|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 17, 2006 14:55:36 GMT -5
I almost fell off my chair when I saw the header. This was followed by a heavy sigh. No doubt the beginning of something very, very volatile. Tip of the iceberg.
Dutch government proposes ban on burkas Updated Fri. Nov. 17 2006 1:55 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The Dutch government is planning to introduce legislation "as soon as possible" to ban full-length veils, known as burkas, from being worn in public, Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk said Friday.
"The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing -- including the burka -- is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens," Verdonk said in a statement.
The government is citing security issues to deflect criticism that the move is a violation of the country's constitutional guarantee against religious discrimination.
The idea is "an overreaction to a very marginal problem," said Ayhan Tonca of CMO, the main Dutch Muslim organization. "It's just ridiculous."
The majority of the Dutch parliament has previously said it would approve the ban. However, upcoming elections on Nov. 22 could bring changes to the government that may end up killing the legislation.
The issue has become a controversial one throughout Europe where similar calls for a ban have been heard in Britain and France.
Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently said he wanted Muslim women to give up the full-face veil. His sentiments were supported by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In Holland, former nationalist fringe policies have slowly become more centrist.
Adopted ideas include holding asylum-seekers in detention and making would-be immigrants watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach during visa examinations.
Additionally, everyone must learn to speak Dutch. Muslim clerics are on alert when speaking during their sermons for fear of being deported.
In the city of Utrecht, officials have cut some welfare benefits to woman who insist on wearing burkas to job interviews. They claim the women do not want to work since they know they will not be hired if they wear the covering.
The Netherlands is home to about one million Muslims, about six per cent of the population of 16 million.
The world is watching.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 17, 2006 15:18:15 GMT -5
Wow, I can't believe that they would actually go through with this. Something to keep an eye on for sure.
Thanks Dis.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 17, 2006 15:54:34 GMT -5
Ya had to know it was coming . . . but from that bastion of liberty and anything goes? Bowl me over! Adopted ideas include holding asylum-seekers in detention and making would-be immigrants watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach during visa examinations.
This is just stupid. [other comments deleted or I'd be censured. [/i] [/quote] Well, this I'd agree with. I think everyone moving to Canada should have to learn to speak one of the two official languages (depending on where they live).
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 17, 2006 16:13:19 GMT -5
Adopted ideas include holding asylum-seekers in detention and making would-be immigrants watch videos ... of topless women on the beach during visa examinations. Where did I put my burka to?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 17, 2006 18:11:19 GMT -5
Ya had to know it was coming . . . but from that bastion of liberty and anything goes? Bowl me over! Adopted ideas include holding asylum-seekers in detention and making would-be immigrants watch videos of homosexuals kissing and of topless women on the beach during visa examinations.
This is just stupid. [other comments deleted or I'd be censured. Totally insane if you ask me. What is that supposed to accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 17, 2006 18:46:38 GMT -5
Ya had to know it was coming . . . but from that bastion of liberty and anything goes? Bowl me over! This is just stupid. [other comments deleted or I'd be censured. Totally insane if you ask me. What is that supposed to accomplish? I believe .... but I could be totally wrong, since I never heard it before except in a joke email .... that in the Qur'an there is a passage that alludes to it being a sin to view a person who is not your spouse naked and this "crime" is punishable by death/suicide. Since I saw this in a joke email, it makes me think that this story is also a joke, .... but apparently it isnt.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 17, 2006 18:52:19 GMT -5
Totally insane if you ask me. What is that supposed to accomplish? I think it is to discover which immigrants do not fit into the Dutch culture/may be too conservative for the country. Maybe they should have a drug test as well (that is, see if the immigrants will smoke/sniff/whatever)?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 17, 2006 18:57:57 GMT -5
Ya had to know it was coming . . . but from that bastion of liberty and anything goes? Bowl me over! I hadn't realized how volatile a situation Europe had become on this issue until I saw a 5-part series on CBC. A lot of European countries are worried about eventually losing their way of life.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 17, 2006 19:30:51 GMT -5
I hadn't realized how volatile a situation Europe had become on this issue until I saw a 5-part series on CBC. A lot of European countries are worried about eventually losing their way of life. Really -- can you blame them? Just look at Canada! "Those who claim to know" suggest that blue-eyes blond-haired people will have gone the way of the dinosaur well before the end of this century, as interracial marriage becomes the norm. Not sure that this really should be an issue, but it will be the result of national boundaries disappearing and continued co-mingling. Add inter-faith marriages to the mix and pretty soon (and this was suggested the middle of the 20th century) there will really be only two faith streams (and actually that is the way it is right now: Abrahamic monotheism [Jusaism, Islam, and Christianity] *, and Eastern mysticism and animism [just about everything else]). But I digress. "Keeping the faith (or culture)" breeds exclusivism . . . and eventually hatred and war. *Interesting that the three Abrahamic faiths are at such loggerheads with each other. But that is for another time, another discussion, another thread.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 17, 2006 21:25:08 GMT -5
Totally insane if you ask me. What is that supposed to accomplish? I believe .... but I could be totally wrong, since I never heard it before except in a joke email .... that in the Qur'an there is a passage that alludes to it being a sin to view a person who is not your spouse naked and this "crime" is punishable by death/suicide. Since I saw this in a joke email, it makes me think that this story is also a joke, .... but apparently it isnt. If it's meant to keep terrorists out of the country, I find it hard to believe that people who would kill civilians (and themselves) would be deterred by having to watch a little video....
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 17, 2006 22:45:23 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the burka is mentioned anywhere in the Koran and I don't think it was born as a religious custom. It was and is a social custom whose primary intent was/is to "protect" the woman from mans eyes. Of course one can also translate this as a custom that protected mans "property" from other man. I have trouble defending a "right" that defines woman as property that needs protection by hiding it in a head to foot piece of cloth. Masquerading it as a "religious right" only magnifies a disingenuous attempt to justify social custom born from repressive intent. This is a pretty sick image but it bites to the heart of the matter. The contents of the bags and the woman behind that burka are one and the same. They are the property of the man who owns them.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 17, 2006 23:45:21 GMT -5
Actually, HA, I think that the burka is to be worn to protect the man from temptation. After all, how can a man be expected to control himself if he sees any part of a woman? Which is why (with apologies if I am mistaken, and a willingness to be corrected) those who are radical in their interpretation of the Koran believe that a woman not fully covered is asking to be raped.
It is the few that tar the many.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 18, 2006 0:47:34 GMT -5
Actually, HA, I think that the burka is to be worn to protect the man from temptation. After all, how can a man be expected to control himself if he sees any part of a woman? Which is why (with apologies if I am mistaken, and a willingness to be corrected) those who are radical in their interpretation of the Koran believe that a woman not fully covered is asking to be raped. It is the few that tar the many. Regardless...... Would you, could you support a repressive social custom under "religious freedom"?
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 18, 2006 1:10:19 GMT -5
I'll tell you why it's necessary. Right now, many of the western European Countries are being over-run with Muslim immigrants. They are not assimilating into the cultures of the countries they have immigrated to, and are trying to change the political, religious and justices systems in these countries. They are using tactics like targeting and murdering politicians, writers, media people and other ethnic groups that get in their way.
How are they doing this? They are using a loop hole in the laws that allow them to have their children trained outside of the country, in Shari law and having arranged marriages with other Muslims from outside of the European countries. In effect, they are colonizing and pushing out the people who live there. A little over a year ago, the French government tried to ban head scarves and they experienced nightly riots for over a month, in all of their major cities. The Muslims believe that Europe belongs to them, when they were expelled from Europe at the end of the 19th Century, at the end of the Ottoman Empire. This is their way of trying to get it back.
If you want to know more about what is happening over there, try a book called: As Europe Slept. It will open your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 18, 2006 1:50:29 GMT -5
I'll tell you why it's necessary. Right now, many of the western European Countries are being over-run with Muslim immigrants. They are not assimilating into the cultures of the countries they have immigrated to, and are trying to change the political, religious and justices systems in these countries. They are using tactics like targeting and murdering politicians, writers, media people and other ethnic groups that get in their way. How are they doing this? They are using a loop hole in the laws that allow them to have their children trained outside of the country, in Shari law and having arranged marriages with other Muslims from outside of the European countries. In effect, they are colonizing and pushing out the people who live there. A little over a year ago, the French government tried to ban head scarves and they experienced nightly riots for over a month, in all of their major cities. The Muslims believe that Europe belongs to them, when they were expelled from Europe at the end of the 19th Century, at the end of the Ottoman Empire. This is their way of trying to get it back. If you want to know more about what is happening over there, try a book called: As Europe Slept. It will open your eyes. The book you're referring to is called, "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within" by Bruce Bawer. Radical, fundamentalist Islam....not all Muslims. Here's an excerpt from another site: www.globaled.org/nyworld/materials/ottoman/turkish.html One of the most noteworthy attributes of Ottoman Turkish rule was Ottoman toleration of different religious beliefs. The Turks of the Ottoman Empire were Muslims, but they did not force their religions on others. Christians and Jews in the Empire prayed in their own churches or synagogues, taught their religion in their own schools and seminaries, and went about their business, sometimes amassing great fortunes. At that time, Ottoman toleration was unique.
One cannot speak of the status of Muslims in much of Europe, because they were expelled when Christians took power. The ultimate intolerance for Muslims of Sicily, Spain or Portugal was exile from their homes and confiscation of their lands. The Ottomans were exceptional in realizing that a diverse group of peoples could actually assist their Empire. Upon hearing that the Spanish king was forcing out Jews, Sultan Beyazid.II, who welcomed the Jews to the Ottoman Empire, is reported to have said that if the Spanish king was mad enough to exile the most industrious of his subjects, the Ottomans would be glad to take advantage of his madness.
The success of Ottoman tolerance can most easily be seen in the fact that large Christian and Jewish communities existed in the Ottoman lands until the end of the Empire. Then it was European intervention and European-style nationalism, not internal failure of the system, that destroyed the centuries-long peace between religions that had characterized the Ottoman system.[/b] Seems as if the Ottomans were very tolerant people. I'm not advocating terrorist tactics by any stretch....but in light of what happened to the Muslims at the end of the Ottoman Empire, it doesn't take much to see how resentment could build over the last century. I'm sure if I was kicked out of a country (with home and property confiscated) for no reason other than religion....I just might try and get it back. Again....I have a lot more to read.......
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 18, 2006 2:35:32 GMT -5
That way I wouldn't have to put a bag over her head anymore.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 18, 2006 9:11:50 GMT -5
Actually, HA, I think that the burka is to be worn to protect the man from temptation. After all, how can a man be expected to control himself if he sees any part of a woman? Which is why (with apologies if I am mistaken, and a willingness to be corrected) those who are radical in their interpretation of the Koran believe that a woman not fully covered is asking to be raped. It is the few that tar the many. Regardless...... Would you, could you support a repressive social custom under "religious freedom"? No. Which means no to Falwell's Moral Majority as well.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 18, 2006 9:17:00 GMT -5
I'm sure if I was kicked out of a country (with home and property confiscated) for no reason other than religion....I just might try and get it back. Again....I have a lot more to read....... I'm on shaky ground here, but I believe that the Ottoman Empire's expansion happened thus: Ottoman/Muslims would "invite" the people of the cities/countries they invaded to become Muslim. If the invitation was accepted they would move on. If the invitation was refused they would (depending on the property) allow the people to stay and pay a head tax to remain, or would kill the people and appropriate the land. The other option: the people could run. Spain had the best record of tolerance and is an example.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 18, 2006 10:40:15 GMT -5
Thanks franko....
Like I said....I have a lot more to read....just posting various views of historic events when I find them. As is often the case, history is written by the "winners" and taken as the only truth.
And hypocrisy abounds. i.e. "Of course it was okay for us to do a, b, and c.....but it's not okay for others to do a, b, and c to us."
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 18, 2006 10:59:52 GMT -5
Christianity is by no means innocent in their means of proselytization either.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 18, 2006 11:37:07 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the burka is mentioned anywhere in the Koran and I don't think it was born as a religious custom. It was and is a social custom whose primary intent was/is to "protect" the woman from mans eyes. Of course one can also translate this as a custom that protected mans "property" from other man. I have trouble defending a "right" that defines woman as property that needs protection by hiding it in a head to foot piece of cloth. Masquerading it as a "religious right" only magnifies a disingenuous attempt to justify social custom born from repressive intent. This is a pretty sick image but it bites to the heart of the matter. The contents of the bags and the woman behind that burka are one and the same. They are the property of the man who owns them. You could get rich putting a Maple Leaf crest on Burkas and selling them at Leafs games.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 18, 2006 11:58:57 GMT -5
Christianity is by no means innocent in their means of proselytization either. Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 18, 2006 15:35:28 GMT -5
A little over a year ago, the French government tried to ban head scarves and they experienced nightly riots for over a month, in all of their major cities. A "measured response" to an extremist policy.... -- Here's part of an article from Time: Showing Faith in France How a hostage crisis in Iraq moved Muslims to rally around the republic By BRUCE CRUMLEY | PARIS Sunday, Sep. 05, 2004 Asasma Butt walked up to the entrance of the Lycée Rabelais in northern Paris last Thursday — the first day of school for students across France — she did something she didn't want to do. She removed her black head scarf, a symbol of her Muslim faith. France's new law prohibiting all religious symbols from public schools had come into effect that day, and though Butt, 18, opposes the ban — "taking off the veil bothers me every time," she said — she was submitting to it. It is, after all, the law of the republic. Almost 4,000 km to the east, a group of insurgents calling themselves the Iraqi Islamic Army were inviting French Muslims like Butt to take sides against that republic. The insurgents were threatening to kill two abducted French journalists unless the government rescinded the head-scarf ban. But the government refused to do so, and even though they disagree with the law, French Muslims rallied behind their secular leaders. "The drama in Iraq must not lead us to renounce this law," said Lhaj Thami Brèze, president of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, which has ferociously denounced the ban in the past. "It's a question of legality. After all this, despite all this, we must abide by French justice in this country." Outside the lycée Rabelais, the students were just as emphatic. Hostage-taking is "simply wrong and anti-Islamic," said Sabrina Benyounnes, 17. "It has nothing to do with the law and nothing to do with Islam." Late last week the Iraqi Islamic Army was said to have handed the two hostages over to another insurgent group, which had agreed to deliver them to safety, and the furor over the secularity law was put into a new perspective. The debate over head scarves in schools has been raging since the late 1980s: the government says the display of religious symbols undermines the mission of public schools to educate without regard to race, religion or gender; Islamic officials counter that the law is really intended to target Muslims. The debate had become so partisan that much of French society was convinced that Muslims put their religious beliefs ahead of allegiance to their country. But the events of last week changed many minds. Thousands of Muslims and non-Muslims demonstrated against the abductions. Many of the protests included women in head scarves who oppose the secularity law but viewed the Iraqi blackmail attempt as worse. Though perhaps nearly a million Muslim students showed up for class last week, just 240 wore head scarves; 170 agreed to remove them on campus. "The kidnappers ignored the reality of the Muslim community," says Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Mosque of Paris and president of the French Council for the Muslim Religion. "They ignored our strong sense of patriotism toward France."
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 18, 2006 17:29:05 GMT -5
I'm on shaky ground here, but I believe that the Ottoman Empire's expansion happened thus: Ottoman/Muslims would "invite" the people of the cities/countries they invaded to become Muslim. If the invitation was accepted they would move on. If the invitation was refused they would (depending on the property) allow the people to stay and pay a head tax to remain, or would kill the people and appropriate the land. The other option: the people could run. Spain had the best record of tolerance and is an example. Well, times have changed Franko. I think the following is indicative of the fear Europeans are coping with right now. Aznar:“Muslims should apologize for occupying Spain for 800 years”
09/23/2006
Bush and his war on terror, said the West is under attack from radical Islam and must defend itself. “It is them or it is us,” Aznar said. “There is no middle ground.”
Muslims should apologize for occupying Spain for 800 years and a U.N.-backed program to encourage dialogue between them and West is stupid, former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar has said. Aznar made his comments Friday night in a speech at the Hudson Institute, a thinktank in Washington, D.C., as he discussed Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks on Islam and violence. Aznar, a firm ally of U.S. President George W.
Bush and his war on terror, said the West is under attack from radical Islam and must defend itself. “It is them or it is us,” Aznar said. “There is no middle ground.” He did not elaborate. Aznar said he found it surprising that Muslims have demanded an apology from the pope over his Sept. 12 remarks.
Aznar noted the nearly 800-year Moorish occupation of Spain that began in the year 711 with an invasion from North Africa. He said Muslims had never apologized for this but still demand apologies whenever they feel offended by remarks by non-Muslims. “It's absurd,” Aznar said.
He also criticized an initiative launched last year by his Socialist successor, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to encourage dialogue between the West and Muslim countries.I detect a lot of fear in these words. The link
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 18, 2006 17:48:34 GMT -5
I'm on shaky ground here, but I believe that the Ottoman Empire's expansion happened thus: Ottoman/Muslims would "invite" the people of the cities/countries they invaded to become Muslim. If the invitation was accepted they would move on. If the invitation was refused they would (depending on the property) allow the people to stay and pay a head tax to remain, or would kill the people and appropriate the land. The other option: the people could run. Spain had the best record of tolerance and is an example. Well, times have changed Franko. I think the following is indicative of the fear Europeans are coping with right now. Aznar:“Muslims should apologize for occupying Spain for 800 years”
09/23/2006
Bush and his war on terror, said the West is under attack from radical Islam and must defend itself. “It is them or it is us,” Aznar said. “There is no middle ground.”
Muslims should apologize for occupying Spain for 800 years and a U.N.-backed program to encourage dialogue between them and West is stupid, former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar has said. Aznar made his comments Friday night in a speech at the Hudson Institute, a thinktank in Washington, D.C., as he discussed Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks on Islam and violence. Aznar, a firm ally of U.S. President George W.
Bush and his war on terror, said the West is under attack from radical Islam and must defend itself. “It is them or it is us,” Aznar said. “There is no middle ground.” He did not elaborate. Aznar said he found it surprising that Muslims have demanded an apology from the pope over his Sept. 12 remarks.
Aznar noted the nearly 800-year Moorish occupation of Spain that began in the year 711 with an invasion from North Africa. He said Muslims had never apologized for this but still demand apologies whenever they feel offended by remarks by non-Muslims. “It's absurd,” Aznar said.
He also criticized an initiative launched last year by his Socialist successor, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to encourage dialogue between the West and Muslim countries.I detect a lot of fear in these words. The linkTrains blowing up in Madrid kinda have a way of putting fear into people.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Nov 18, 2006 18:13:25 GMT -5
Aznar noted the nearly 800-year Moorish occupation of Spain that began in the year 711 with an invasion from North Africa. He said Muslims had never apologized for this but still demand apologies whenever they feel offended by remarks by non-Muslims. “It's absurd,” Aznar said. He also criticized an initiative launched last year by his Socialist successor, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to encourage dialogue between the West and Muslim countries. [/i] I detect a lot of fear in these words. The link[/quote] Has Spain ever apologized for occupying (parts of) South America and engaging in what should probably be called genocide? I honestly don't know the answer to this question.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 18, 2006 23:06:09 GMT -5
Aznar noted the nearly 800-year Moorish occupation of Spain that began in the year 711 with an invasion from North Africa. He said Muslims had never apologized for this but still demand apologies whenever they feel offended by remarks by non-Muslims. “It's absurd,” Aznar said. He also criticized an initiative launched last year by his Socialist successor, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to encourage dialogue between the West and Muslim countries. [/i] I detect a lot of fear in these words. The link[/quote] Has Spain ever apologized for occupying (parts of) South America and engaging in what should probably be called genocide? I honestly don't know the answer to this question.[/quote] My thought as well. I think that so many apologies are needed that will never come. I'm reminded of an old Kingston Trio song (that I may have quoted before -- it was my Dad's album): They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. The French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch and I don't like anybody very much!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud for man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud. And we know for certain that some lovely day someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away. They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran. What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man.Written: 1959. Plus ça change . . .
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 18, 2006 23:13:39 GMT -5
Has Spain ever apologized for occupying (parts of) South America and engaging in what should probably be called genocide? I honestly don't know the answer to this question. My thought as well. I think that so many apologies are needed that will never come. I'm reminded of an old Kingston Trio song (that I may have quoted before -- it was my Dad's album): They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. The French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch and I don't like anybody very much!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud for man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud. And we know for certain that some lovely day someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away. They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran. What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man.Written: 1959. Plus ça change . . . And to quote another great American: What's so Civil about War anyway - Axl Rose 1991
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 19, 2006 4:12:18 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the burka is mentioned anywhere in the Koran and I don't think it was born as a religious custom. It was and is a social custom whose primary intent was/is to "protect" the woman from mans eyes. Of course one can also translate this as a custom that protected mans "property" from other man. I have trouble defending a "right" that defines woman as property that needs protection by hiding it in a head to foot piece of cloth. Masquerading it as a "religious right" only magnifies a disingenuous attempt to justify social custom born from repressive intent. This is a pretty sick image but it bites to the heart of the matter. The contents of the bags and the woman behind that burka are one and the same. They are the property of the man who owns them. For all we know it could be a Jessica Simpson look alike under the veil. Any bets? The world is not safe with terrorists strapping bombs and blowing themselves up in crowded places. There is no religeous right to embark on an airplane or appear in a crowded public place covered up like that. That's not stereotyping, it's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Nov 19, 2006 10:23:39 GMT -5
I agree. Also, for the record, why is it that the rest of the civilized world has to tolerate what the Muslim world does? Don't all people have the right to exist? Don't all colours, religions and sexual orientation breath the same air and drink the same water? Why should Muslim women be subjected to this kind of abuse in civilized society? What stunning breakthroughs or discoveries have the Muslim world discovered in the last 300 years? Do you ever see Muslims take to the street in any civilized country to protest an atrocity committed by Muslims? No! So why should we tolerate this behaviour in our civilized countries? If you come to live in a Western Society, be one of us, and don't try to change what we are, to what you left behind.
|
|