Skip to content

An Interview with Professors Marvin Westwood and George Belliveau on War, Men, Trauma, Drama, and Recovery


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/08/08


Marv Westwood is a Professor Emeritus in the Counselling Psychology Program, and recipient of the Royal Canadian Legion Professorship in Education. His major areas of teaching and research are focused on program development, teaching and delivery of group-based approaches to help clients make effective life transitions. Prior to coming to UBC, he taught at McGill University (1973-80). and prior to that St. Francis Xavier University (1971-73). Over the past 25 years he has led the development of the UBC Veterans Transition Program to help promote recovery from war related stress injuries for which he received both the Queen’s Golden and Diamond Jubilee Medals in 2005 and 2013. In 2012 he established the Centre for Group Counselling and Trauma (CGCT) for teaching and research in the area of group work. He is advisor to the President’s initiative for the development of UBC Veteran Friendly Campus. Currently, he is Senior Advisor for the Institute of Veteran Education Transition (IVET). George Belliveau is Professor of Theatre/Drama Education at the University of British Columbia, Canada, where he currently serves as Head of the Department of Language and Literacy Education. He co-produced, directed and performed in Contact!Unload. His research has been published in various arts and theatre education research journals and books. He has written six books, including a co-edited one with Graham Lea, Contact!Unload: Military Veterans, Trauma, and Research-based Theatre (UBC Press, 2020). They discuss: culture; particular issues around masculinities; forms of trauma; actors; mythologies about masculinity; some of the fallouts; we give them these bribes socially; recruitment into the army or the armed forces; play by Rzgar Hama Rshed, Soldierland; different issues men and women have in the military; and recommended researchers or organizations.

Keywords: drama, George Belliveau, Marvin Westwood, men, recovery, trauma, war.

An Interview with Professors Marvin Westwood and George Belliveau on War, Men, Trauma, Drama, and Recovery[1],[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the gender associations within various parts in our culture?

Professor Marvin Westwood: There are masculinities in first responders, military, and police, where there are definite roles and cultural conventions that traditionally socialized males adhere to. It plays out in all aspects of their life for better and for worse. So, what you see, sometimes, in the military is the traditionally socialized masculinity, they value being protective. They mention to a female troop, “You stay back. We’ll protect you. Don’t worry.” They get pissed off [Laughing]…

Jacobsen: …[Laughing]…

Westwood: …because they’ve signed up to do the action. Then the guys feel misunderstood and the women feel misunderstood. So, we do have a modern day kind of reckoning about “let’s get clear about what culture of masculinity you’re ascribing to.” It can be helpful when we think about working with men as particular cultures because it becomes depoliticized to a great extent. Thank, God! [Laughing]

2. Jacobsen: Yes! [Laughing] George, when you’re coming at this, when we’re talking about this particular issues around masculinities, how are you viewing this? How is this playing into some of your professional work?

Professor George Belliveau: I am not an expert in this area. Theatre is definitely my domain, and education, but I can speak in relation to having worked with the veterans and a lot of the challenges that we kind of face. Sometimes, we didn’t really face them. We, often, get feedback from audience members. That they were grateful for the stories. They were longing for stories of women’s experiences, and how we could integrate more of a narrative of women. Sometimes, it was easy to answer that question because the call out was a Movember men’s health project. So, we were funded to work with men. That was the easy answer. Maybe, the second level answer was the work that Marv does in therapeutic enactment with the veterans is to create this space, where they’re going to open up and work through some of their injuries. They’re going to keep moving forward. The theatre was an extension of that. In some ways, to fill a curve, and say, “It was going to be a mixed group.” It didn’t feel right in that moment. As the project advanced down the road, new iterations came up, we had achieved some of what we wanted to achieve in terms of the combination of therapy and theatre. Then we were a little bit more nimble to include more women on stage. In terms of masculinity, I’m not making a claim for one side or the other. This project happened to be situated with men. We honoured that. That was it.

3. Jacobsen: Marv, within the field of counselling psychology and psychology even generally, what is the current state of discussion around issues that men deal with disproportionately negatively? Those forms of trauma that tend to be more male-specific, men-specific.

Westwood: Okay, there are conversations, which are going on now. Again, it has to return back. When you think about therapy and counselling, there’s something referred to as cross-cultural counselling. That’s respecting the norms and the influences of sub-groups. What we try to do is teach clinicians to understand that the issues that men have a major in because of their cultural shaping for the most part, they have a very strong sense of self-reliance, individualism. It is a sign of a weakness if they have to ask for help. So, unlike the gendered culture of most women in our culture, they are socialized to be more affiliative and seeking help to get what they need to become healthy again is not a threat to their identity. For many traditionally socialized males, to get help, it is a called a failure of self. They’ve internalized that as weakness. Now, the problem is, of course, you can be upset about that. You can blame them. Or what you can say, “Let’s understand their culture, where they come from.”

I’ll use an example of the police or the military. They are acting very badly and recklessly sometimes, when they are scared and threatened. So, they might start medicating more aggressively because they are scared inside, but they will never acknowledge it. Fear gets manifested as rage and anger. Because it is very threatening to their psychological self if they feel fear. They cannot ever admit that they are fearful. So, they project this out in other ways and get into trouble. What we would say, “Okay, it is time for us to not be judgmental about these males who do this, but try to understand this in a therapy context and create an environment to getting them moving from a sense of defense of self-sufficiency to affiliative nature and being allowed to deal with the traumas and injuries.” One of the great things about understanding culture and masculinity. Traditionally socialized males, they maty never approve help, but they approve helping others. So, our groups have become very successful with the veterans is we meet them. We say in groups of 6 or 8. They have trauma-related injuries with deployments overseas or traumas drawn up even as kids – believe it or not. We say, “None of you are here for help. Are you?” They say, “Nope!”

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Westwood: We say, “Good, welcome! But how many of you are here to help other guys?” “Yup!” All their hands go up. So, what we do, we built a program, “So, let’s get down to work then.” You have a whole team of people who are extremely helpful. In the process of helping others, George depicts this in the theatre of the military to some extent. In that, it is very empowering for injured males to get in touch with their emotional “baggage,” as they call it, that they’re carrying through the enactment of helping others drop their “baggage.” You can see what I’m saying. They are very ready to help. We use enactment to do this. In the process of doing this, they say, “Hey, that’s me too. That happened to me! I got fucked up too!” We really don’t criticize or judge them when they come into therapy, “You’re not a compliant client.” We have to understand their culture. That way, they become very cohesive as a group. They become very helpful. They become very caring. Of course, underneath all of that, as you can imagine, they see how they suffered a great deal in childhood with emotional deprivation as young males because they usually have fathers who were traditionally socialized males, at least in the military. We are unpacking that whole thing. It seems very, very successful with one of the principles of traditional masculinity. Does that make sense to you?

4. Jacobsen: Yes, I want to touch on the terminology they’re using too, but, first, I want to go to George as well. George, when you’re working with actors or those who will be that which the actors will represents, individuals, so say veterans with trauma, observing, interacting, learning from their experiences. How do actors who may not have that trauma to that level derive from within themselves that form of resource that they can call upon when they are trying to act out a particular scene that’s replicating, to some degree, traumatic event(s)? To convey to the audience, this is a fact of life for those who have gone through a wartime scenario.

Belliveau: So, first, I will speak from a theatre side as opposed to the project Marv and I collaborated on. As actors, you’re trained to play all kinds of roles. Most great plays are either wounded individuals from the classics like Arthur Miller to contemporary work with Tennessee Williams. In many ways, they are broken families and broken individuals. As an actor, you’ve arrived to play, even if it is a classic piece like Shakespeare. You want to play the tragedy. Depending on the theatre tradition and training, there is a misnomer of Stanislavsky acting, where people try to feel everything the character feels. You do get caught in the tropes as an actor. But really, it is about technique and figuring out what you can relate to, and keep distance from, so you’re in control of the emotions. It is not the emotions in control of you. In terms of that, I think that’s acting. That’s why it is called acting. There’s no real thing bigger than if you’re playing someone who is broken-hearted because of a family incident, etc. There are variations of authenticity, etc. But it is all part of the work belt of the actor.

With our project with the veterans, the veterans performed, for the most part, their our stories. We’re all making up stories in the process. We’re all pretty close at the truth in some part of the process. But as I listening to Marv, some of the veterans would start to tell the stories of other people. That they were quite comfortable with.

Westwood: Yes.

Belliveau: Eventually, they would tap into their own story. We were interested in their stories. So, they could authentically share their stories. My initial goal was none of the veterans/performers would tell their own story. But then, we got into a situation. One of the veterans said, “I don’t want anyone else to tell my story because they might fuck it up.” But actually, the next levels of that had nothing to do with not being authentic. He didn’t want others to feel the pain that he felt because he was still distinguishing between what is theatre and what is life. So, the levels of them sharing stories of self and others waxed and waned. As Marv said, they really, if anything would bring them back, said, “How am I supporting my fellow veterans?” At the height, we ha 6 performing veterans. One of them was just starting the process of joining the military. 5 core people had either served in Afghanistan, Rhodesia, and other places, other conflicts. But they not only want to support one another. What became vivid, they wanted to support the actors, the cast, the counsellors, to help counsel them. They event wanted to help the actors. In many ways, they did. The three graduate students who were on it and others on the periphery really got unstuck with some of the challenges that they were facing in their own lives because of the sensitivity of the veterans.

So, I think the later version, as I think more about it, of Unload, which is a variation of Contact!Unload: Military Veterans, Trauma, and Research-Based Theatre. It highlights how a veteran is actually there telling their story, has gone through this kind of therapeutic process, is still struggling with these things never fixed, but really shines by helping others/civilians to enable them to move into civilian society. That’s very military-still oriented, and still pretty masculine in some ways.

Westwood: Yes, it is. Scott, the goal here is doing the project. It had quite a change in social perception in the military community as recognizing that a healthy masculinity does include expressing – they would call it – and releasing the “baggage” of trauma, as they called it in therapy, “Unfucking their shit.” “Unfucking their shit” are the terms that they used. Once they saw others doing it, and being successful, they started doing it. It has changed a lot of the attitudes of the people in 2 or 3 of the armories here in Vancouver who attended the performance because George’s play. They were shocked when they saw it because they were military performers, not actors. It legitimized the conversation that they could talk about back in the regiments that they carried back from Afghanistan or Yugoslavia, or wherever. So, it had an educational outreach function. Also, for women in the audience, I think it had a compassion and understand in breaking stereotypes of masculinity because Hollywood continues and the media people tend to reinforce that these guys are real assholes and uncaring, but it is all a real defense, Scott. It is being reinforced by the movie industry, the pretense of autonomy. As a group, I think they undermined some traditionally held beliefs about not getting the tools to get healthy again, and where you might kill yourself.

5. Jacobsen: Even with the dramatic statement at the end there, you did diplomatically state it. If people are portraying this on the big screen, in a false manner, they are profiting off stereotypes.

Westwood: Exactly.

Jacobsen: So, these are mythologies about masculinity and then profiting off the stereotypes based on the mythologies. The real question for me, then, “In what manner did you fractionate, break apart, some of those stereotypes based on some of the responses coming back from individuals who had seen themselves in a play?” You can say, “I broke apart stereotypes about masculinities.”

Westwood: Yes!

Jacobsen: However, what manner did they break apart? What was broken apart about the stereotypes about masculinity? Other than a general statement using one word: autonomy.

Westwood: Oh, okay, you want to do this one.

Belliveau: That’s a good question. Again, I am not talking from the therapeutic side. The therapy was continuing as they kept doing the theatre project. They did hold on. There was a still a masculinity to hold on and a rah-rah camaraderie. In some ways, some of them needed that because they – Scott, and you may know this, Canadian military is very different than American military – are spread out, come home. One is in Port Coquitlam. One is in Port Moody. One is in East Van. The idea of the legion of them coming together. That was another generation. So, the camaraderie and the masculinity. They needed some of that. To create the space, it was wonderful. Theatre mimics it as well; there is a camaraderie because there is an understanding. I think where they were able to parse it out and break it down, when they were conveying that to a general audience. Part of our job in creating the theatre piece was helping the audience because they weren’t an insider. We need to go step-by-step with not only therapeutic enactment on stage, but also what it is like to be in the military, to transition home. Everything had to be translated in ways. I think during the translation, a lot of things occurred with their lived experiences or experiences themselves. It opened up a lot of discussion amongst themselves. I will pause there.

Westwood: Also, the other stereotypes that got altered. The audience could see these individuals on stage who had been injured terribly badly in a military context. They talked about having empathy. They never, ever thought about how much grief some of the soldiers carry when they come back when they lose their buddy who dies beside them in a military vehicle. They really show very clearly that their buddies are as important to them, as their partners in life or as close as a family member. So, when they get killed or die, the loss is extreme. Some of them never recover. They say things like, “It should have been me that died.” Some of the suicides that take place, as we know from interviewing them; they feel they don’t deserve to live because their buddy fell. And they didn’t. The audience became very aware of how the military reinforces this helping each other. But if something goes wrong, you didn’t have your buddy’s back. They carry a lot of guilt and shame. They do an enactment, recreate the scenes. For example, the buddy who got killed and they cannot save, or whatever. We bring them back alive. They actually speak to the person and say, “You have to go on with your life. I died. You didn’t. Will you live for me? So, it releases them. It isn’t just a stereotype about masculinity. You also buy into the idea of “at all costs. You’re there to protect your mate.” If something happens, there’s a lot of guilt and shame. That’s a lot of injuries that happen to people. When you unpack that, you realize it can happen to anybody. The audience is surprised by the amount of pain, psychological pain, that they can endure in battlefield when the losses are great. If a child, a friend in Afghanistan, dies who brought them water all the time, he had to be killed because somebody in deployment had it reported that he was carrying weapons and ammunition, and was going to blow up the compound. So, to save the compound, they took his life. It haunts them forever.

6. Jacobsen: How prevalent are some of the fallouts of this? The mental health issues, the suicidal ideation, etc.

Westwood: Oh! If you look at returning military, only about 25% of people in deployment have what is called PTSD, but untreated PTSD leads to acute depression, isolation, and then suicidality. Suicidality rates can be as high as 12% both in the United States and, I think, here, if untreated. Some of the suicides happen years after. They call it post-war casualties, but because without therapy. They never dealt with regrets and the observances that they had made. In our program, that’s the main goal, get them in as soon as they get back. Suicidality risk goes down very significantly and with depression rates. They get on with their life. They see the injury of war as normal into an abnormal event. It is all the ones who don’t get help, don’t get seen. They’re at risk. The audience understands that. Look, in my family fighting in the Second World War, of my dad’s friends, over half of them were alcoholic. All they were doing were self-medicating because of the all the shit they experienced and the things they had to do. They’d go to legions and become chronic alcoholics, where they died. People call them “heroes.” So, there’s nothing. That masculinity thing is false heroism. Fortunately, projects like George and I are doing help break those stereotypes.

7. Jacobsen: Why do we give them these bribes socially, these titles?

Westwood: Why do we give them these bribes? It is for compliance. Because you want to use them up. You want them to join and give their lives away. The military, unfortunately, is a real reason why they invest in stereotypes. However, as I learned from the vets over the years, they say, “All I wish they had said to me was that when I signed up. I should have signed up with informed consent. I never had any idea as to what I was signing up for. I was 17 or 20. I am glad I signed up. It was a great event. It was a great training. I represented this country. It is very honourable. But nobody signed me up for the psychological pain of what I would have to absorb endure that could threaten me.” Now, we are teaching people. When they go into the military, you should know that you’re heading into something, but there is treatment when you go back.

Belliveau: When I think of that, soldiering is an old, old profession as well. There’s an honour. There’s a sense people belong to something. There’s an appeal to that. There’s a cost in the reality of it.

Westwood: I wanted to say, Scott. You should know. Some of the veterans that were in Afghanistan, when I went back to Afghanistan. They took me to where these things had happened. Many of them wanted to see the water projects they worked in or the schools they helped build. When they are on the deployments serving, they are, often, not there as combatants. They are there as world servers and peacekeepers. They really like to get attached to the people. In Quebec and Ontario, the Canadian military went into the seniors’ hospitals. We couldn’t handle it. They wouldn’t think twice about going. They go into spots to do those things. Most are very worthy and important parts of any society. It is just that because there are many males. They [Laughing] don’t know that they are entitled to a very effective treatment when they get out. That’s what they are starting to learn.

8. Jacobsen: If we look at the history of the United States with regards to recruitment into the army or the armed forces, often, they are not going to be rich, white families sending their children to these things. Often, it is going to be men of colour, poor men, etc. Is that the same case here, in Canada?

Westwood: Yes, it is. I’ll tell you. Until recently, the majority of our recruits, especially post—WWII, came from the poor areas, the Prairies, and some of the Maritimes, who have a higher military representation than southern Ontario or the West Coast. Because it was a way out. It had security. A lot of these young men came from divorced families, the army was symbolic of a positive father figure. They were, often, quite traumatized in youth due to poverty or race. They will do anything to get some security and recognition. One thing that they do is recognition. They get to belong again. I think humans in general are very affiliative and want to belong to a group. If you look at gangs, why do people join gangs? There is good motivation. They want to be with other people doing things. It is just that what they end up doing, if they are criminal gangs, is getting into trouble, but sports and military are a healthy way of getting some identity, some recognition. But hey get punished, of course, and bullied in the process, and so on. Those are some of the injuries that we deal with, which is the shame and the bullying happening in the army, whether language, skin colour, indigeneity, nerd behaviour. It doesn’t matter.

It can be quite brutal. So, those are some of the therapeutic corrections that we attend to when they come back. It is helpful for them to acknowledge that it occurred there. It isn’t just sexual harassment in the military. There are all sorts of other darker stories playing out, as in the busines world, but just different things. They are vulnerable that way.

9. Jacobsen: Now, George, I recall a 10- to 15-minute commentary by Marv and you on the play by Rzgar Hama Rshed, Soldierland. There was a general conversation around the ways in which the actors had moved. When you’re training actors to represent military types, military psychology, in behaviour, how do you or how would you bring about that realism in terms of how they are controlling their body, being very methodical, and almost semi-robotic in the ways in which they are pacing a stage and approaching a performance?

Belliveau: So, again, with this particular project, because, for the most part, the military men were representing military men, that was wonderful. But in our first iteration, we had civilians who had to be trained. This was beautiful because when you’re doing these community-based projects; it’s not about creating artistic verisimilitude, which doesn’t exist anyway. Because what is depicted in society, it can be so diverse. But there were some key things that any military audience member would see if a civilian as starting to march on the right foot versus the left.

Westwood: Yes [Laughing].

Belliveau: That their arms were swinging higher. But what became wonderful, they could, as military people, go, “Oh, he’s definitely British. This person is from a particular era because they march and salute this way.” So, we really relied on the veterans teaching civilians. I don’t know how far they got with the civilians because the amount of rehearsals was probably insufficient. I think we had probably already reached part of the goal because the veterans had shared some of their insight and tacit knowledge. Skilled actors can play a veteran than a veteran can play themselves.

Westwood: [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Belliveau: Good actors just do. The physicality, good physical actors would get everything, every beat, bang on. So, audience members might say, “They did this wrong.” If you investigated it, the actor is very skilled. The reason it was “wrong” was because it was on purpose. We were not dealing with veteran actors. We were dealing with volunteer civilians for the most part. That became a really important part. The veterans really want the civilians if they were playing those people to move and act in a particular way. Again, it was country-based to a certain extent. Even Luke was commando, the royal marines would do things this way [Laughing]. It was all part of it. As we toured with it in other places, that conversation continued.

Westwood: Also, Scott, some of the civilians, a minority of them in the performance really valued being taught by the soldiers about stance, posture, discipline. It was good for the esteem of the military because the military were teaching things about themselves to the civilians, which they really appreciated, about their discipline. It benefitted them as well.

Belliveau: You mentioned Paul Martin earlier [Ed. off-tape.]. Harjeet Sajjan saw the tail end of the performance at one of the armories here. He had come for an event there [Ed. Beatty Street Drill Hall.]. He saw it when we were in Ottawa on Parliament Hill. Same as Erin O’Toole, Erin has seen different iterations. Certainly, he has been in touch with us more. They would, as politicians as well; the authenticity for them, who didn’t have the movement and language of military. They saw something in it. That probably none of the politicians could see. That was always very powerful to get it right.

Westwood: When people came from their regiment to see the performance, and the actors were prepared as performers, the guy who saw it said, “This is really authentic,” and would really buy into it. “They’re like us. They’re really soldiers. If they go for help for depression and dysfunction, and so on, I can do that too.” It was really good for the authenticity. On a lighter note, I would say. We had an example of getting validation when they performed this in Canada House in London, Ontario for Prince Harry because he had just come back from Afghanistan. He was quite affected during the show because he stood [Laughing]…

Jacobsen: …[Laughing]…

Westwood: …during the whole performance. Eye to eye with the actors, I thought it was so military. They just looked at each other. He was affected in a positive way. That was validating for them because the regiment that he belonged to was a sister regiment to the Canadian company. So, their whole travel to the U.K., participating in this, expanded their awareness. We all really appreciated how they represented us at the Canadian High Commission.

10. Jacobsen: Are there different issues men and women have in the military?

Westwood: You’re like this story. When we decided to run therapeutic groups for military, we knew that we would have to have a women’s group and the men’s group. They had to be the same kind of group, but divided by gender. I should say, “Sex,” not gender as we found out, because so many of the women had experienced the trauma of sexual harassment of males with whom they serve. So, of course, they can’t be in a therapy to community, but not all did. We found out when we created a women’s program. Some of the women, a few of them said, “Look, why are you putting me in the women’s program? I want to be with the soldiers,” and the majority of them were men. So, it is a more masculine gendered focus in a woman or a person who is a female. They were really annoyed that they couldn’t be in the other group because they identified with the culture of the military. That they are a minority within a minority. We had to accommodate them as best we could, but we didn’t expect that. We thought: a women’s group and a men’s group. Some of them went, “No! I don’t belong there. I belong in the men’s group. I serve with them. That’s where I want to be.” So, the binaries that we hear about all the time don’t always work. Scott, sorry, but I have to wrap this up. Do you have anything else to ask me before I go?

11. Jacobsen: Sure, real quick, any other recommended researchers or organizations for individuals who want to look more into this, or books?

Westwood: I would say right off: go on the website or look to the VTN, Veteran Transition Network. It is online. It is Canada-wide. They have access to all the questions that people might have, the public and the military. That’s a very good start. The other good start is Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health and Research, CIMVHR. I would say, VTN will be one thing to get them going. They can be contacted. They are very helpful about getting help for family members. Our program runs through them. There is another link. The whole play is on the UBC, Peter Wall site. The whole Contact!Unload is on the site with a pre-discussion. It was done in the BMO Theatre. People were talking about military before. Then the veterans speak a little afterwards. So, that’s all professionally filmed. The play highlights Marv’s therapeutic enactments. You get to see it with veterans. So, the play is only 30 minutes long. That’s another resource that people can tap.

Belliveau: And Scott, another thing I want to say to you. Do you know that some of the people that we have worked with who have some of the most acute traumas were the journalists who covered the military?

Jacobsen: Yes, I am aware of this. I know some, not personally, but I know of some, even Pulitzer Prize winning, who have spent extensive time in war-time and talk about being haunted during the day by some of the things that they have seen.

Westwood: Yes, what we do, one of the Ph.D. students who has approached, not you personally, other journalists is that they get so much other vicarious trauma because everyone loves a journalist to be upfront about all that stuff. It takes a real toll on them. Anyhow, it’s really good talking to you, man.

12. Jacobsen: Thank you very much.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Professor Emeritus, Counselling Psychology, University of British Columbia & Recipient, Royal Canadian Legion Professorship in Education; Professor, Theatre/Drama Education, University of British Columbia, & Head, Language and Literacy Education, University of British Columbia.

[2] Individual Publication Date: August 8, 2020:; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020:


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: