“Gaikokujin Shimin”: Kawaguchi City Mayor Okunoki (kinda) answers a query about the racialized application of this term that officially makes Japanese into “foreigners” (UPDATED)

mytest

Books, eBooks, and more from Debito Arudou, Ph.D. (click on icon):
Guidebookcover.jpgjapaneseonlyebookcovertextHandbook for Newcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants to Japan「ジャパニーズ・オンリー 小樽入浴拒否問題と人種差別」(明石書店)sourstrawberriesavatardebitopodcastthumbFodorsJapan2014cover
UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
“LIKE” US on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/debitoorg
https://www.facebook.com/embeddedrcsmJapan
http://www.facebook.com/handbookimmigrants
https://www.facebook.com/JapaneseOnlyTheBook
https://www.facebook.com/BookInAppropriate
If you like what you read and discuss on Debito.org, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
Donate towards my web hosting bill!
All donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!

Hi Blog. As we’ve talked at length before (it even topped my annual JT Top Ten Human Rights Issues for 2019), city governments have been using a racialized definition of local residents, namely “Gaikokujin Shimin“, that officially classifies even naturalized Japanese citizens, Japanese children with foreign roots, or anyone with connections to a foreign land as “foreigners”. Submitter ABC below offers a letter sent to the Kawaguchi City Government asking for clarification of the uses and effects of this official term. Thankfully, Kawaguchi City Mayor Okunoki Nobuo answered Submitter ABC.  I enclose the query, Okunoki’s answer, and my attempt at a translation of the answer, below.

I’ll comment on the contents afterwards.

SUBMITTER ABC’S LETTER (reproduced here with permission):
//////////////////////////////////
From: ABC
Subject: A letter to and response from Kawaguchi mayor Okunoki
Date: January 30, 2020
To: Debito Arudou <debito@debito.org>
Hi Debito,

I wrote some posts in the comments section for “The annual Top Ten for 2019 of human rights issues as they affected NJ residents in Japan” upon seeing that the article mentioned Kawaguchi as using 外国人市民 like other municipalities. As a resident, this didn’t sit well with me and I wrote a letter to the mayor. I received a response today so I’d like to share what I sent (via snail mail) and what I received.

I’ve redacted certain sections and text for privacy reasons.
Sincerely, ABC

PDF: Letter to Mayor Okunoki 0113 redact (click on link to download)
//////////////////////////////////

MAYOR OKUNOKI’S ANSWER (click to expand in browser):

TRANSLATION BY DEBITO (WITH CORRECTIONS COURTESY OF DEBITO.ORG READER LOVERLAKKUMA IN THE COMMENT SECTION)
================================
(Basic official opening greeting)
Thank you very much for sending your opinion as a Letter to the Mayor. I will answer your questions below.

First, why does the “Kawaguchi City Vision for Coexistence with Multiculturalism” have the definition of “Gaikokujin Shimin: Not only foreigners who are local residents, but also includes residents who have taken Japanese citizenship, and residents who have cultural backgrounds in foreign countries”? It has that definition because even if someone has naturalized and taken Japanese citizenship, it is assumed (soutei) that they might still require some assistance in regards to multicultural coexistence.  Please understand that this doesn’t mean our city has any intention of forcefully framing (gouin ni minasu) people who have taken Japanese citizenship as foreigners.

Second, why did the “Kawaguchi City Vision for Coexistence with Multiculturalism Ver. 2.0” delete that definition? While we were promoting multicultural coexistence based upon our “Revised Kawaguchi City Aims for Coexistence with Multiculturalism”, we were formulating our “Kawaguchi City Vision for Coexistence with Multiculturalism Ver. 2.0”. This does not mean that we revised the definition, but rather that we came to the conclusion (toraeta) that our efforts to support foreign residents — including naturalized people — had progressed enough (tsuchikawareta) to gain public understanding for those who may need support, so there was no need for further clarification of that definition.

For the third question “Under what concepts and framings is the city taking the initiatives toward foreign residents living in Kawaguchi City (short-term and/or long-term)?”:  We are engaging in promotion of our multicultural co-existence by reframing the previous concept of “foreign residents,” from “recipients of support” (shien no taisho) to “providers of support” (shien suru gawa) in the “The Kawaguchi City’s Vision for Multicultural Co-existence Ver 2.0.”.  This extols (utau) the vision of a city where people can participate positively in city planning (machi zukuri).

Fourth, how is Kawaguchi City envisioning the future for foreigners (and the descendants of children of international marriages)? Our city presumes that in future the number of foreigners will continue to increase. We want these people to serve as leaders in local community for any public need such as fire drills. We are seeking our goal by incorporating foreign perspectives, regardless of nationality, for the successful building community that all residents in our city can live peacefully and securely. We look forward to your understanding and cooperation.

January 29, 2020. OKUNOKI Nobuo, Kawaguchi City Mayor

PS: The people in charge of this matter are in the Cooperative Promotional Section of the city government. Yoroshiku.

ENDS
================================

COMMENT FROM DEBITO:

Y’know, I think Mayor Okunuki has his heart in the right place.  I think he’s genuinely trying to assist people of diversity live peaceful lives in his district like any other person.

However, any discussion of how problematic it is to use the term “Gaikokujin Shimin“, i.e., grouping together people as “foreigners” regardless of nationality or legal status (based upon an explicit presumption that some people who have taken the trouble to naturalize still want to be treated as foreign), has been obscured in pat Bureaucratic Japanese sloganeering.

All this talk linking “multicultural coexistence” to “machi zukuri” (as if it wouldn’t happen anyway without the need to officially differentiate between people by assumed “foreignness”) doesn’t progress beyond the “sekkyokuteki” boilerplate, or the mutual-appreciation society of “let’s be nice to foreigners” that still manages to offset people with any foreign connections as somehow “different” and “worthy of special attention”.  It’s as if Neanderthals still exist, and we’re still pondering policy on to integrate them into our Real-Human community.

Calling them “Gaikokujin Shimin” doesn’t help.  It’s precisely the problem, actually, as the tool of offsetting.  And just saying that the “definition has no forceful intent to presume that naturalized citizens etc. are foreigners” doesn’t make it so.

In sum, I think this is one of the best examples in favor of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, about how language and the very words we use constrict cognition and world views.  The fact that Japanese bureaucrats cannot under any circumstances step out of their linguistic bubbles, and consider what it’s like as a minority in Japan dealing with the embedded racism of Japanese policymaking, is demonstrated very well here.   Debito Arudou, Ph.D.

======================
Do you like what you read on Debito.org?  Want to help keep the archive active and support Debito.org’s activities?  Please consider donating a little something.  More details here. Or if you prefer something less complicated, just click on an advertisement below.

19 comments on ““Gaikokujin Shimin”: Kawaguchi City Mayor Okunoki (kinda) answers a query about the racialized application of this term that officially makes Japanese into “foreigners” (UPDATED)

  • AnonymousOG says:

    Dear Mayor:

    My children are Japanese Citizens from birth.
    Did your PDF label my children “外国人市民”?

    And my friend is a Japanese Citizen by choice.
    Did your PDF label my friend “外国人市民”?

    (The mayor’s reply evades the simple answer.)

    Mayor, stop claiming 人種 makes one 外国人.
    Mayor, stop claiming 文化 makes one 外国人.
    Mayor, never say “外国人市民” about 日本人.
    Instead, realize reality: only 外国籍 = 外国人.
    Japan Citizens are Japanese. 日本籍 = 日本人.

  • Yeah, nice of this guy to reply, but basically a total fail that demonstrates his absolute ignorance of the issues he is attempting to address. Hey! Let’s sit around as a majority group, think about what the minority group need to integrate better into society, and then tell the minority group who they are and what we’ve decided they need!

    Yep, typical myopic uninformed top-down Japanese cultural solution. Why not start by actually asking the minority group what they think they obstacles they face actually are? After all, maybe the minority feels that the majority isn’t treating them as equals and taking away their choices, y’know, like suddenly deciding that even Japanese nationals who have lived abroad are now bundled into the minority ‘foreign citizens’ group; an arbitrarily constructed term to ‘other’ just about everyone who isn’t a middle-aged city hall salaryman who hasn’t had any experience outside of his tiny little bubble.

    Asking that type of person to think about inclusivity, diversity, discrimination? C’mon, you’ve got to be joking! These types of ‘non-foreign resident’ Japanese (to use their insane word salad definition) are unable to do this. Their definition of ‘japaneseness’ essentially equals ‘ignorance of absolutely anything outside of a very narrow life and worldview’; they don’t know that they don’t know this- they have no way of understanding how unsophisticated their worldview is, and any attempt to broaden their minds, horizons or experience would be labeled ‘foreign/not Japanese’ and instantly invalidated as their ‘japaneseness’ demands.
    It’s hopeless. They are trying to deal with a problem they don’t understand (discrimination) by using……discrimination! To expect them to be able to try anything else would be delusional. They have a conceptual framework for understanding the world that precludes changing their own conceptual framework.

    • Anthony Kehoe says:

      “Why not start by actually asking the minority group what they think they obstacles they face actually are?”
      Because you don’t consult criminals when making legal policy.

      — Let me forestall any backlash comments by noting that irony is very much Tony K’s strong suit.

  • Loverilakkuma says:

    It’s one of the reasons Japanese rhetorical tradition has been misconstrued as ‘myopic’ if not ‘outmoded.’ I don’t mean Japanese rhetoric is undervalued or useless, and there are some exceptions to that(e.g.,emperor’s apology discourse). But when it comes to the texts of authority, more often than not, you will see English-translated messages utterly odd and confusing. Based on what I studied on authoritarian texts and other scholars’(such as Bryan McVeigh, Philip Sergeant) work, it’s very clear that their esoteric language style shapes their ideographs in cosmological view of multicultural community that depicts non-Japanese as addendum. To me, that trend remains unchanged.

    • Loverilakkuma says:

      I made my own English translation of mayor’s letter. It’s a rough translation[CAUTION: some minor mistakes).
      I don’t know how many people here have experience in English/Japanese translation(I don’t have much, and I’m neither a pro.). One thing you may find is that there’s a clear difference in frame of references between the two languages. That’s the biggest reason why machine translation like Google/Microsoft is useless for 50%(or lower) accuracy/fluency rate.
      I have to make additional words/phrases(adding”[ ]”) for the sake of English rhetoricity, to provide supplement to the “blanks” appeared in Japanese sentences. Anyway, here it is. Feel free to comment on this sled.
      —————————————————————
      A Letter from Kawaguchi City Major

      Thank for very much for your understanding and cooperation with our city policy. I really appreciate your opinions in “A Letter to Mayor” sent to us.

      Hereafter, I would like to answer your questions below:

      First of all, regarding the question “Why did Kawaguchi City define the term “gaikokujin-jyumin” as “anyone who has a cultural root in foreign country, including naturalized individuals” in addition to “foreign residents?”, we believe that some of those residents who take out Japanese nationality through naturalization [may still] need support to cope with the challenges in pursuing multi-cultural co-existence, as shown in “revised edition of “Kawaguchi City’s Vision for Multicultural co-Existence.” [Please understand that] this doesn’t mean that our city has any intention to frame naturalized individuals as “foreigner.”

      As a response to the 2nd questions (“Why was “the definition of gaikokujin” deleted from
      “Kawagauchi City’s Vision for Multicultural Co-existence Ver 2.0”?), we have come to the conclusion that our effort to support foreign residents—including naturalized individuals—has progressed enough [to gain public understanding for those who may need support], so there’s no need for clarification of the term.

      For the third question “Under what concepts and framings is the city taking the initiatives toward foreign residents living in Kawaguchi City (short-term and/or long-term)?”, we are engaging in promotion of our multicultural co-existence by reframing the previous concept of “foreign residents,” from “recipients of support”[shien-no-taisho] to “providers of support”[shien-surugawa] in the “The Kawagauchi City’s Vision for Multicultural Co-existence Ver 2.0.”

      Forth, regarding the question “How does the Kawagachi City depict children born to internationally married couples and their decedents?”, we surmise that they will keep increasing in our city, and we want these people to serve as leaders in local community for any public need such as fire drills. We are seeking our goal by incorporating foreign perspectives, regardless of nationality, for the successful building community that all residents in our city can live peacefully and securely.

      [Hope this will make it clear.]
      Thank you for your understanding.
      We hope you would appreciate our vision and effort.

      Sincerely,

      Nobuo Okunoki
      Mayor, Kawaguchi City

      29 January, 2020[Reiwa 2-nen)

      — Thanks ever so much. I will incorporate your translation into mine shortly.

      • Many thanks LLK. Appreciate the corrections (especially shien vs. enjo, silly me). I’ve made revisions!

        On a side note, do you think this Japanese writing was more convoluted than average? (The sentence that included “machizukuri” in it twice seemed just like careless writing in any language.) — Debito

        • Loverilakkuma says:

          Debito, you’re welcome. Thanks for updating (with minor corrections I missed). Regarding your question, Japanese writing is usually complicated in both form and content, and the sentences tend to get longer and longer if it’s written by government or public officials.

          Honestly, I have never seen such elongated sentences like these before: it’s even longer than average length of Japanese public policy documents. I felt like I was transcribing rambling speeches of Japanese politicians(especially in the scene of interrogation or accusation) in the Diet. So, my answer is yes. Anyone who wrote that response (possibly, a secretary or office staff) has terrible writing skills.

          — Thanks. Makes me feel better that even a native speaker was having trouble with it. And it’s a shame that an issue this big has to have such unclear writing at the policy enforcement level. It indicates to me just what low importance the government holds this very matter of definition.

  • Debito said it slightly indirectly, so let me say it bluntly: If you only make two groups, us and them, you really suck at recognizing diversity. Also, there’s no problem that’s being solved. He hints that some people might need special support but can’t give a single example.

    This is rather striking, because if he gave an example or two, he would have to say something about the ethnicity or immigration/marriage/nationality history of the people to help, which would immediately alleviate the utility of a binary classification system.

    — But, you see, bureaucrats can’t give an example because that would be a problem of “privacy”. As you note, always treating “foreigners” as a monolith in the name of keeping individual cases “private”, you both reinforce the binary and reduce the diversity and humanism.

  • By the way, did everyone notice, the mayor admitted, about his city’s officially-approved definition of 外国人
    (“Some citizens-of-Japan can be labelled 外国人 due to 人種”)
    (“Some citizens-of-Japan can be labelled 外国人 due to 文化”)
    that even though the subsequent propoganda-pamphlets don’t mention his definition anymore, the mayor admits in his letter that his definition remains totally unchanged and fully in effect!

    This was something which AS predicted:

    “… the latest version of the document has removed the culprit #3 from the definitions … I don’t know if that removal was deliberate or if the ‘first’ paper established the definitions and was therefore removed [while covertly remaining in effect]?”
    ~AS
    http://www.debito.org/?p=15894&cpage=1#comment-1769320

    “And yes, as you wisely realized, there is the distinct possibility that: since the original version included that definition, perhaps the subsequent versions deleting it WITHOUT writing any change-of-definition in subsequent printings thus allows them to quietly keep in place their original “Citizens of Japan with foreign ethnic roots are 外国人住民” definition, with the added bonus of being able to easily evade future complaints about their no-longer-mentioned (yet actually-unchanged) original definition.”
    ~AnonymousOG
    http://www.debito.org/?p=15894&cpage=1#comment-1769353

    Well, turns out that prediction is now proven correct, because the mayor admits in his letter that his definition remains totally unchanged and fully in effect:

    “About the definition of ‘foreigner resident’ which appeared in the first pamphlet, even though we deleted the definition from the subsequent versions, our definition still remains: SOME citizens-of-Japan are ‘foreigner residents’ based on their race or culture.”

    WOW, the mayor attempted to provide an excuse for the deletion from subsequent pamphlets, by claiming “because ‘foreigner citizens-of-Japan’ have progressed so much, they no longer need clarification of the official Kawaguchi definition” but in doing so the mayor accidentally ADMITTED (in writing, publicly) that his city’s official definition remains totally unchanged and fully in effect: thus his city’s official definition is currently violating the Constitution of Japan.

    “SOME citizens-of-Japan are 外国人 foreigners, due to race or culture: citizens-of-Japan who have even partial ‘foreign race’ or who have even partial ‘foreign culture’ are officially labeled by our city: 外国人 Foreigners.”

    Yep, the City of Kawaguchi is currently violating Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan, by officially using RACE to exclusionary define some 日本人 as: “外国人”.

  • “…we want these people to serve as leaders in local community…”

    If this is true then kudos to him. (But this should have been happening already)

  • Yes its a good sentiment, if true, but I agree that they are going about it all wrong. No need to introduce a legally incorrect, divisive and marginalizing term to talk about part of your constituency. This is just more bully behavior – It’s like calling people bastards because, technically, their father is unknown. So they think they can get away with it. Asians, stop bullying people.

    • AnonymousOG says:

      Yes, to summarize the city’s 日本国憲法 violation:

      Helping 外国人 integrate into Japan’s society is fine.
      If a person has 外国籍: they are indeed legally 外国人.

      Labeling 日本人 as “外国人 due to race” is not fine.
      If a person has 日本籍: cities cannot label them 外国人.

    • If it wasn’t because editing comments is not possible, I would have respectfully suggested deleting your last sentence. “Asians” is a very huge generalization.

      Also, in Kawaguchi and Japan most foreigners (and “gaijinized” Japanese) are Asians, so they will be most affected by this racialization policy.

  • AnonymousOG says:

    「確かに 。。。 川口市 。。。 では 。。。 「外国人住民とは 。。。 日本国籍を取得していても 。。。 含む」 。。。 に定義しております。」
    ~ 川口市長 奥ノ木 信夫
    https://archive.is/77fry
    https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/奥ノ木信夫

    “Certainly … according to … Kawaguchi City … 「Even people who are Nationalized Japanese Citizens」 … are defined as … 「Foreigner Residents」.”
    ~ Kawaguchi City Mayor Nobuo Okunoki
    https://tinyurl.com/KawaguchiCityGoogle
    https://tinyurl.com/KawaguchiCityRacism
    https://archive.is/MCNBS

    Thus on January 29th 2020, Kawaguchi City Mayor Nobuo Okunoki in his public official capacity admitted Kawaguchi City is still currently defining Nationalized Citizens-of-Japan as “Foreigner Residents.”
    https://tinyurl.com/KawaguchiMayorPDF
    https://tinyurl.com/KawaguchiMayorLetter

    (His diplomatic excuses don’t change the fact: he publicly published the illegal definition in his PDF, then confirmed in his letter that the illegal definition quietly remains-in-effect for his public-tax-funded Kawaguchi City project.)

    So if a PRIVATE 個人 individual in Japan were to publish “Nationalized Citizens-of-Japan are Foreigner Residents (日本取得者は外国人住民)” – that discriminatory based-on-race exclusionary-definition violates United Nation’s ICERD Treaty (the treaty which Japan signed and effected in 1995 and officially inaugurated in 1996, being Legally-Binding Domestic-Law according to the legal precedent set by Japan Judge Tetsuro Sou [宗 哲郎 裁判官] in his ruling in the Ana Bortz case in 1999.)
    https://archive.is/WFuJG#selection-503.1-511.200
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li9FYBFubZY&t=59
    Someone please share the 日本語 version of that masterpiece ruling:
    https://tinyurl.com/ICERD-Japan-Ruling

    Ctrl+F “provisions of CERD can be applied”
    Ctrl+F “Article 14 of the Constitution”
    Ctrl+F “Articles 709 and 710 of the Civil Code”

    Ctrl+F “CERD should be used as the interpretative standard”
    Ctrl+F “since Japan ratified CERD”
    Ctrl+F “effect in this country as domestic law”
    Ctrl+F “the treaty reinforces Article 14”
    Ctrl+F “any act of racial discrimination”
    Ctrl+F “is socially unacceptable, and illegal”
    Ctrl+F “racial discrimination illegal”
    Ctrl+F “Japanese citizenship or not”
    Ctrl+F “the individual’s right to dignity”
    Ctrl+F “apply to foreign residents”
    Ctrl+F “discrimination based on race”
    Ctrl+F “racial discrimination under CERD”
    Ctrl+F “prohibits racial discrimination”
    Ctrl+F “by the state or a state body”
    Ctrl+F “discrimination violated a provision”

    Ctrl+F “compensation for damages”
    Ctrl+F “against the state or organization”
    Ctrl+F “this hurt plaintiff’s feelings”
    Ctrl+F “by showing her a flyer”
    Ctrl+F “injured plaintiff’s dignity and honor”
    Ctrl+F “apologize for the mental anguish”
    Ctrl+F “be liable to plaintiff”
    Ctrl+F “compensation and attorney’s fees”

    Since PUBLIC 公務委員 City Mayor Nobuo Okunoki published “Nationalized Citizens-of-Japan are Foreigner Residents (日本取得者は外国人住民)” – that discriminatory based-on-race exclusionary-definition violates the United Nation’s ICERD Treaty and even violated the Constitution of Japan, Article 14:
    第十四条 すべて国民は、法の下に平等であつて、人種、信条、性別、社会的身分又は門地により、政治的、経済的又は社会的関係において、差別されない。
    Article 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.
    https://archive.is/odrRk

    Any Nationalized Citizen-of-Japan who has suffered emotional pain (seishin kutsuu o uketa 精神 苦痛 を 受け) [due to reading PUBLIC 公務委員 City Mayor Nobuo Okunoki’s published “Nationalized Citizens-of-Japan are Foreigner Residents (日本取得者は外国人住民)” discriminatory based-on-race exclusionary-definition] should contact Debito privately for an introduction to a human rights lawyer in Japan, to initiate the proper legal lawsuit proceedings (ICERD, J-Constituion Article 14, plus Articles 709 and 710 of the Civil Code) for the City of Kawaguchi to be appropriately fined by the Courts of Japan.

  • Black Death says:

    So, Japan health minister says the 3700 prisoners (mostly NJs) detained on the Diamond Princess haven’t “arrived” in Japan. Thus 61 confirmed coronavirus cases aren’t part of Japan’s total number of cases.

    Those passengers were walking around Naha infecting people on Saturday. Nobody is testing nobody in Naha.

    — CJ, please post on topics germane to the topic at hand. Otherwise, put them in the comment sections of Debito.org Newsletters.

  • You know what? As this phenomenon of 外国人住民 seems to have sprung up nation-wide at city halls all across Japan in around about the sane time-frame, I suspect it was a decision made higher up the government chain. Until they invented this nonsense phrase they had hardly any way to differentiate between the REAL Japanese and the, you know, just “Japanese” by passport. Japan is a jus sanguinis country, where bloodline trumps anything else. So it is not permissible to allow such tainted people to have the same form of address as REAL Japanese people. Prove me wrong. All the evidence points to a co-ordinated country-wide effort.

    Even my own beloved Kobe city has been using it:

    https://www.city.kobe.lg.jp/a74716/shise/kekaku/shichoshitsu/international/shiminkaigi/index.html

    • Yep, your hypothesis is perfectly logical TJJ.

      I suspected the same when I found so many:
      http://www.debito.org/?p=15820#comment-1762142

      And commenterFMA immediately stated it:

      “We can’t leave the national government off the hook. For so many cities/towns/wards to come up with the same ideas clearly points at national involvement in the form of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (総務省). They have an undue influence on local government, and you can see the toxic ideas expressed by the cities surfacing in their documents from as early as 2006 (http://www.soumu.go.jp/kokusai/pdf/sonota_b5.pdf), with similar phrasing: ‘外国にルーツを有する日本国籍取得者’ – why not ‘外国にルーツを有する国民’ instead?
      All of this dreck is most likely the output of the 総務省 through their 多文化共生の推進に関する研究会. It is a shame that the toxic ideas of these poisonous bureaucrats are being transmitted to our elected mayors and local governments.”
      ~ FMA
      http://www.debito.org/?p=15820#comment-1762287

      So yeah, exactly as you stated so well, TJJ:

      “As this phenomenon of 外国人住民 seems to have sprung up nation-wide at city halls all across Japan in around about the sane time-frame, I suspect it was a decision made higher up the government chain. Until they invented this nonsense phrase they had hardly any way to differentiate between the REAL Japanese and the, you know, just “Japanese” by passport. Japan is a jus sanguinis country, where bloodline trumps anything else. So it is not permissible to allow such tainted people to have the same form of address as REAL Japanese people. All the evidence points to a co-ordinated country-wide effort.” ~TJJ

      Exactly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>