to swear alliegeance to the King of France.

    “England is a french colony that turned bad” — Gérald Robitaille

    France has had much more of an expansionist history than England has.

    No. The feud between France and England is just a dynastic family feud. Nothing else. Why would France have always tried to expand into England, which meant having a huge navy to do a “débarquement” when it could have walked into Germany or the Netherlands or (hike into) Italy or Spain???

    In fact, the reason why England spent a lot in the “colonies” strategy can be explained by its geographic and also by its “painful” relations with France. So, in other terms : since “les Français” were such pain in the a$$ back in those days, “les maudits Anglais” had few other alternatives than to try to get their ressources where they could.

    Feck, no. Eventually (after the 100 year war), the family feud subsided and relations between France and England were quite normal (as interdynastic relations go), which meant that between a few foreign policies outbursts, they were not at each other’s throats all the time. In fact, relations tended to sour-up precisely in the period of colonial expansion, which was mostly driven by the bourgeois.
    As always, it’s the bourgeois that are fucking-up things.

    Jean Naimard

    August 26, 2009 at 9:46 am

  27. “England is a french colony that turned bad” — Gérald Robitaille

    Well, that was certainly not biased!

    “No. The feud between France and England is just a dynastic family feud.”

    Is is, indeed. But when I mentioned that France had much more of an expansionist history than England did, I was not referring only to the invasion of England. France has had an history of waging war to all its neighbors at various time in history.

    “Why would France have always tried to expand into England, which meant having a huge navy to do a “débarquement” when it could have walked into Germany or the Netherlands or (hike into) Italy or Spain???”

    From what I remember of the sole history class I’ve had in my University curriculum, which covered the history of Germany from 1870 to 1945, there was nos such thing as “Germany” before these years. Continental armies, more often than otherwise French, walked on these lands gaining and losing ground almost on a yearly basis.

    Vinster171

    August 26, 2009 at 3:02 pm

  28. Vinster171 :
    «You are laughable. List good things that ANY colonial country has done for the people they’ve conquered? The French were in no way better than the English with that regard. And I guess we shouldn’t mention the Spanish or the Portuguese. »

    To the contrary, the French were quite arguably better colonists than the English. (Or “less worst”, by today’s standards.)

    -The French created vast alliances with the natives, traded and inbred with them. Nothing of the sort from the English.
    Indeed, when the English finally conquered Canada, the natives and the metis rebelled, as they rightly saw that it meant the end for them too.
    (And I’m not mentioning the genocides that went on from the colonists in the American colonies.)

    I invite you to read the 3 excellent articles that C. Rioux just wrote on the conquest. They broach the topic of the relations that the French had with the natives :
    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/plaines_abraham.html

    Raman

    August 26, 2009 at 8:42 pm

  29. “England is a french colony that turned bad” — Gérald Robitaille
    Well, that was certainly not biased!

    Indeed; that was just “«‘QUOTED’»”

    From what I remember of the sole history class

    That explains your problem.

    I’ve had in my University curriculum, which covered the history of Germany from 1870 to 1945, there was nos such thing as “Germany” before these years. Continental armies, more often than otherwise French, walked on these lands gaining and losing ground almost on a yearly basis.

    No Germany indeed, only a multitude of small principalties kept apart thanks to the continuous meddling of the perfidious Albion, the same meddling that had France run roughshod over them after being prodded too many times.
    Make no mistake: England clearly saw very long ago that France + Germany would have been an indomitable foe, and made it’s darnednest sure that they would be continuously at war with each other. This accounts for the current anti-european actions of Britain.

    Jean Naimard

    August 26, 2009 at 9:56 pm

  30. What a nice person you are.

    Marc

    August 31, 2009 at 12:58 am


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: