Don't Want To Take An Oath To The Queen Of England? No Voting Rights For You!

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   


It's not your land though is it?
Most of Canada is "Crown Land"






posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by NikTheGreat
 




.........so why do you need to pledge loyalty to the monarchy of England?

Canadian citizens pledge loyalty to the queen of England?


Because she's The Queen of Canada too.....and Australia, and New Zealand etc.


en.wikipedia.org...


You are quite right!

In fact, I find that connection also appealing in addition to my reasons in my post on page 1. The common wealth is another bond that links our countries together. I find that appealing and it is part of our heritage and history.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


No it's not contrived of me to request that my government stop worshiping the Queen Of England and her offspring.

I am not a citizen of Great Britain, I have never taken an Oath to the Queen and I find it insulting to my personal sovereignty that anybody would think I am obliged to be 'faithful' to a monarch of ANY KIND...

The above statement rings true for most people I would think. Some people may think it's simply a small thing, but it's a matter of principle. Regardless of if the Oath is symbolic or not, it means a hell of a lot more than what people make it out to be.

Personally I want the Monarchy out of my country, off of my money, I want the Governor General's office abolished. For starters.

~Tenth


Cool, good for you. Well done, I am British and visited Montreal a few years back, I think 6 years ago. Prostitution was absolutely rife, homelessness even more so, if you couldn't speak French you were frankly a 3rd class citizen (so many other migrants who couldn't speak English kind of came a step above us because, terrible as it is we were white and spoke English). Lots of fat men and boys booked into the hotel to watch hockey though. Very rude, all of them.

I think the Queen is doing you a favour personally, but hey, whatever floats your boat.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
If we got rid of the queen as the top person then we'd end up with having to elect someone every 4-5 years who'd be as corrupt as they come and probably would be even more hated and cost the country 10 times as much and do 5 times less political work than an 80+ year old pensioner and within a few years there would soon be a upswelling for a return to the monarchy especially when the republicans find the first order of the new leader is the establishment of a bunga bunga tax so he can go out shagging slappers on the tax payer


Isnt that what happend in 1649 but with less bunga bunga and more presecuting catholics and killing Irish lol



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Ah, but I thought Canada demanded to be recognized as a free and equal country? They're not part of the empire, as per the video, so why should they have to pledge allegiance to the queen? I understand they're part of a 'commonwealth' and it's law to do so, I just understand why so many Canadians dislike the idea, and I support them.

Maybe being born and raised in a 'live free or die' state, I always tend to support the idea of independence. Perhaps it's the idea of being ruled by a monarchy that is so distasteful to me as well. To me, pledging allegiance is different than pleading loyalty.

One is where you're equal allies, another is when you're a subject of a superior.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NikTheGreat
Ah, but I thought Canada demanded to be recognized as a free and equal country? They're not part of the empire, as per the video, so why should they have to pledge allegiance to the queen? I understand they're part of a 'commonwealth' and it's law to do so, I just understand why so many Canadians dislike the idea, and I support them.

Maybe being born and raised in a 'live free or die' state, I always tend to support the idea of independence. Perhaps it's the idea of being ruled by a monarchy that is so distasteful to me as well. To me, pledging allegiance is different than pleading loyalty.

One is where you're equal allies, another is when you're a subject of a superior.


Pfft american propaganda


The monarchy has less power than a AA battery and the battery is more usefull.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Propaganda eh? Well if you like to be a subject of another, then that's your choice; and I respect that.

I don't know why anyone would want to be a subject of anyone else, especially a monarchy with less power than a 'AA battery'.

But hey, to each their own. you're free to live in a far more restrictive environment if that's what you choose.



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Canadians do not bow to the Queen.

"Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she doesn't have a lot to say" Lennon/MacCartney.

Live free or die, really. In Canada we do not have Homeland Security, FEMA or TSA.
I hear there's some kind of Oath USAers are forced to take, and it is a prerequisite to US citizenship, and that is OK.

Being a member of the Commonwealth is a privilege, which is why South Africa and India are still members, as are Canada and Australia and 50 other states. The population of the Commonwealth is 2.2 billion people, none of whom are ruled by the Queen.

below is a definition of the Commonwealth (if you are interested in geopolitics)

The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of 54 independent sovereign states Most are former British colonies, or dependencies of these colonies. No one government in the Commonwealth exercises power over the others, as in a political union. Rather, the relationship is one of an international organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status, and co-operate within a framework of common values and goals, as outlined in the Singapore Declaration.[1] These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace, and are carried out through multilateral projects and meetings, as well as the quadrennial Commonwealth Games.[2] The symbol of this free association is Queen Elizabeth II, known for this purpose as Head of the Commonwealth. This position, however, does not imbue her with any political or executive power over any Commonwealth member states; the position is purely symbolic, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is the chief executive of the organisation



posted on Jul, 14 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by melobruce
 


If they don't 'bow' to the queen, why do they have to pledge loyalty?

I was referring to my state motto, "Live free or die" NH. Maybe you didn't know, but each state has its own set of laws, and only federal laws overlap.

Though when it comes right down to it, Homeland securty, tsa and fema (in many aspects) are brand new additions (relatively speaking) and are being challenged and combated, because the go against the grain for which the country was founded.

Even so, we still have far more freedoms than the members of that alliance of 'sovereign states.' Canada included. Heck, you can't even have a handgun in Canada that has more than 10 rounds? What a joke.
(please bring up the gun rights issues, I can't wait for the 'why would you need more than 10 rounds' rebuttal)

Gun bans in Britain too - and since then their violent crime rate skyrocketed. Violent crimes, not gun crimes, so when you try to muster up some reason why guns should be banned, make sure you know the difference in these statistics, and the rates in which they changed since the bans took place.

Unless you watch Peirs Morgan, which it sounds like you may.

Good governance, yeah right. Britain is a police state, far from being an ideal place to live. One of the highest taxing countries in the world too I believe too.

I am not saying all of america is ideal, Massachusetts for example is modeled closely to the system you have. It too is a 'commonwealth,' & California is also modeled, and they too are in so much debt and are experiencing severe backlash.

The universal healthcare system is a joke, and in every part of the world where a universal healthcare/rationing system was implemented (including canada) your healthcare quality drops significantly. And I'd love to get into the details of this, if you're interested, because there's thousands of clear cut examples I'd be itching to illuminate. How many times have we seen on the news that a terminal ilness is curable if treated within 3 months, but are on a waiting list of like 17 months. You wonder why hundreds of canadians come here every year for medical care. (won't be that way for long if obamacare has it's way, but it's being crippled on a state by state basis).

The difference is we can still do many things, while yes we may be spied on heavily (for now), and TSA is just a form of conditioning people into having their rights taken away, you're simply not allowed.

That definition of commonwealth may sound pleasant, though it is not a reflection of the reality in which is experienced.

Free trade is a good thing? oh, fyi... removing tariff's, if you didn't know, is what made it possible to move labor and outsourcing to oppressed populations such as china. Making our nations a nation of consumers because it's easier to get production outsourced to a country that pays pennies per hour compared to other 1st world countries. A little geopolitics for you.

These things are calculated, and any real study in geopolitics, which I assume you have at least a mild interest, clearly indicates that those who are operating these things are not out for your best interest, and in fact have an interest in suppressing your population. Ours too, just less far along the path.

Being part of a suppressed and heavily manipulated 'association of 54 independent sovereign states' (yeah, right) is not a privilege, it's a way to make you feel better about those who are ruling over you.

Feel free to take your mercury laced vaccinations and drink your fluoride water, because according to these 'sovereign states' it's healthy for you. Yet your government officials get completely different healthcare than you do, but so what?

Hey, these countries are far better off than those in the 2nd and 3rd world, I agree.

But if you somehow think you have more freedoms and are better off because more of your rights and freedoms are taken away by those you so proudly associate yourself with, all the while your access to vital resources are restricted, then all the power to you my friend.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NikTheGreat
 


I take it you conveniently missed or ignored the point I made about Elizabeth being the Queen of Canada too and that pledging allegiance to the Head Of State is merely a symbolic gesture and one that represents a respect and certain amount of understanding and appreciation of Canada's heritage.
It is no different than pledging allegiance to an inanimate object like a flag.

You also seem to be quite unwilling or unable to grasp the concept of a constitutional monarchy and continue to believe the assumption that all people of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc are some sort of subservient medieval serfs - quite the opposite - but hey, if you want to believe the nonsense peddled in video's like the one linked to rather than the first hand testament of actual citizens of those countries I guess that's entirely up to you.

Deny ignorance?

en.wikipedia.org...



Even so, we still have far more freedoms than the members of that alliance of 'sovereign states.'


How do you know that?
Have you ever been to any of those sovereign states or do you base your assumptions on the 'information' supplied by interest groups who are solely concerned with furthering their own agenda's?



Canada included. Heck, you can't even have a handgun in Canada that has more than 10 rounds?


Plenty of gun control threads here on ATS, take that discussion there - it's not the subject under discussion here.



Unless you watch Peirs Morgan,


Piers Morgan is a complete twat - why do you think we palmed him off on you?



Britain is a police state,


No it isn't.



far from being an ideal place to live.


Of course we have our problems - quite a few in fact - but it's still a fantastic place to live - and having travelled quite a bit I at least have some first hand experience to compare it to - do you?



One of the highest taxing countries in the world too I believe too.


Oops, wrong again - about the same as most developed countries.
en.wikipedia.org...



The universal healthcare system is a joke,


No it isn't.
The NHS is one of the greatest achievements of post-war UK.
Yes, it should be much better and needs reform but it's still far superior to anything available in the USA - not too sure about Canada's but I'm sure I recall reading somewhere that it too is generally regarded as one of the best in the world.



the World Health Organization, in 2000, ranked the provision of healthcare in the United Kingdom as fifteenth best in Europe and eighteenth in the world.[4][5] A more recent report, the Commonwealth Fund Mirror, Mirror on the Wall survey of seven first world healthcare systems, ranked the United Kingdom as second overall, taking first place in subcategories including effective care and efficiency

en.wikipedia.org...



Being part of a suppressed....


How on earth are Canadians any more 'suppressed' than Americans, British, French, Japanese etc - please show exactly how they are.



....it's a way to make you feel better about those who are ruling over you.


Who are no different from the same set of amoral, corrupt, manipulating bastards who rule over you!



Feel free to take your mercury laced vaccinations and drink your fluoride water.....


A higher percentage of US citizens drink fluordised water than they do in Canada and the UK.
en.wikipedia.org...



...Yet your government officials get completely different healthcare than you do,....


Exactly the same as the US - why? - Because the wealthy apparently have a greater right to the best health care possible.
You may agree with that, that's entirely up to you - personally I think every single human being has an equal right to the best possible health care.



But if you somehow think you have more freedoms and are better off because more of your rights and freedoms are taken away by those you so proudly associate you


How on earth has anyone's 'freedoms' been taken away by pledging allegiance to a Head Of State when seeking citizenship of that State?
edit on 15/7/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Okay, I understand where your coming from. Though it is entirely different than pledging allegiance to a flag.
1.) you're pledging allegiance to a person, when you plege alliegence to a flag, you are not pledging to the actual 'flag', you're pleading allegiance to what that flag represents. Completely different concept.

So you're saying you're not some sort of subservient medieval serf? I can understand that, however you perceive it, you're still in the same position the 'serf' was back then, except instead of working farms or whatever, you're working in office buildings and retail outlets; paying the majority of your income to taxes (sound familiar?) and the rest goes to paying to live. (unless you're upper scale, in which case you live mildly better than others, though you still clock in to your office building..ect)

You may think you've improved your position, but actually have only transposed one job for another. Same here for most in america.

& Yes, having many friends coming from different cultures (benefits to being around boston) not to mention I have family members that have married outside the country, and meeting their families from all over the erupean union, and south america, telling me their experiences. I did not just wake up one morning with these assumptions.
Especially living near Boston, you meet a LOT of people from around the world (mostly from wealthier families). But you don't need to meet these people, nor travel to every country, to have access to their laws and see what they have to abide by.

I don't understand what 'agenda' you're implying may be furthered, but there's no agenda in simply looking & cross referencing what's allowed and whats not from country to country.

& the round restriction was an example, should of been obvious when it was a simple sentence exemplifying a point.

Peirs Morgan is indeed a twat, and you should def take him back.

Britain is a police state - In 1640 you had the Habeaus Corpus Act, protecting you from false and arbitrary imprisonment, presuming innocence until proof of guilt, yet now you have had years and years of successive legislation that undermines that principle.

This allows the state to restrict liberty and confine citizens without interference by the courts. Sounds a lot like a police state to me? Need examples? I would..

Though it's a bit worse here in America with the introduction of the patriot act, you've had to deal with detentions without charge for a lot longer than we have. Since 1984 I think, was when the 24 hour max was changed to something like 4 days, then to like 90 days, but I think for citizens its been repealed to 14 days (with plans to excent limit of detention back to 28 days, though I think it's experiencing much flak, and I applaud that.). However, for non british citizens, they can be detained without charge indefinitely

Something radical that we don't have here is your terrorism act for the control orders- which can, WITHOUT trial, be electronically tagged, monitored, restricted from making phone calls, using the interenet, and even banned from certain kind of work, or visiting certain places, even have your passport revoked and be obligated to report to the police, just if you're SUSPECTED; not proven. I think they were replaced by TPIMS, which requires a burden a proof to administer & judge approval, but has such low requirement.

& do we really need to get into your secret courts & closed material proceedings? I don't think so. We can though, if you wish.

How about the bill of rights act of 1689? Protecting you from armed British forces on the streets during peacetime? Oh right, the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004 nullifies that and gives permission for the queen/government to suspect your bill of rights, Habeas Corpus and can even extend your maximum parliament term (which is 5 years I think) in 21 day increments, as many as they want.

You're no stranger to phone tapping, having that years and years before us, pretty recent for us, but you've had it since 1985 (passed in 94&07, though implemented before then) with the interception of communications act.

& do we really need to go into the regulation of investigatory powers act of 2000?

You say you're not in a police state, but I ask, how are you not? If that wasn't enough, just look at the violence your 'police' administer to crowds of protesters in recent years, highlighted recently with police beating passersby (young women included) with batons. (google it, it's easy to find)

And if you really think your universal healthcare is one of the 'greatest post war achievements' that's about as accurate as you saying you're not in a police state. How can anyone justify rationing of healthcare? We give healthcare to all, you have to sit on waiting lists.

Need I go on? Im out of characters, but we can if u wish.



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NikTheGreat
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Okay, I understand where your coming from. Though it is entirely different than pledging allegiance to a flag.
1.) you're pledging allegiance to a person, when you plege alliegence to a flag, you are not pledging to the actual 'flag', you're pleading allegiance to what that flag represents. Completely different concept.


I disagree. You're really pledging allegiance to the 'Crown' - which means the people. The Queen of Canada represents the people.

In the USA the President has absolute power. Some people think that is good. In Britain, Canada, Australia etc the elected eader (who invariably is not elected by a majority of the populace) does not have absolute power. The Queen, representing ALL people, provides a safeguard against dictatorship, even though she effectively has no power herself.


Incidently, in the USA you have to pledge allegiance to take up arms in defence of the USA - ie going to war (and dying) if your President says you should. Is that really any better, especially if you think the President is a douche-bag?
edit on 15-7-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NikTheGreat
 




.....you're pledging allegiance to a person, when you plege alliegence to a flag, you are not pledging to the actual 'flag', you're pleading allegiance to what that flag represents. Completely different concept.


No it isn't - in both cases new citizens are pledging allegiance to a symbolic representation, nothing more, nothing less.



So you're saying you're not some sort of subservient medieval serf?


That's correct.
I'm under no illusions as to the limitations of our freedoms - but life in the UK cannot be likened to the bonded, indentured existence that medieval serfs endured.
And the fact remains that we are at least as 'free' as probably any other nation in the world.
Should we have more 'freedom'? - Too damn right we should, but that's not the topic under discussion.

For the record; I don't pay tax on my earnings, and haven't for a few years now - it's a long story and one that's not to be told here - suffice to say that I am semi-retired at present.

Without wanting to sound insulting or condescending, because I assure you I don't - but it's one thing to formulate opinions on countries / societies etc on other peoples viewpoints and even experiences, but it's a poor substitute for actually witnessing them first hand.
But I do recognise that it does help shape our perceptions, but that's all it is.
And for every person who has told you something negative about the UK I could relate countless positive accounts.
And let's face it - if I believed many accounts I've heard about Americans I'd believe they were all gun-slinging, ignorant, arrogant gluttons and that American is one of the most insular, paranoid and repressive society's in the world - all of which is nonsense, isn't it?

I accept that you have had many interactions with people from other nations etc - yet you fail to acknowledge and believe the testaments given here that may give a slightly different view - which suggests to me, and I may be wrong, that you are unwilling to believe any opposing views to the one's you already have.
You seem like an intelligent, reasoned and courteous person - so I hope I am wrong.



I don't understand what 'agenda' you're implying may be furthered, .....


The agenda's that further vested and / or specific interests by trying to promote particular perspectives.



& the round restriction was an example, should of been obvious when it was a simple sentence exemplifying a point.


Many non-American's here on ATS get pretty sick of American's bringing gun-control into any discussion regardless of relevance - not saying you are one of them, but that's why the attitude towards the subject.
It's my experience that any references to gun-control etc are best left to gun-control specific threads - but do as you see fit.



Peirs Morgan is indeed a twat, and you should def take him back.


No, you have to keep him now.

You are correct about The Habeas Corpus Act - to a point.
The vast majority of these changes are aimed at preventing acts of terrorism.
If anyone is detained for longer than 24 hours without charge then the police may apply to a court for an extension of 36 or 96 hours if you are suspected of a serious crime - murder etc.
The court decides if an extension is appropriate.

If someone is suspected of terrorism they can be detained for up to 14 days.

The only people who are detained without trial beyond this are illegal immigrants who are detained during the deportation and appeal procedures.

Restrictions can be placed on the activities of those involved in terrorist activities without them being actually detained, but again, it must be court approved.

There is much wrong with our judicial and policing system and procedures but it is hardly as draconian as you are portraying.

The Civil Contingencies Act primarily deals with emergency powers and responsibilities during natural disasters and foreign invasion.
Most of these are limited to 21days and only an Act Of Parliament may extend this.
Emergency regulations can not affect The Human Rights Act 1998.

Ironically, peers in the House Of Lords, which is generally viewed with a certain amount of contempt and disdain by many here in the UK, tried to safeguard several other Acts and rights.

There are good parts to the Act, and parts that are certainly open to abuse given certain situations - no-one has suggested that everything is perfect here!

Phone tapping - a national disgrace, but only the naïve would have been surprised at the this and I suspect it's only the tip of the iceberg.
But I see no reason to suspect that it's not common practice in most country's.

I could rabbit on about the NHS and healthcare in general for ever - it's a topic that deserves a thread all of it's own - as do many things we have touched on.
But I too have ran out of
edit on 15/7/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NikTheGreat
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Propaganda eh? Well if you like to be a subject of another, then that's your choice; and I respect that.

I don't know why anyone would want to be a subject of anyone else, especially a monarchy with less power than a 'AA battery'.

But hey, to each their own. you're free to live in a far more restrictive environment if that's what you choose.


Restrictive? Subject?



I dont know what yoy get taught in your country about the UK buts its utter BS.

Life here is little diffrent from the USA. Onlything thing we dont have is a right to bare arms but thats it and that has only been resent as a result of a school shooting in 1997. I dont nessarly agree with it but it was voted through as popular opinion.

The queen does not make laws and I have freedom speach and can say what I want.

I can say she is a old hag and pointless and should be removed. I wont be dragged off by police and beheaded


All she is to me is a name on a passport and my money.
edit on 17-7-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NikTheGreat
reply to post by melobruce
 


If they don't 'bow' to the queen, why do they have to pledge loyalty?

I was referring to my state motto, "Live free or die" NH. Maybe you didn't know, but each state has its own set of laws, and only federal laws overlap.

Though when it comes right down to it, Homeland securty, tsa and fema (in many aspects) are brand new additions (relatively speaking) and are being challenged and combated, because the go against the grain for which the country was founded.

Even so, we still have far more freedoms than the members of that alliance of 'sovereign states.' Canada included. Heck, you can't even have a handgun in Canada that has more than 10 rounds? What a joke.
(please bring up the gun rights issues, I can't wait for the 'why would you need more than 10 rounds' rebuttal)

Gun bans in Britain too - and since then their violent crime rate skyrocketed. Violent crimes, not gun crimes, so when you try to muster up some reason why guns should be banned, make sure you know the difference in these statistics, and the rates in which they changed since the bans took place.

Unless you watch Peirs Morgan, which it sounds like you may.

Good governance, yeah right. Britain is a police state, far from being an ideal place to live. One of the highest taxing countries in the world too I believe too.

I am not saying all of america is ideal, Massachusetts for example is modeled closely to the system you have. It too is a 'commonwealth,' & California is also modeled, and they too are in so much debt and are experiencing severe backlash.

The universal healthcare system is a joke, and in every part of the world where a universal healthcare/rationing system was implemented (including canada) your healthcare quality drops significantly. And I'd love to get into the details of this, if you're interested, because there's thousands of clear cut examples I'd be itching to illuminate. How many times have we seen on the news that a terminal ilness is curable if treated within 3 months, but are on a waiting list of like 17 months. You wonder why hundreds of canadians come here every year for medical care. (won't be that way for long if obamacare has it's way, but it's being crippled on a state by state basis).

The difference is we can still do many things, while yes we may be spied on heavily (for now), and TSA is just a form of conditioning people into having their rights taken away, you're simply not allowed.

That definition of commonwealth may sound pleasant, though it is not a reflection of the reality in which is experienced.

Free trade is a good thing? oh, fyi... removing tariff's, if you didn't know, is what made it possible to move labor and outsourcing to oppressed populations such as china. Making our nations a nation of consumers because it's easier to get production outsourced to a country that pays pennies per hour compared to other 1st world countries. A little geopolitics for you.

These things are calculated, and any real study in geopolitics, which I assume you have at least a mild interest, clearly indicates that those who are operating these things are not out for your best interest, and in fact have an interest in suppressing your population. Ours too, just less far along the path.

Being part of a suppressed and heavily manipulated 'association of 54 independent sovereign states' (yeah, right) is not a privilege, it's a way to make you feel better about those who are ruling over you.

Feel free to take your mercury laced vaccinations and drink your fluoride water, because according to these 'sovereign states' it's healthy for you. Yet your government officials get completely different healthcare than you do, but so what?

Hey, these countries are far better off than those in the 2nd and 3rd world, I agree.

But if you somehow think you have more freedoms and are better off because more of your rights and freedoms are taken away by those you so proudly associate yourself with, all the while your access to vital resources are restricted, then all the power to you my friend.



What aload of American propaganda fed BS.


Not even going to bother replying to any of it. All it is half truths mixed with lies and myths which you most likley got off fox news.

You know nothing about the UK. And I suggest you take your American is so great BS elsewere.

Sheesh Americans



PS is the USA was so great why did I turn down a Job there and work permit





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join