WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:07.000
So I think if it's okay with everyone, I think I'll just begin as people start coming into the room first.

2
00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:14.000
Hello! And welcome everyone to the Isa's session. I's sociology of hate, speech laws.

3
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:16.000
My name is Arnita. I'm a Phd.

4
00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Candidate from York University's Associate legal studies program, and I'll be chairing today's session I hope you're all having a wonderful time.

5
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:33.000
So far, I think everyone in this room came from other countries, so I hope you're not too jet-lagged, and you got a bit of traveling done and I hope it's not too.

6
00:00:33.000 --> 00:00:40.000
I hope you're warm. I think the weather is pretty good so far before I begin.

7
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:49.000
I'd like to do a land acknowledgement because the story of Australia, like many countries, is also a story of migration.

8
00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:53.000
So just before the screen is displayed. I'm just going to read off the screen on behalf of everyone.

9
00:00:53.000 --> 00:01:11.000
Gathered. I pay respect to the spirit of country here, and arm where we are meeting I acknowledge the past and present Cooin Nation, or on Jerry Wirang, as the sovereign people here the cultural knowledge holders who maintain and promote the Norm aboriginal law

10
00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:15.000
customs and custodianship responsibilities for country and the people.

11
00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:16.000
That country continues to sustain generation after generation into the future.

12
00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:31.000
For all of us I recognize the important contribution that first nation thinkers have made to sociology, including challenges to our dominant ways of thinking.

13
00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:39.000
We thank all first nations delegates in the room today for their contributions to knowledge in the discipline.

14
00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:40.000
And also Isa asked us to remind people that you can follow Sharon.

15
00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:49.000
Tag them on social media. If you use the hashtag, Isa.

16
00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:56.000
2023. Whatever pictures you take today feel free to post them as well.

17
00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:06.000
So that being said, I'm going to, I'm going to as soon as I know how I'm going to start.

18
00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:11.000
The first presenter. Oh, I have to stop. Sure. That's why. Okay.

19
00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:16.000
So I'm pleased to be charing today's session.

20
00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:32.000
The theoretical and empirical debates around hate, speech and hate, speech laws specifically poses unique questions around the ways, globally, law possesses the power to constitute reinforce and legitimate social practices, using discourse ideology and cultural norms.

21
00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:49.000
So our marvelous groups of talented presenters today Monterey, Mohammedi, Ayakohatano, and Hashito Swami, explores the interestsions, impacts, and shaping of hate speech laws in Canada, Japan, and India respectively and I'm very looking

22
00:02:49.000 --> 00:03:04.000
forward to these presentations just to describe some logistics, each presenter will have 20 min to present, you don't necessarily have to speak the whole 20 min, however, to allow other people to speak we're firmly applying the 20 min.

23
00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:08.000
Max for each presenter to the presenter.

24
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:15.000
I remind you how much time you have remaining for the virtual presenters, I'll send you a private message for the in-person presenters.

25
00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:23.000
I have boards, so I have warnings. At the 10 min mark the 5 min mark and the two-minute mark as well.

26
00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:26.000
Then, after the presentations, we have approximately 45 to 50 min for a question and discussion period.

27
00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:34.000
So I'll alternate between in-person questions and also virtual questions as well.

28
00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:39.000
To make sure everybody has a chance to ask a question.

29
00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:45.000
So now turn to introducing the first presenter. We'll be going in order listed in our program.

30
00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:53.000
So our first presenter is Monterey. She'll be with us virtually today.

31
00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:58.000
Just let me turn my page so I can see her. Okay.

32
00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:02.000
So Monterey Mahabi researches hate speech laws as a Phd.

33
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:16.000
Candidate in the Department of Humanities at York University. Her work reveals that hate, speech, laws which were initially designed to protect minority groups have the potential to inflict significant harms on vulnerable social subsets of such groups in her discussion.

34
00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:34.000
Today, Monterey will analyze the shortcomings of hate speech laws in Canada in particular, and, moreover, will shed light on how their enforcement produces structural inequalities which in turn exacerbate the experiences of vulnerable social groups monerey expects to defend her

35
00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:37.000
doctoral thesis. By the end of the summer, which is very exciting, and previously she earned a BA.

36
00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:46.000
In commuter science and Ma and Ma and social theory from York University, as well as an Msc.

37
00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:53.000
In sociology from the University of Oxford. Okay. So whenever you're ready, take it away. Moderate.

38
00:04:53.000 --> 00:05:00.000
Thank you so much. Thank you for your coin introduction and Hello, everyone, and thank you so much for being here.

39
00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:22.000
I'm going to delve right into it, and as my topic indicates, I'm going to give you a brief sociological tour of some of the impacts of hate speech laws in Canada, in Canada, freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed section 2 of the charter let me just

40
00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:26.000
see if I can. Yeah.

41
00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:31.000
It? Powerpoint going? Yeah. So, section 2, of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

42
00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:47.000
For instance, guarantees freedom of conscious belief, religion, opinion, as well as freedom of the press and media communication, as with all other rights, however, these freedoms are not absolute, and are limited by law.

43
00:05:47.000 --> 00:06:02.000
In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is limited by hate, speech, laws that prohibit any communication that promotes or insights hatred and contempt against individuals or groups based on their race.

44
00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:08.000
Ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and or disability there are 2 set of codes that prohibit hate, speech.

45
00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:15.000
One is Canada's criminal code in particular.

46
00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:24.000
Section 33, 19 of the Criminal code that prohibits hate speech as a punishable offense.

47
00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:29.000
Cases under this code, or adjudicated in courts, and not in anywhere else.

48
00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:33.000
Hey, Steve is considered discriminatory. Health depends.

49
00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:43.000
It is also prohibited through provincial human rights, codes, and examples of human rights, codes, provincial human rights. Goals are.

50
00:06:43.000 --> 00:06:46.000
Section 7 of the British Columbia. Am I right?

51
00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:54.000
The Rights Code section 14, of Saskatchewan and Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Code.

52
00:06:54.000 --> 00:07:09.000
If each province in Canada has its own human rights code, which include a section that prohibits hate, speech, hate, speech cases under any of the human rights codes are adjudicated in their respective provincial tribunals and not courts, so I as you see the examples.

53
00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:28.000
Are up. And you can actually read one of the examples. The text for one of the examples that prohibit hate speech in the in the province of British Columbia.

54
00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:41.000
So for the sake of simplicity. However, throughout my presentation I will use the term hate speech laws, to refer to the criminal and human rights course that prohibit hate, speech.

55
00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:51.000
However, if you have any questions about the differences or applications of these codes, I can provide more information in the period.

56
00:07:51.000 --> 00:08:00.000
Hate speech laws in Canada, or Gen. As you can see the text and do not provide specific definitions of hate, speech.

57
00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:07.000
And it's constitution. In fact, this lacking is not a specific to Canada's H State speech laws.

58
00:08:07.000 --> 00:08:10.000
There is no universal legal definition of hate.

59
00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:30.000
Speech per se, as the concept is usually subject to various views, and ongoing debates and disputes given that hate, speech laws lack a specific definition of the term itself as villas of the concepts, they employ mainly the concepts such as hate content, inside, etc.

60
00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:38.000
The responsibility of clarifying the constitution of hate.

61
00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:51.000
Speech, interpreting the law itself, establishing the meaning of the related concepts, is that they're all left to the adjudicators in court or tribunal.

62
00:08:51.000 --> 00:09:19.000
Such responsibility, however entail fundamental or adjudicators, mainly because at the center of this whole dynamic sits an object that is generally in previous and resistant to prohibition and adjudication, and that object is a speech which is an exceptional social phenomenon speech in general is

63
00:09:19.000 --> 00:09:31.000
a structurally and socioeconomic, linguistically complex linguist philosophers, social scientists, and other scholars have all attested to these complexities, and war.

64
00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:38.000
It is widely recognized that speech as a social phenomenon is versatile.

65
00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:45.000
Poisonous and adoptable, both on the speaker side as well as on the side of the audience.

66
00:09:45.000 --> 00:09:57.000
These. This means that one intended meaning can be expressed in numerous ways, and can be interpreted by the audience in multiple ways as well.

67
00:09:57.000 --> 00:10:19.000
He's complex cities and characteristics of the speech are even more pronounced in school, sociopolitical, ideological, cultural expressions hate speech to a large extent, falls within these categories, making it even more complex when it comes to its definition, prohibition and or application in

68
00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:38.000
my view. One of the reasons for the lacking of a universal definition of hate, speech, and the fact that related laws remain vague and general, is due to the structural and social linguistical, complexities imposed by this by speech itself.

69
00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:45.000
Therefore, why the law does not explicitly, specify what is prohibited.

70
00:10:45.000 --> 00:10:49.000
The adjudicator is burdened and faced with the challenge of filling the gaps.

71
00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:50.000
This is not my own subjective assertion. Of course the challenge is a well-known fact and a reality.

72
00:10:50.000 --> 00:11:15.000
Acknowledged within our legal system. It means that course tribunal tribunals, and even Supreme Court of Canada are aware of the challenge that alleged hate speech poses to to the adjudicators and for the adjudication.

73
00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:20.000
So let's build into the chat of dealing with this exceptional social phenomenon and explore.

74
00:11:20.000 --> 00:11:29.000
So the pitfalls in Adri decatings adjudicating hate, hate speech cases entirely.

75
00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:52.000
The hate speech is prohibited, not based on a clear and rigid harm principle, but on expanded notions of harm, such as psychological harm, breach of the pre of the peace, public unrest, or damage to the reputation of the target group, consequently, when it comes to adjudication

76
00:11:52.000 --> 00:12:00.000
or adjudicating an alleged hate. Speech. Evidence of such form is either non-existent or inconclusive.

77
00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:07.000
This single fact alone prevent the adjudicate the adjudicator and their adjudication of hate.

78
00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:17.000
Speech, cases from being evidence-based instead, a common sense approach is adopted in in such adjudication.

79
00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:31.000
And this is an excerpt from a case by Supreme Court which suggests the approach, the common sense approach, however, has rendered the adjudication of hate.

80
00:12:31.000 --> 00:12:41.000
Speech cases, excessively subjective, where the adjudicator engages in interpretation of the law and all aspects of the case to no end.

81
00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:46.000
Such interpretation involves interpretting the law itself and its concepts.

82
00:12:46.000 --> 00:13:01.000
This speech at hand. The limitation on the accused right to freedom of expression, and all other aspects of the case at hand, and all of these, and the fact, the act of interpretation are all based on the adjudicators.

83
00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:05.000
Own common sense won't view, and even prejudices.

84
00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:15.000
In my case study iphone in such adjudication any interpretation of any aspect of the case is something very common.

85
00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:18.000
These aspects include not just constitution of hate, speech, and hate speech laws, but also the sociopolitical context.

86
00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:45.000
The status of the accused history, the outlet through which this speech was communicated, the expertise of the witnesses event, or how much weight or validity they can give to the expertise of the expert witnesses, and more just to give you a glance on the situation, over the past 5 decades

87
00:13:45.000 --> 00:14:06.000
since the enactment of the first hate, hate, speech, law in Canada, namely, the Hate Propaganda Act of 1970, and through numerous hate speech cases brought before courts and tribunals across Canada, Canada, a dreamicators have accumulated a long list of definitions of hatred

88
00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:13.000
and content, some of which are contradictory and or even controversial definition of hate and content.

89
00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:35.000
Range. From expression of disdain to those that give rise to evil unleashed on individuals and and or social groups, and even to expression, that get that involves envy of superior qualities, such as intelligence, wealth, and power.

90
00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:48.000
In my case study, I have found that from an extensive list of definitions in related jurisprudence, adjudicators, adjudicators can choose any definition they could prefer to apply in a given case.

91
00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:55.000
This is one. Of the significance of these definitions, again, remain dependent on the adjudicators.

92
00:14:55.000 --> 00:14:59.000
Own interpretation of the law and the alleged alleged hate.

93
00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:22.000
Speech at hand. For example, an adjudicator may consider an alleged hate speech to vilify a group, while another adjudicator may view the same or similar speech as an important issue worthy of debate and constitutional protection since you're dealing with speech here the language used

94
00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:30.000
is in an alleged hate. Speech also affects how it is interpreted by the adjudicator and elusive speaker.

95
00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:34.000
For instance, for instance, with a strong language and communication skills, maybe able to verify a group.

96
00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:42.000
But such meanings may be completely missed by the adjudicator.

97
00:15:42.000 --> 00:16:02.000
In other words, why an adjudicator may may fail to recognize potential, hateful meanings and intention, conveyed by an elusive, elusive speaker who uses clever language, prose and artistic expressions to verify a minority group and other or the same adjudicator

98
00:16:02.000 --> 00:16:13.000
may mistakenly classify and unsophisticated speech as hate speech, even though it may have little or no power to affect or harm anyone.

99
00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:18.000
So let me tell you a little bit about the term.

100
00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:19.000
Excessive subjectivity that are used throughout my theoretical work.

101
00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:30.000
In my research, excessive subjectivity is, and I'm going to explain it through this code.

102
00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:55.000
Through this code by Ronald Dorkin, who says that interpretive approach is all very interpretive, and with excessive subjectivity to active interpretation, can be pervasive and endless extending to all aspects and underlain principles and values as well for

103
00:16:55.000 --> 00:17:02.000
instance, and especially since hate. Speech is a sociopolitical, ideological, and cultural expression.

104
00:17:02.000 --> 00:17:17.000
He adjudicators, interpretation can be based on his or her own view about the constitutional right constitution of democracy, power, authority, principle of legitimacy, limit of privacy and individualism.

105
00:17:17.000 --> 00:17:22.000
Rightsierarchy, or even about their own role and responsibility.

106
00:17:22.000 --> 00:17:45.000
As the adjudicator. So here the term excessive subjectivity describes the act of interpretation that results in the conclusion or judgment that cannot be deduced inferentially based on a set of uniform standard standards applicable across hate speech cases since the interpretation is based

107
00:17:45.000 --> 00:17:57.000
on the adjudicators own word, view, or even prejudices, to put it more theoretically, the adjudicator the adjudicator's judgment, y.

108
00:17:57.000 --> 00:18:05.000
Of fact, X can be excessively subjective if y does not necessarily follow from x.

109
00:18:05.000 --> 00:18:13.000
So what does this mean? Oh, what does this whole dynamic mean?

110
00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:26.000
It means that excessive subjectivity and the common sense of adjudication, of hate, speech cases or followed by inconsistent judgements.

111
00:18:26.000 --> 00:18:33.000
That is because common sense word views and interpretation vary from one adjudicator to another.

112
00:18:33.000 --> 00:18:38.000
An example of this is the case of video who produced homophobic flyers and distributed, and more people in Alberta.

113
00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:50.000
He was brought to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for 4 of his fliers, alleged to be hate-.

114
00:18:50.000 --> 00:19:01.000
The case travels from Alberta. Human Rights Tribunal all the way to Supreme Court of Canada, and it gathered different judgments as it travels upward.

115
00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:02.000
The tribunal decided that all 4 flyers constituted hate, speech.

116
00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:13.000
The accused took the case to the Court of Queen's Bench, which upheld the tribunals.

117
00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:20.000
Decision on a 4 flyers then the accused took the case to the quarter of a peek which overruled the tribunals.

118
00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:44.000
Decision, as well as the decision of the course of Queen's Bench, and equated at vodka on all charges then the tripping on itself took the case just to Supreme Court of Canada, which decided that 2 of the flyers Constituted hate speech and 2 didn't that code is

119
00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:52.000
actually not an exception, but the rule, meaning that excessive subjectivity and inconsistent judgments have become the characteristics of the adjudication of hate.

120
00:19:52.000 --> 00:20:18.000
HP. Cases in Courts and Tribunals. Some examples are of on the screen, for whoever is interested to read these cases, so what happens when the legal approach is based on common sense and the adjudication takes at that level of subjectivity, and we're faced with unconscious judgments

121
00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:37.000
of course, as sociologist we know better in consistency, in consistency, in judgment is not just a violation of the rule of law, but, more importantly, it is a structural problem that leads to structural inequality.

122
00:20:37.000 --> 00:20:39.000
Then adjudicators have the freedom to arbitrarily decide who is or is not entitled to the right, to freedom, expression.

123
00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:50.000
It allows for the maintenance of structural inequality.

124
00:20:50.000 --> 00:21:00.000
And again as sociologists, we know who suffers the most from structural inequalities, especially when it comes to justice system, and social issues.

125
00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:08.000
In Mit case studies. I find that Canadian Muslims, as well as women, are groups that have less access to power.

126
00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:17.000
And are those groups that are most debilitated on their search, hate, speech, legal regime.

127
00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:26.000
One last point that I would like to make before concluding is regarding the new discourse on the Online Hate speech.

128
00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:48.000
The growing concerns about online hate. Content has prompted policymakers to take actions that have proven to be even more inadequate compared to those concerning offline hate, speech, government, including the Canadian Government, have mandated and assigned private commercial tech companies, the responsibility, of

129
00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:57.000
monitoring and removing on-line hate, content. But a the same set of laws, and same set of problematic approaches.

130
00:21:57.000 --> 00:22:04.000
As a result, the adjudicators of online hate, speech or not, the staff and machine algorithms.

131
00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:12.000
By these tech companies, none of which are legally trained, as, for instance, a educators in courts and tripping.

132
00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:18.000
Those are. Imagine if adjudicators in courts and tribunals who are legally trained have difficulties in consistently interpreting and applying the law.

133
00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:34.000
Would employees and automated or algorithms by tech companies be able to effectively fulfill this role.

134
00:22:34.000 --> 00:22:49.000
I think not, and I tell you why very briefly, of course, because this is a closing remark in addition to challenges that I have briefly mentioned online communication intros a multitude of complexities, including the Shear volume of online data is vast is vast that no machine.

135
00:22:49.000 --> 00:23:19.000
Even can handle it. Characteristic of online communication which usually takes place in informal language, grammatically incorrect language, language, slang ridden laden with cultural codes, abbreviation, symbols, and such that no machine or even people can actually really decipher them not to

136
00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:48.000
mention that languages or endless? And another problem that involve that is involved in this endeavor is machine algorithms that are known to be error chrome, and they usually flag things that are not hate, speech and flag things that sorry yeah, they

137
00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:53.000
don't flag what they should like their ever chrome.

138
00:23:53.000 --> 00:24:05.000
And more importantly, another problem is that in this dynamic commercial entities are involved, and they may have their own political and financial agendas.

139
00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:21.000
All of these factors, among others, make such a endeavor not only ineffective, but also instrumental in hate, speech, politics, which is a huge topic, and does not fit into this time limit, but hate.

140
00:24:21.000 --> 00:24:31.000
Street. Politics is the driving machine or driving force behind this whole dynamic.

141
00:24:31.000 --> 00:24:33.000
And then that's involved. That means silencing. Legend, legitimate voices.

142
00:24:33.000 --> 00:24:43.000
Subversive voices on social media media and elsewhere, while alling commercial entities to while at people's right to freedom of expression and privacy.

143
00:24:43.000 --> 00:25:05.000
So I'm going to stop right here and give the floor back to Orunitha. Thank you so much.

144
00:25:05.000 --> 00:25:07.000
Thank you very much, Monterey. Would you mind stopping your screen? Share?

145
00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:10.000
We are going to do just that if I could. That is right. There.

146
00:25:10.000 --> 00:25:20.000
Thank you. No worries. Okay. So let me know. Introduce the next presenter.

147
00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:21.000
So our next presenter is Akohatano.

148
00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:27.000
I go as a research fellow at the center. Out there she is.

149
00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:40.000
I was like. Where did she go? Is a research fellow at the center for human rights, education and training in Japan and a detail in law candidate at the University of Oxford and a Clarendon scholar.

150
00:25:40.000 --> 00:25:53.000
Her research interest centers on industrialization of international law and norms in local contexts covering diverse areas of human rights, including hate, speech, business and human rights and gender equality and diversity.

151
00:25:53.000 --> 00:26:03.000
She has a decorative experience of international legal research and practice with international organizations, governments and civil society she obtained her legal.

152
00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:08.000
She obtained her BA. In international relations and Ma and human security, and Jd.

153
00:26:08.000 --> 00:26:16.000
From the University of Tokyo and Lom from New York University School of Law, as a full-blight scholar.

154
00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:27.000
Her recent work includes hate, speech and international law. In the book by Higakia, Nasu hate speech in Japan, the possibility of a non-regulatory approach.

155
00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:31.000
So whenever you're ready you can come up and begin your presentation.

156
00:26:31.000 --> 00:26:38.000
Thank you very much.

157
00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:39.000
Hello, and good morning, everyone. Thank you. Chair, for great introduction.

158
00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:44.000
So like today, I'm talking about reconceptualizing the dynamic process.

159
00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:55.000
Internalization of international human rights. Law was a case study of Japan's anti-hater speech on racial discrimination.

160
00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:02.000
It is a bit of kind of, you know. Sorry for, like starting my presentation shameful I promotion of my book or chapter.

161
00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:14.000
The book of a head speech in Japan, are the possibility of a nonregulatory approach, in which I submitted or contributed one chapter.

162
00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:20.000
So my presentation today is based on content of the chapter.

163
00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:29.000
I submitted, but also like, and II talk a little bit more beyond the chapter in a book.

164
00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:30.000
So I would like to start. You know, what is the internalization of international law?

165
00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:58.000
So like my primary discipline, is international law, and you may wonder like, oh, what what is international law is doing in a sociologist conference but when we look at how international law, especially international humor as well can be impactful at the domestic level, we need more sociological or like even anthropological approach you

166
00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:02.000
know that is like my argument in my Phd. Project.

167
00:28:02.000 --> 00:28:11.000
And then this is like internalization. International law is defined as a process by which nations incorporate international law concepts and into domestic practice.

168
00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:35.000
And then they know, like international lawyers usually like, you know, they are looking at state so like a state center top-down approach I name in my thesis focusing, or more institutional factors in a prioritizing state and interstate actors or action of those and then you're looking at how

169
00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:38.000
international law can be latified and it be internalized at the legal legal. In legal documents.

170
00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:47.000
But I'm not really looking at what's actually happening in a society.

171
00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:56.000
So that's why this internalization study is getting more and more popularity even among international lawyers.

172
00:28:56.000 --> 00:29:17.000
But I would argue state-centered, top-down approach, which is sort of a traditional approach, is not enough to see how or international industrial human rights law can be in how you know how to see how it is incorporated on a ground so like drawing from the a vast amount

173
00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:25.000
of work, of sociologists and anthropologists in particular, the concept of monacularization proposed by a legal anthropologist, Sally Angel Mary.

174
00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:37.000
I'm focusing more on, like, on local social character contexts and as well as non-state actors.

175
00:29:37.000 --> 00:29:45.000
Local activism and then more micro-level community based movement and process.

176
00:29:45.000 --> 00:29:54.000
So just to know like make a note. Binocularization is a sort of like a concept like the international Human Rights law or human rights concept is translated on the ground.

177
00:29:54.000 --> 00:30:12.000
So it is not actually like approached or applied per se, but in a context, in a local context, you know, like a different context of social and cultural background and human rights concept can be applied in very different ways in translation.

178
00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:26.000
So that's that's a sort of a concept I rely on to in my thesis so like as per methodology, I'm using sort of, I'm I'm employing some like mixed methods on desk, review, like many like documents from the UN government

179
00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:52.000
Ngos, especially in the process of state, reporting to the International Human rights 3D bodies, but also I conducted some informative interviews with lawyers, human rights lawyers, as well as a kind of victim of hate speech in Japan my knowledge is the people working in municipal government and so

180
00:30:52.000 --> 00:31:04.000
on, and then also, like I did, some participatory observation in sort of a social movement against hate speech as well as some discussion or debate among local communities.

181
00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:14.000
On, how to tackle hate speech in that specific community.

182
00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:19.000
So coming back to the what? What is? You know how international hate speech is regulated in international law.

183
00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:39.000
Actually as previous presenter already mentioned, there is no internationally or nationally legally agreed definition of hate speech, but in international law is with a background of the historical atrocities.

184
00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:48.000
In many cases in Germany, and in Cambodia, in Rwanda, and even like recently in a Us.

185
00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:58.000
And other countries developed a very strong prohibition of so-called hate speech, which is described as incitement to violence and discrimination.

186
00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:06.000
In, for example, like in the International Convention on Civil Political Rights, Iccpr.

187
00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:16.000
Article 19 and a 20 as well as another convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, prohibits on hate speech.

188
00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:24.000
In. Article 4. So it urges the State parties to criminalize hate speech in their domestic laws.

189
00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:29.000
So and then, you know, like, and it is like more sort of concretized in a general recommendation.

190
00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:35.000
Number 35, and in other documents, like basically like UN, related documents.

191
00:32:35.000 --> 00:32:40.000
And what is hate, speech, and how to be tackled, and so on.

192
00:32:40.000 --> 00:32:51.000
And then, when we look at hate speech in Japan, actually, when I'm speaking about or like when I'm in a conference, talking about hate, speech.

193
00:32:51.000 --> 00:32:55.000
Sometimes people comes up to me, and there's asking, Is there any hate, speech, or discrimination in Japan?

194
00:32:55.000 --> 00:33:09.000
And yes, of course, unfortunately, as you see, you know, racism and retr nationalistic campaigns and ex, you know.

195
00:33:09.000 --> 00:33:11.000
Exclusions rising, and all around the world legalities with depravity developing countries.

196
00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:38.000
And Japan is unfortunately not exception. So, according to the minutes of justice, they are statistics from 2,012 to 2,015, even like, you know, 1,000 to more than 1 1,100 hit raries were observed on the street, and then I can as you could

197
00:33:38.000 --> 00:34:05.000
see in some pictures they are violent. The huge crowd of people shouting like sort of like killing racial minorities in Japan, especially legitimate Koreans residing in a country, and also like there are like a Nazi Frag and then also using sort of public speech, an election campaign to

198
00:34:05.000 --> 00:34:14.000
promote exclusion of those minorities. So this is a very serious situation, and then, in a government official of the Minister of Justice, I interviewed.

199
00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:22.000
He described the situation as a sort of like from gravity in a toilet to political appeal.

200
00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:23.000
It means discrimination. Racial discrimination is always there. Hate.

201
00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:32.000
Speech is always there, but in a leg, and it was hidden and not really accepted, or like.

202
00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:45.000
It's not in a visible on the street, but now it's somehow like it's getting more and more visibility and popularity in on a make, a public swear.

203
00:34:45.000 --> 00:35:02.000
So this is like in Orito, around in 2,000, and then but the legal regression of Japan is so legal regulation of a hate speech in Japan is really precarious.

204
00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:07.000
Situation. Because, you know, like Japan ratified and Iccpr, and is third.

205
00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:22.000
But it's reservation on Article 4 which it made a reservation on Article 4, which emerged criminalization, hate, speech in on free speech, in under the Constitution.

206
00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:24.000
And then, you know, panel, civil core provisions are sort of difficult to apply when it is targeting a group of people in general.

207
00:35:24.000 --> 00:35:47.000
So when someone just like insert you or I can make some deformation discriminatory statement again, specific person, it can be like falling in some provisions in penal or civil court.

208
00:35:47.000 --> 00:36:05.000
But when I say, like kill all residential Koreans in Japan, it doesn't make any crimes issues in under panel civil record, because it's just like it's not doesn't specify any individual just a group of people but it's a hate speech.

209
00:36:05.000 --> 00:36:07.000
Right. , and then just a quick comparison between other countries.

210
00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:24.000
All hate, speech regulations, maybe I should add in a calendar in this chart, you know, according to the previous presenters, explanation.

211
00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:32.000
But it's like us. Uk, France, Germany, each of those countries, each of those countries.

212
00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:37.000
We have hate, speech, hate, crime, law, and anti-discrimination law.

213
00:36:37.000 --> 00:36:46.000
Even the US. Yeah, there's no hate speech role because of the strong free speech constitutional amendment.

214
00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:52.000
But they have a head crime law. In some States depends on the depending on the State, but I know anti-discrimination law is also there, so it is.

215
00:36:52.000 --> 00:37:19.000
You can see Japan is such a rigor, Boyd, of hate, speech, or hate crime law among those countries, and then, in 2,014, this traction attracted attention of the international Human Rights 3D bodies, and I was in a humorous committee as well, as an osard committee I

216
00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:46.000
didn't really like. Mean you read this again. Small wars or sentences, but I just wanted to focus or highlight, like the Japanese government it's such a sort of strong and long statement or recommendations to criminalize to take legal action against hate speech as well as a legal action against hate speech as well.

217
00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:49.000
as the Japanese Government to criminalize hate, speech. And then this is a sort of a cut and paste from the the website.

218
00:37:49.000 --> 00:37:58.000
Ominous of justice from Japan, and then you could see all we see.

219
00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:04.000
The recommendation from from humorous committee as well as the start.

220
00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:12.000
And then just look at this. In response we established very first anti-hispee show in Japan.

221
00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:19.000
So yes, congratulations now we have in Oregon, for, say, speech law in a country.

222
00:38:19.000 --> 00:38:24.000
So this is a hate speech, elimination Act 2,016.

223
00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:47.000
But when you look at text like with textual analysis of the the act, it doesn't actually fully comply with international human rights law or recommendations you know, like which we saw in a very like a wardy slide. So there's no punishment, even no shaming and naming a

224
00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:51.000
shaming, so it is severe. This this you know first, very first anti hate.

225
00:38:51.000 --> 00:38:53.000
Speech act in Japan has been criticized from both sides. Sort of like right.

226
00:38:53.000 --> 00:39:00.000
People say, Oh, this is a vibration of freedom of speech.

227
00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:06.000
And then the other side left people saying, Oh, this is like this is not strong enough.

228
00:39:06.000 --> 00:39:07.000
This is so tithrous, just mere basic principle against hate, speech.

229
00:39:07.000 --> 00:39:26.000
So it is useless to to prohibit or to tackle, hate, speech, and then, you know, like also, like a definition of the or scope of protection of victim, is extremely narrow.

230
00:39:26.000 --> 00:39:41.000
It only says, persons originally exclusively from a country or region other than Japan or their descendants, and who are low, free, deciding in Japan, which is basically contains religions, Koreans like, which are targeted by haters in Japan.

231
00:39:41.000 --> 00:39:57.000
But it doesn't really include, for example, like other social minorities, women, refugees, or undocumented people, or disabled people with disabilities, or anyone is not protected under this law.

232
00:39:57.000 --> 00:40:06.000
So the question is establishment or development of this hate, speech, animation act is really in response to those recommendations.

233
00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:16.000
In a little bit more theoretical framework. It can be considered to be considered as an internalization of international human rights law.

234
00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:25.000
But interestingly, when we look at the actual impact of their hate speech law, there are a number of things happening in a country.

235
00:40:25.000 --> 00:40:40.000
For example, a number of xenophobic varies has dropped by nearly half, and after 11 months since enactment of the hospital, and then judicial decisions against hate, speech.

236
00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:57.000
The study to like Reno, like reference to the Hate speech, act as well as their development of many h under hate, speech audiences, or guidance in municipality or external entities.

237
00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:11.000
So and then, like, of course, national, like Police Agency and other ministries, like a start, like like a majors against hate, speech.

238
00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:22.000
The documents for of the Government to sensitize. For the purpose of sensitization of people in how hate speech is not acceptable, in how hate speech is not acceptable in a society.

239
00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:23.000
So there are some impacts, even though the law itself doesn't punish or criminalize hate, speech.

240
00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:29.000
But like a law itself, doesn't, like, you know, punish or criminalize, hate, speech.

241
00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:34.000
But, like the other stakeholders, start taking action, depending on the.

242
00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:44.000
So after the announcement of the law, so like in my hypothesis or yes, the question is, why this law has become impactful, even though it's so tasteless, it's not really responding to the recommendation of the international humor.

243
00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:53.000
3D bodies. So the one, maybe one possible answer is in the development process of anti-hate visual.

244
00:41:53.000 --> 00:42:22.000
There are some internalization process going on in multiple in a different stakeholders, not only the government itself, but also in a civil society, in a society as well as in a judiciary, like a local like more is a community based activism so like looking at domestic forest there is

245
00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:26.000
a Korean elementary school case in 2,019.

246
00:42:26.000 --> 00:42:34.000
Sorry 2,019 sorry, 2,009. And then this is a very sort of like a ground breaking decision.

247
00:42:34.000 --> 00:42:42.000
This is before establishment of the anti hate, speech role, but the court itself referred to the Aizard in Combat international convention against racism.

248
00:42:42.000 --> 00:43:03.000
Saying, in this, haters very brutal violence in front of the Kyoto and Korean meditation, Koreans school in Kyoto, saying, It is illegal as an actions constitute racial discrimination as defined by the is third so which is really rare for

249
00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:10.000
Aese court to before, defer to international conventions or international law, because they always there.

250
00:43:10.000 --> 00:43:21.000
Yeah, we have constitution, domestic law. It covers almost everything so like, why do we need to like refer to the international law or international human rights law?

251
00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:28.000
But in this case, actually, there's no domestic law to define racial discrimination.

252
00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:40.000
So like, there's only one way for the court to refer to the Isert to describe in this hateful demonstration of racial discrimination.

253
00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:45.000
So this is like an huge compensation or punishment.

254
00:43:45.000 --> 00:44:12.000
Against haters. So this and then this case, actually, they continue to influence following or subsequent cases on hate, speech, so like, actually like, you know this already, like even before anti hate establishment of anti hate speech there are some internalization process happening in a judiciary so that's the one thing and

255
00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:18.000
then also like in a politics, it is before the establishment or enactment of the anti hate, speech, role.

256
00:44:18.000 --> 00:44:19.000
The more than 300 local municipalities.

257
00:44:19.000 --> 00:44:29.000
Asked the government to take measures, because they know they are so front runners of the head through issues on the ground.

258
00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:30.000
So like, they say, like all we need to take any action action, but we don't know what to do. So like.

259
00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:40.000
Give us some guidance, or law to legitimize our actionions or law, to legitimize our law to, you know, legitimize our action. So like.

260
00:44:40.000 --> 00:44:41.000
And then in our community of justice, they start in some campaign against hate, speech.

261
00:44:41.000 --> 00:44:46.000
They started some campaign against hate, speech.

262
00:44:46.000 --> 00:44:52.000
It is interesting because if they use hate speech like an English word just translated, using the pronunciation in Japanese as it is.

263
00:44:52.000 --> 00:45:00.000
So this is something coming from. It's like a word coming from outside of the country.

264
00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:17.000
And then there's no definition of hate speech in Japanese there are some similar thing, but they use that this kind of a campaign word to appeal to maker appeal to the to the people.

265
00:45:17.000 --> 00:45:28.000
So, and then they are made by our Parliament, and then some you know, like some discussion going on a National Assembly, so this is even in a politics, in the process of developing anti hate speech, role under hate speech measures.

266
00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:38.000
There are already several internalization policies there and then.

267
00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:47.000
Of course, the human rights lawyers. They make advantage of the process of state reporting to the international humor 3D bodies using.

268
00:45:47.000 --> 00:45:56.000
The. So they took the video of the Hate demonstration and brought it to the international humor.

269
00:45:56.000 --> 00:45:59.000
3D bodies examination process, and then they introduce.

270
00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:08.000
Those members are just so shocked and then I gave that very strong recommendation to the very long, strong recommendation to the Government.

271
00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:15.000
So this you know, this Internet is kind of using international advocacy process by human rights.

272
00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:23.000
Lawyers also make some, you know, impact on the internalization in and outside of the country.

273
00:46:23.000 --> 00:46:34.000
And then it is interesting to see. It is, I think, most interesting to me to see what's happening on the ground I mean in a very grassroots community level.

274
00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:38.000
So like, you know it. We got integrated according to the interview with local activists, she said.

275
00:46:38.000 --> 00:46:48.000
We work against discrimination based on that. We work against discrimination based on universal human rights value.

276
00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:51.000
And we are happy to cooperate with anyone to promote this value.

277
00:46:51.000 --> 00:46:57.000
And another activist who is anonymous. He also liked mission.

278
00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:10.000
Our organization is driven by protecting universal human rights based on a concept of universal human rights, but through spreading of the concept we aim to diminish or like eliminate hate, speech.

279
00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:16.000
So this is like surprising for me. She's a victim of hate speech, and then she's more familiarialized.

280
00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:17.000
She has been familiarized hate, speech or international human rights values.

281
00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:30.000
But this person I wouldn't say Mayor, but it better, and then had no idea, had no knowledge about international human rights.

282
00:47:30.000 --> 00:47:36.000
But through the process through the process or through the sort of mobilization, social mobilization process of using.

283
00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:39.000
Or you know, using Isert and Iccpr. They learn what international human are.

284
00:47:39.000 --> 00:47:56.000
It's law, say against about hate speech, and learn it, internalize it, and then use it in their local community, based anti-hater speech movement.

285
00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:00.000
So this is you know, like sort of like some size chart of what I wanted to say in my presentation.

286
00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:16.000
So like usually the international lawyers, international, like legal scholars, only looking at how international law, international human rights will make impact or large.

287
00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:17.000
The National Government to take any action, or I could make law.

288
00:48:17.000 --> 00:48:24.000
But you know, like an actual actual process, the agentization process or impact is not only happening at the national level, we have to look at local government, judiciary.

289
00:48:24.000 --> 00:48:40.000
Or more grassroots, local community to see the real impact of international human rights lawmaking in a society so like my conclusion is so development.

290
00:48:40.000 --> 00:48:51.000
So that to respond to the respond to the question, are we asking in a previous slide the establishment, or like enactment of hate, speech, Elimination Act, is considered to be internalization of international law?

291
00:48:51.000 --> 00:49:14.000
And then the answer is partially yes, because, as you know, that as we saw, the text itself is not really comprised with or out here today, recommendations by the seroton or Iccbr. But it all has served some guidance for authorities to regulate this dissemination of hate speech in

292
00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:20.000
a society at a subnational level, and then making this.

293
00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:29.000
This is like super interesting to see making this law, even like the text teeth as well as a living. You know.

294
00:49:29.000 --> 00:49:38.000
Give it believe in character and soft regulation. How you know what we can see like, how soft regulation can be impactful through the internalization process of human rights norms.

295
00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:55.000
So thank you so much for listening, and then any question or comments, or more than welcome. Thank you.

296
00:49:55.000 --> 00:50:00.000
Awesome. Thank you so much. Ayaco. That was a great presentation.

297
00:50:00.000 --> 00:50:01.000
So our next presenter is Harshita Swami.

298
00:50:01.000 --> 00:50:05.000
She is a research scholar enrolled in the Phd.

299
00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:14.000
Program in the center for the study of law and garance in Jarlal Nehru University, India.

300
00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:20.000
Currently harsh does working on public health insurance schemes in the light of right to health care in India.

301
00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:28.000
She submitted her and film dissertation in 2022 titled conceptualization of hate crime in India, prejudice, violence, and law.

302
00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:41.000
Through her research, hashtag tries to understand and situate hate crimes in Indian context, in there is no legal categorization of hate crimes as distinct from other kinds of crimes.

303
00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:48.000
Therefore her focus remained on analyzing existing legal provisions which deal with such crimes.

304
00:50:48.000 --> 00:50:49.000
The paper which she will present in the Conference is based on her Mfill.

305
00:50:49.000 --> 00:51:14.000
Work where she attempted to highlight, how absence of special hate, crime, legislation, and limitation of existing laws are the antithesis to the ideals of justice and equality which are at the core of the imagination of India's constitution okay, so whenever you're ready please, come up thank you.

306
00:51:14.000 --> 00:51:20.000
Hello, everyone! Thank you for being here. Thank you. Chair, for such a lovely introduction.

307
00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:24.000
So the paper I am presenting today is titled The ideals of justice and Equality.

308
00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:28.000
Visa union, legal system, assessing requirement of special H.

309
00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:33.000
Crime laws in India. So the concept of justice and equality have been in shine in the Pm.

310
00:51:33.000 --> 00:51:37.000
Bill as the most fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.

311
00:51:37.000 --> 00:51:50.000
At the foundation of both this concept lies the idea of Nondiscrimination and the State's obligation to ensure welfare protection in equal treatment to all its citizens, which also reflects in the fundamental rights in Shang in the part 3 in a hierarchically

312
00:51:50.000 --> 00:51:58.000
diversified country as India. The Constitution does acknowledge the particular vulnerability of some groups, and hence provides for protective discrimination in favor of these groups.

313
00:51:58.000 --> 00:52:15.000
To achieve justice, however, systematic practices and routinization of marginalization and exploitation of some vulnerable sections of society, present a completely different reality in India there has been an alarming upsurge in the incidence of intergroup violence mostly targeted against minorities and those groups

314
00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:18.000
which are placed at lower positions in social hierarchy.

315
00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:25.000
This is incidents of violence qualified to be Thomas. Hate crime generally hate crime refers to a criminal act which is motivated by the offenders.

316
00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:26.000
Prejudice against the victim based on victims.

317
00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:30.000
Social identities, hate crimes are criminal manifestations of biases.

318
00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:31.000
These biases are socially constructed and institutionally maintained in reminding the concept of hate.

319
00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:36.000
Crimes are the issues of discrimination, marginalization, and stigmatization of certain identities.

320
00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:45.000
Hate, crime, laws have been perceived to be powerful instruments by which the State deals with deep rooted biases in social practices of identity, based discrimination.

321
00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:59.000
Unfortunately, while hate crimes are universally present, hate crime. Laws are not in your legal system, does not recognize any crime as a hate crime unless there is no separate category of hate.

322
00:52:59.000 --> 00:53:00.000
Crime, laws, no legal recognition of hate. Crime in India provides the background in which my paper is situated.

323
00:53:00.000 --> 00:53:12.000
The Main argument presented here is that hate, crimes have been a huge social problem, and antithesis to the ideals of equality and justice, and has invite critical reflection on the way.

324
00:53:12.000 --> 00:53:25.000
Any legal system deal with such crimes in absence of special hate, crime, legislation, so I'll briefly give understanding of hate, crime.

325
00:53:25.000 --> 00:53:34.000
So the notion of stigma as introduced by Irving Gauffmann is key to the framework of politics of difference, which must be at the center of hate.

326
00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:38.000
Crime discourse, basically stigma is a mark or attribute that is culturally devalued.

327
00:53:38.000 --> 00:53:42.000
It is applied to an individual or a group, and people so Marked are perceived as undesirable.

328
00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:55.000
Lesser beings, building on Government's idea, link and felon's work provide a good account of hate crimes as the extreme manifestation of devaluation of those groups who are stigmatized ultimately stigma acts as mechanism of social control in this light barbara

329
00:53:55.000 --> 00:53:58.000
Paris theoretically explained how prejudice operates in intergroup relationships in terms of the power dynamics operating in society.

330
00:53:58.000 --> 00:54:12.000
She takes into account the social construction of the idea of difference among groups which is used to create social hierarchy along various identity markers, such as race sexuality, gender, class, etcetera.

331
00:54:12.000 --> 00:54:13.000
This categorization results in binary classification a division of opposites.

332
00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:16.000
One is either gay or straight, black or white, Muslim or Christian, etc.

333
00:54:16.000 --> 00:54:34.000
These binaries facilitates the operation of structures of oppression, as some groups are deprived of resources and opportunity, and markers aboarding it inferior or deviant, while others, marked as dominant and are put in a position of power these structures of power and

334
00:54:34.000 --> 00:54:43.000
Institutional assisting. It shapes the hegemic vision of how society should be in terms of the confinement of people in their respective positions of domination and subordination.

335
00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:56.000
Perry understands the emergence of hate. Crime as a response to this threat to the hegemonic power arrangement given the distinct nature and consequences of hate camps, it is asserted that a State must have a special hate crime policy which labor certain crimes as hate crimeimes and thus

336
00:54:56.000 --> 00:55:02.000
provides for their differential treatment, usually in form of heartshare. Punishment.

337
00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:14.000
So those who favor the adoption of special haircam laws do so with reference to one broader tradition adopted in justifying the institution of criminal punishment that is known as retributivism, which emphasizes the relationship between the seriousness of the crime and the severity

338
00:55:14.000 --> 00:55:19.000
of the sanctions imposed on the criminalals, based on the principle of proportionality.

339
00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:24.000
The basic idea is that hate crime laws add an additional layer of criminality on top of base crimes.

340
00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:27.000
Whenever these base crimes are done with prejudice, beliefs.

341
00:55:27.000 --> 00:55:35.000
Firstly, hate crimes tend to be excessively brutal and cause more psychological injuries hate crimes, cause a heightened sense of vulnerability, depression of control, second, hate crimes acts as message crimes, they have deep symbolic meaning.

342
00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:44.000
They threaten the whole community and send the message that you could be the next third, as they create social divisions, they present the potential to trigger social conflicts and create strife in society.

343
00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:53.000
They may instigate retaliatory crimes. Therefore the societal harm caused by State crime exceeds the harm.

344
00:55:53.000 --> 00:55:58.000
The same crimes committed on other grounds. The extra harm thus warrants extra punishment.

345
00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:13.000
So if hate, crime. Actors, message, crime, hate, crime, laws, act as message laws as an official manifestation of support by the State for the target victims it corresponds to the fear protection, paradigm in criminal law which requires that the State takes into account the disparities among people in terms of

346
00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:17.000
wealth, vulnerability to crimes when determining their entitlement to protection.

347
00:56:17.000 --> 00:56:23.000
Those who are vulnerable have allegitimate right to special protection on the basis of fairness.

348
00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:36.000
Having argued for special hate, crime laws. Now it is important to understand the nature and pattern of hate, crime, and the identities which are evidently and most apparently stigmatized in India are the scheduled caste and shedule tribes religious minorities section nineorities and

349
00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:49.000
racially discriminated groups, religious minorities are stigmatized as a threat to the Hindu social order, which is perceived as the Indian Social Order sexual minorities are stigmatized as unnatural or immoral the scheduled cast and schedule

350
00:56:49.000 --> 00:56:55.000
tribe are stigmatized, based on the notion of purity and pollution and racial stigmatization occur in the form of denial of Indian identity.

351
00:56:55.000 --> 00:57:00.000
To some ethnic groups, especially coming from northeast region of India.

352
00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:14.000
Some assertions can be concluded in in conduct. First, the frequency and intensity of such crimes have intense in past years, second, there has been ever increasing involvement of the media and political forces which have contributed in the rising intolerance in society, third, more blinching has become

353
00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:21.000
a very frequent manifestation of 8 kinds. Fourth and most serious consideration is that state complicity in perpetuating these crime.

354
00:57:21.000 --> 00:57:37.000
It has 8 questions about the effectiveness of existing legal safeguards provided to minorities though the Indian legal system does not explicitly recognize hate crimes, it provides for the prohibition of discrimination under Article 1415 16 and 17 along with the provision of

355
00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:47.000
special treatment of some historically oppressed rooms in the form of protective discrimination, hence the State is permitted to favor the interest of certain Beckman sections of society in order to appefment.

356
00:57:47.000 --> 00:58:02.000
Of them. Nevertheless, the State is largely silent on the issue of special protection to these groups against Candy, S's and Ss. Are the only groups which are provided. Special protection as Article 17 criminalizes untouchability to comply with this the protection of civil rights said 19

357
00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:05.000
95, and the scheduled cast, and scheduled by prevention of atrocities.

358
00:58:05.000 --> 00:58:09.000
At 1,989 have been enacted to provide safeguard to them against caste-based crime.

359
00:58:09.000 --> 00:58:24.000
The special protection. India is provided only to the Sds, not to other minorities like religious, actual, racial minorities, who are also vulnerable to be the victims of identity-based crime, and has worthy of the special protection the term minority is not defined by the

360
00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:28.000
constitution of India, it only refers to minorities in context of language and religion.

361
00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:36.000
Though the State is allowed to make special laws for minorities, protection, so far Indian State has not made any provision exclusively for protection of minorities.

362
00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:51.000
Now let's have a look at how hate camps are treated under Indian Penal Code, which is the official criminal code of India that defines crime and prescribes for their penalization the provisions which come closest to be term hate crime provisions India those sections of ipc which

363
00:58:51.000 --> 00:58:52.000
identify certain grounds, such as religion, race, caste, resistance, language, etc.

364
00:58:52.000 --> 00:59:06.000
As basis for interrupt conflict and provide for the criminalization of acts promoting animity between social groups on these counts these provisions are popularly known as hate, speech, provisions are popularly known as hate speech.

365
00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:11.000
Provisions provisions are made under Article 19. That authorizes the State to put limitations on the right to free speech.

366
00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:19.000
It is against the backdrop of restrictions to Article 19 that the issue of hate speech is approached in India rather than defining it in itself.

367
00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:20.000
A brief analysis of hate, speech, provision suggests that the criminalization of hate.

368
00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:28.000
Speech is justified on the grounds of public order and incitement to violence, which qualifies as reasonable restrictions.

369
00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:39.000
Under Article 19, 2. Hence, under these provisions, the objective is not to prevent or control prejudice per se, but the violence outcome of this prejudice, the language of these sections is ambiguous.

370
00:59:39.000 --> 00:59:50.000
The focus mainly on the need to stop violent incidents between 2 groups somewhat undermines the hierarchy and existing power relation between those groups which render one group in a more vulnerable position than the other.

371
00:59:50.000 --> 01:00:04.000
Hence it ignores the fact that even if the expression of precedence does not result in disturbance of public order, it can still terrorize those actions who are already marginalized and subordinated in society, however, in travis Bayla sangtan versus Union of India case the

372
01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:10.000
supreme Court, interpreted the history in the context of protection of marginalized people instead of public order or morality, and observe the need for a deeper consideration of his speech by the Local Commission of India.

373
01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:25.000
Hence, recently the Low Commission of India needs its report on hate, speech, examined the issue, and made some recommendations to the Parliament to turn the laws.

374
01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:33.000
It recognized that not only incitement to violence, but also incitement to discrimination, should be a significant factor, determining hate, speech.

375
01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:34.000
The Commission suggested the amendment to the Ipc.

376
01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:52.000
And Crpc. By adding some new provisions on prohibition incitement to hated the Low commission, took a broader stand and expanded grounds for incitement of hated as religion, race, caste, or community sex gender identity, sexual orientation, place, of birth, language, disability, or

377
01:00:52.000 --> 01:01:05.000
tribbe. The Law Commission's acknowledgement of the vulnerability of marginalized section and danger of incitement to discrimination with more inclusive criteria has come closest to the official conceptualization of hate speech as a form of hate crime in India while Indian

378
01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:06.000
laws recognize the element of prejudice and incident, of hate.

379
01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:23.000
Speech. It largely remained silent on the presence of Bass in other offenses, apart from anti cast crimes which have been legally identified as atrocities, the role of power structure is largely absent from crime against other minorities when it comes to religious minorities the sheer

380
01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:40.000
absence of recognition, of the aspect of targeted violence from legal vocabulary has proven to be a substantial barrier in seeing sectarian violence as hate, crime, incidents of violence between different religious communities are largely targeted as communal violence or rights mark their such violence in this context.

381
01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:49.000
Is largely understood only as law and order problem with deviates popular as well as legal attention from the true nature and intensity of these crimes.

382
01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:54.000
Also hate crimes are mainly committed in the form of mobile lynching in India, but there is no adequate legal framework to deal with.

383
01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:58.000
It mob blynching is not even defined in the Ipc. Or Crpc.

384
01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:05.000
These crimes are treated just as routine breakdown of the laws in cases of mob violence, the underlying case acts of crime like murder, attempt to murder physical assault, etc.

385
01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:09.000
Are tried under various provisions, prescribing Ipc.

386
01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:27.000
Based on their nature a brief study of Ipc provisions indicate that write is the only form of collective violence that appears as a crime which becomes problematic if, seeing in the light of the fact that these crimes often victimize minorities, the category of right presupposes the equal involvement

387
01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:29.000
of both parties in the conflict, while a hate crime actually displays a majoritarian character.

388
01:02:29.000 --> 01:02:35.000
It has been found that many times victims themselves are framed as the culprits.

389
01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:41.000
In such cases, in the absence of legit recognition of their vulnerability, presenting hate.

390
01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:56.000
Crime, says Ingroup, conflict, and framing minorities as perpetrators in such incidents become easier as prejudices against them are already tempted to the extent that they are reflected in the institutional setting itself given the gravenness of the issue supreme Court

391
01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:08.000
in Stacy in Punavalla, is acknowledging the danger of mop times, laid down a set of guidelines to address the lynching and directed all the State governments to enact entry lynching legislation to deal with the issue to date no State has

392
01:03:08.000 --> 01:03:15.000
been able to enact any act due to the Union Government stand, that lynching is not defined as a crime under Ipcc. Governments.

393
01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:22.000
Then, along with religious minorities. Sexual minorities in India also called, constitute a vulnerable group, worthy of special protection.

394
01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:33.000
The terms sexual orientation or gender identity are not mentioned explicitly in any provision of the Indian Constitution, except Article 15, one, which provides for the prohibition of discrimination based on sex.

395
01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:43.000
It is only in April 2014 that a major step towards ensuring the rights of the sexual minorities were taken by the Supreme Court of India in the form of a historical judgment.

396
01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:57.000
International Legal Service authority versus Union of India case, where the Court declared transgender people as the third gender discussed gender identity and sexual orientation in detail and inform the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution the apex court emphasized the need to ensure

397
01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:03.000
constitutional safeguards for transgender. It is not what they have that the court used the term transgender in an erroror science.

398
01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:17.000
It did not include gays, lesbians, or bisexuals, and on the question of conferring distinct identity, the court restricted itself to transgenders only complying with the codes start active in November 2019 the transgender person protection of right Act has been passed by the

399
01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:25.000
central government, one significant provision of the act is that it takes into account the criminal offenses against transgenders and provide to their for their penalization.

400
01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:34.000
However, it is problematic that it has taken a narrow definition of transgenders and remain silent on the issue of offences against other people.

401
01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:47.000
Which has a different sexual orientation, such as gaze less women or bisexuals, so it can be concluded that this act only partially addresses the plight of sexual minorities when it comes to the problem of hate crime against them.

402
01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:50.000
It is also problematic in India to determine minorities.

403
01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:56.000
Race as a category is not recognized. Hence no special protection for the racial minority is provided.

404
01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:11.000
Nonetheless, in the light of increasing incidents of crime against northeastern people in metropolitan cities of Maine and India, a directive has been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Poa Act to book anyone who raises Racist Lurs against the

405
01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:21.000
Northeastern people. This step, taken by the State, though aims, at preventing people from acting on race bias, has one major flaw, it does not provide protection under poa to those people who do not belong to the scheduled tribes, these non-sheduled tribes.

406
01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:27.000
Are equally vulnerable to racist attacks and discrimination, but nonetheless are not protected from racism under the law.

407
01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:39.000
The Beige Burau Committee was formed in 2014, which acknowledged the need for special attention to the cases of crimes against people from the northeast region.

408
01:05:39.000 --> 01:05:45.000
Given the growing incidents of molestation, humiliation, and racial attacks against them.

409
01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:51.000
It recommended the inactment of special anthereism legislation by the Parliament with certain special provisions.

410
01:05:51.000 --> 01:05:52.000
So far these equations have largely stayed on paper, and have not been implemented.

411
01:05:52.000 --> 01:06:07.000
Hence today there is no specific law in India which recognizes racism as a basis of hate, crime, and resist attacks are treated with ordinary crimes under various sections of the Ipc.

412
01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:25.000
So I would like to conclude my presentation. That a study of existing legal provisions indicate that although any legal system has time and again acknowledge the role of one's identity in victimization to certain crimes, it still has failed to develop a comprehensive policy, framework.

413
01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:41.000
to deal with the issue the idea that to ensure equality and justice to certain groups are worthy of special protection is not alien to the criminal justice system in India, nevertheless, minorities which have been historically stigmatized are not provided such protection despite the fact that they

414
01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:43.000
are most likely to be victimized acknowledging the requirement to prevent discrimination.

415
01:06:43.000 --> 01:06:59.000
Indian laws have ignored the necessity to stop marginalization as the need of the artist to enact the special hate, crime, legislation in India which takes into account the issue of marginalization and stigmatization of certain social groups the ultimate goal is not only to

416
01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:10.000
penalize, hate times, but to disrupt the institutional and cultural assumptions about differences that conditions hate crime to the extent the differences are socially constructed.

417
01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:15.000
It can also be socially reconstructed, and the institution of law has a major role to playing it. Thank you.

418
01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:24.000
So much!

419
01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:49.000
Okay, thank you so much for all these wonderful presentations. So while I set up the when I go and hear the mind sitting, I think actually, since we have a smaller audience, maybe if you 2 sit here like in front where I'm sitting, and then there are some questions in the Zoom, and then for questions, that, are in the audience, if

420
01:07:49.000 --> 01:08:01.000
you can come up and speak at the podium when there's questions directed to you specifically that way, the people in the Zoom chat will also be able to see you as well.

421
01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:08.000
Okay, so lots of interesting presentations. My focus is mainly on hate speech laws in Canada.

422
01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:16.000
So I'm very. I found it very interesting to see the different legal bodies in Japan and India, and the different definitions as well.

423
01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:27.000
So I think what I'll do first is begin by asking a general question to all the panelists, and then people in the in-person audience.

424
01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:34.000
If you have questions you can line up at the podium, or you can raise your hand, and I can call on you as well.

425
01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:35.000
Okay, so my one question, it's a very general question.

426
01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:47.000
First, and I spoke about it already is what I find very interesting is the different legal approaches to the definition of hate.

427
01:08:47.000 --> 01:09:12.000
Canada specifically differentiates the hate, speech, and hate crime, and even how we understand harm is also very subjective and constitutive in the legal system so I wanted to ask, in order of all the panelists, is for your own understanding of hate because there's also been some literature that even the word or

428
01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:24.000
the term hate can be very homogenizing and generalizing, because there's so many specific unique experiences and intersectional experiences by women.

429
01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:28.000
Done under anti-black racism or anti-indigenous crimes.

430
01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:38.000
Amongst others, what I wanted to ask the panelists very generally first is, how do you operationalize hate in your own research?

431
01:09:38.000 --> 01:09:41.000
So how do you approach the topic of hate in your own research?

432
01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:49.000
And whether you think, hate speech and hate crime and harm, all fall under the same definition.

433
01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:52.000
So, Monterey, if you can speak to that first.

434
01:09:52.000 --> 01:10:22.000
Sure, in my study I approach the concept of hate exactly as a concept and as as a concept, as all concepts actually hate and content has a history, and within history their meanings have been changed throughout there was a time, when, for instance, in ancient there was, a time when for instance, in ancient

435
01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:49.000
in ancient Greek philosophy, for instance, we had for instance, we had a definition of hate, as of when people, according to Play-doh, actually, when people hated dialogue, so he he said, that hate is when I'm going

436
01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:56.000
to actually read you the read. What he said about hate or misoldogy.

437
01:10:56.000 --> 01:11:04.000
It was the hatred of a dialogue or the intolerance of argumentation and discourse.

438
01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:13.000
As we go through history we come to a point when hate is instrumental in the hands of you know.

439
01:11:13.000 --> 01:11:28.000
Warm oners, they create an almost cities, and you know, hatred between 2 fighting groups in order to actually mobilize people to go and fight and keep each other.

440
01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:33.000
So hate is not. You cannot really mobilize people to go and fight and kill each other. So hate is not.

441
01:11:33.000 --> 01:11:37.000
You cannot really bring. Come up with a very, you know, specific definition for this sentiment or for this concept, because it's been changing all the way through.

442
01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:47.000
Now, we're at a point where we have to define hate, speech.

443
01:11:47.000 --> 01:12:15.000
What is hate? Speech? And if it was something that a lot itself to be actually defined, to be sure that in within the international legal system, or within a country's legal system like Canada's legal system, we would have come up with a definition for this term, and we have actually as you probably know.

444
01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:41.000
we have in our legal system. We have lots of definitions, and, more important, more remarkably, the hallmarks of hate message that there are 12 items in that in that list which was actually which has become a Jewish prudence in hate speech legal context, and in in that list of hallmarks of

445
01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:56.000
hate message. We have only 2 items that would specifically say something about violence, expression that insights violence, immediate violence against somebody is considered hate, speech.

446
01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:03.000
All other definitions, like, you know, feeling of a disdain or envy of, you know, a group that has health.

447
01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:20.000
Sorry wells, intelligence and power, and they mix of all so many intelligence and power, and they mix of all so many source, so many different concepts, in order to actually come up with a definition.

448
01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:22.000
But they can't. The only 2 items in the list of hallmarks of hate message.

449
01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:36.000
Or those that specifically mentioned violence. So if you ask me how I define hate, speech.

450
01:13:36.000 --> 01:14:00.000
To be honest, I haven't been able to yet, but that is beside beside the point, even if we have a definition, because we're dealing with an object named, namely, speech dealing with speech and speech is super subtle so adoptable and so interpretative one speech can be

451
01:14:00.000 --> 01:14:07.000
interpreted as hate, speech, and by somebody another person would say, This is not his speech.

452
01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:14.000
For instance, if one person and we have example of this in Canada actually, I don't know if you know more.

453
01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:24.000
Stein, who is a well known figure in Canadian contexts, and he has made a reputation writing books against the Muslims.

454
01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:40.000
Islamic countries, and social, and he is totally and islomophobic. But in one context he comes and says that we have to go in and colonize almost Muslim countries and all Muslims, because they're there.

455
01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:45.000
They're not there is no solution for them.

456
01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:50.000
What is this? Hate? Speech? Legal system says, no, but think about the concept of colonization.

457
01:14:50.000 --> 01:15:00.000
It has all the atrocities it contains, all the atrocities that we consider violent and actually atrocities.

458
01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:17.000
But then you bring him to court, and court says, no, this is not hate speech, so it's very difficult to come up with a a certain and clear definition of hate.

459
01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:25.000
Speech that is applicable, that is actually something tangible in the hands of the adjudicator.

460
01:15:25.000 --> 01:15:36.000
So in that sense, I say, we are. We are in a jiffy when it comes to hate speech, and the way to prevent this situation.

461
01:15:36.000 --> 01:15:59.000
This loophole is to go by the harm principle, is to go by the harm principle, and whoever studies hate speech on the other side of the coin is the right to freedom of expression, which is a foundation of liberalism, and as John is Stored mill the folder

462
01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:10.000
of Liberal Liberalism, they may call him, says, you can only limit a speech when it directs directly, insights violence.

463
01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:11.000
So, and also. So I'm going to end here because I don't want to take all this space here.

464
01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:21.000
But my question to other times is, is exactly that.

465
01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:27.000
How do you distinguish hate, hate, speech, and hate crime?

466
01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:34.000
Because there is a huge difference. And this is foundational to any study of hate, speech, and hate, speech laws.

467
01:16:34.000 --> 01:17:04.000
I think so distinguishing these 2 categories, and then coming up with a solution to minimize the horns as much as possible in the most effective way rather than a vision washy situation where you know, H street politics takes the hold of everything and at the end so many people are silenced and so

468
01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:09.000
Thank you. That was very well, said Monterey. Thank you so much.

469
01:17:09.000 --> 01:17:12.000
many important issues are not out there for debate. So I

470
01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:20.000
Harsh, then if you can also contribute to the question, how do you approach the definition of hate in your own research?

471
01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:24.000
And how do you also differentiate? Hate, speech, and hate crime?

472
01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:34.000
You're welcome to also come up to the podium to also speak to the zoom as well.

473
01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:44.000
Could you use the mic cause? Then the online chat can hear as well? Thank you.

474
01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:58.000
So, as I explained in my paper also for me, it is the manifestation of intolerance, and socially rampant and institutionalized byices that are so strong that result in criminal offenses.

475
01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:03.000
I think we need to approach it from the point of view of marginalization, because hate here is not hate per se, but the prejudices which we are talking about.

476
01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:15.000
Especially against the minorities. We need to understand the social setup in which this hate perpetuates.

477
01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:19.000
That is, in terms of the power relations operating in society.

478
01:18:19.000 --> 01:18:36.000
So hate as an expression I understood is, oh! Like a very desperate attempt when they are on the part of a majority community, when there is a threat to hegemony power relations.

479
01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:45.000
So for me, Hait is a tool which is used by the majority to put minority in their place.

480
01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:52.000
So that's why this the prejudice is so strong that it results in this criminal manifestation for me.

481
01:18:52.000 --> 01:19:05.000
That is how I understand hate in my research, like in this whole social setup.

482
01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:21.000
Yeah, how do you? How do you deal with animosities among minority groups like, for instance, you are looking from the hegemonyic sort of dynamic.

483
01:19:21.000 --> 01:19:28.000
But hate speech doesn't, or even hate. Crime doesn't always happen that way.

484
01:19:28.000 --> 01:19:34.000
It's sometime happens between minority so how do you deal with that?

485
01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:35.000
I mean, how do you explain that?

486
01:19:35.000 --> 01:19:37.000
Okay. Yes.

487
01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:45.000
Again, though mostly I understand that hate crimes are mostly in the form of majority against minority.

488
01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:54.000
Sometimes also minority groups are also in conflict with each other, but then we have to understand that it is the prejudice which is the operating motive behind these crimes.

489
01:19:54.000 --> 01:19:59.000
And yeah, it would be not really right to say that it is only a majority against minority.

490
01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:04.000
But yeah, if we see the consequences of these hate crimes, minorities are the most vulnerable.

491
01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:24.000
So. Yes, I understand. There are minority conflicts as well, but when we talk about the threat it is mostly on the part of minorities who are at the receiving end of this plan.

492
01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:25.000
So, yeah, but prejudice is the motive that I understand.

493
01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:34.000
Yeah, and which is like, really rampant in society.

494
01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:45.000
So what can we do? So, okay, thank you.

495
01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:47.000
Sorry.

496
01:20:47.000 --> 01:21:00.000
We need to use a mic. So yeah, I just like to make it brief, because it's already like being well described by 2 presenters.

497
01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:19.000
But in my own definition of hate, speech, or definition of hate, speech or a definition of hate, speech in general matters, because it draws a line between freedom of speech and a restriction of like a restricted speech or not and then freedom of speech itself, or a freedom of expression, is

498
01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:24.000
guaranteed under international human rights law. As I mentioned, Iccpr.

499
01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:25.000
Article 19, mentioned, like everybody, shall have the light to freedom.

500
01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:39.000
Expressions blah blah, blah, and bad in like Article 2020, you know I, as I already did, commissioned in my presentation, as well.

501
01:21:39.000 --> 01:22:02.000
Like Section 2 like, say, any advocacy of national ratio or religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law, so as an international legal scutter, I sort of like based on this definition, of iccpr which includes the incitement

502
01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:12.000
to violence, and which is, as mares mentioned. I think, inside the medical violence part is really important, but also like discrimination.

503
01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:18.000
You know, incitement to discrimination, so because it's in relation to the second question as well.

504
01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:34.000
But the incitement of discrimination, or the hate speech, hate, speech other incitement, discrimination, making, you know, discriminatory approach as a sort of like institutionalized in the society.

505
01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:38.000
So it's in Jeremy Wardrobe like Professor Warren, like me in his book.

506
01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:48.000
And humor of hate. Speech. It is not only the harm or violence against targeted people, but it's actually like the harm or violence against targeted people.

507
01:22:48.000 --> 01:23:04.000
But it's actually in a harm. The social good or social stability, or even in a like a trust, you know, in a society so like, you know, it is really discrimination parties, I think imported, even though it's not, you know, like really inciting violence, itself.

508
01:23:04.000 --> 01:23:15.000
But just promoting discrimination, making as automation minorities, social status or more difficult to live in a society.

509
01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:24.000
So it's just every day like sense of security in everyday life could be harmed by the hate speech, or like a mayor's speech.

510
01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:31.000
And so in the United States, people said, Yeah, we differentiate hate speech and hate crime because speech is speech.

511
01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:32.000
Crime is already like a violence, action more tangible, harm.

512
01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:42.000
But I think especially like, you know, looking at online hate speech, or even or either online or offering hate speech.

513
01:23:42.000 --> 01:23:44.000
It can kill people. So I don't really differentiate the harm of hate.

514
01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:57.000
Speech or hate crime itself. So, of course, in a criminal law, illegal provisions, they should be differentiated, but in terms of harm itself.

515
01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:06.000
I don't really differentiate them.

516
01:24:06.000 --> 01:24:15.000
!

517
01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:20.000
I just want to make it a little bit more dynamic.

518
01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:32.000
So I do have a lot of questions. I don't mean to put you on a spot, but I just want to make this discussion a little bit more dynamic and perhaps fruitful.

519
01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:37.000
You say hate speech can kill, but there is a process right?

520
01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:51.000
Have you laid out that process from how you go from hate, speech, and hate, speech?

521
01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:52.000
Hmm!

522
01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:55.000
Is not hate speech. It's alleged hate speech until it's proven to be hate speech, right?

523
01:24:55.000 --> 01:25:13.000
So how do you go from an alleged hate speech to hate crime or killing?

524
01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:14.000
Hmm!

525
01:25:14.000 --> 01:25:27.000
And you mentioned Waldron. Waldron says that his main justification against his speech is that he says that it damages someone's dignity, but when it comes to the definition of dignity we deal with lots and lots of concepts here which each

526
01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:38.000
Hmm!

527
01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:39.000
Hmm!

528
01:25:39.000 --> 01:25:47.000
of which needs clarification and definition definitely. But when it comes to dignity he borrows the concepts from Kent, and whereas Kant says, dignity is so inherent that no one can take take it away from you unless your Autonomy is taken away

529
01:25:47.000 --> 01:25:54.000
forcefully so, whoever is autonomous and all individuals are, have the date, have dignity.

530
01:25:54.000 --> 01:26:03.000
This is inherent in human being through their autonomy, but and Waldron does not clarify that.

531
01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:04.000
Hmm!

532
01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:24.000
So he takes that dignity, inherentness of that dignity, and give it into the hand of a racist person to, be, and allow him to take away my dignity or not take away my dignity so how vulnerable he situates me as a minority.

533
01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:32.000
Against vis-a-vis, the races and people with prejudices and hate speakers is uncomfortable to me.

534
01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:49.000
But on the but nonetheless, we we just want to see how, an enlisted hate speech is going to kill because you're in law, and because these are going to be formulated legally.

535
01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:59.000
We have to take. You know every step, every Monescale issue, into serious consideration.

536
01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:17.000
Otherwise you'll end up with the Canadian legal system, where an educator can decide anything at all, and they have in many cases silenced people and gave a microphone or podium to people via phobia, particularly islamophobia.

537
01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:18.000
Hmm!

538
01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:29.000
So you I mean, I'm going to stop here and let you explain.

539
01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:30.000
Yeah.

540
01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:36.000
That's a big question. I'm not a legal philosopher, so the definition of dignity is a big big issue.

541
01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:43.000
And also, even though I'm so interested in like father study, or like expanding my knowledge as well.

542
01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:53.000
But from the international legal lawyers perspective, I would say, maybe the it's case.

543
01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:59.000
By case. Right? Because you know, international like lawyers looking at the case, and as they already did in like, you know, some sort of like dispersed, substantive sort of like subjective decisions.

544
01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:28.000
And then I get different cases. So it's actually case-by-case which is, I think, not too bad, of course, in terms of consistency, it might be like problematic in some cases, but you know, like, because, you know, definition dignity, or how each person feel like this is the most important body of

545
01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:37.000
my own, or agency. It is really depending on their social status, positioning, you know, like their like social status, position, background, and etc.

546
01:28:37.000 --> 01:29:00.000
You know cultural background, etc. rubber. The plan of action could provide us, you know, like some sort of guidance on how to like, define, or how we sort of overcome or consider this issue so like a lot of the plan of action which is based on the consultation conducted in the

547
01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:17.000
UN, and among experts they should accept a high stress for restricting the freedom of speech or freedom of expression, mentioning so like, there are sort of like, you know, robot.

548
01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:38.000
The semic 6 elements to identify whether prohibitions of speech are consistent with the principle, like human rights principle, and then, like first, is a social and political context and second status of the speaker, and a third, intend to insight the audience against a target group and enforce content that forms of

549
01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:44.000
the speech, and then fits in the extent of this dissemination, so like.

550
01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:56.000
How disseminated that speech is! And then 6, and the last one is like refit of harm, like like likelihood of harm, including imminence.

551
01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:05.000
So I'm sure this is not exhaustive, and there might be likelihood of harm, including imminence. So I'm sure this is not exhaustive, and then there might be more element to be considered, at least in like there like some elements.

552
01:30:05.000 --> 01:30:27.000
To be considered, but in the consideration itself I think it cannot be avoidable to be subjected, because this is based on the perception of human being perpetrator as well as victim themselves, so alleged.

553
01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:57.000
Yeah, like, how alleged hate speech can lead to hate crime or like a killing or a murder, or the deprivation of the lights to life can be in many like you know, this like looking at this like a love at the plan of action, it can be considered a hate speech, and then because of as I mentioned

554
01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:23.000
disseminated hate speech already harm the social stability of the person, which inference, mental health of that person so it's not only like dialect, as we see in some space places like Namur or Ethiopia, you know, like a physical violence, just happened triggered by hate, speech, but also like you know, it can

555
01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:31.000
be slow process, like harming or Keating personons or minorities.

556
01:31:31.000 --> 01:31:35.000
Mental health in many of health in many ways, and are like harming social sense of security and stability.

557
01:31:35.000 --> 01:32:05.000
So I think it's not only one pattern, or there are many ways and channels for hate, speech to kill someone or like, you know, there are so many sort of like well, ways and channels, you know, for hate speech to kill, you know, someone but yeah, that's, like, what am I you know, but II think I really need

558
01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:07.000
Thank you.

559
01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:09.000
to think more about. You know, like or like a deep, what dignity is as well as and how it is. It can be harmed by hate, speech.

560
01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:15.000
And to see like how legal policies are interpreted.

561
01:32:15.000 --> 01:32:29.000
So I think I don't usually think about.

562
01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:44.000
I see my name is Hideki, from Japan. I am not expert on the Indian side, so that's why I write a lot from your talk.

563
01:32:44.000 --> 01:32:56.000
Thank you very much, and probably my next step is about some explanation of the present situation in India, and I'm wondering what factors I inhibit.

564
01:32:56.000 --> 01:33:23.000
The Indian Society from develop developing our such practices and photons, legal measures to all the concerning hazards of the concerning Hayespee hate crime, and whatever what I think first of people's sense, big girls are norm or social systems system, like a car system or something like that what should

565
01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:29.000
I do? What should I think? Please?

566
01:33:29.000 --> 01:33:41.000
Harshly. Yes, helped me a bit, because first 3, probably you understand, as you understand.

567
01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:53.000
No, no, and no! And the law are different. Right? International, sorry, internalizing of Norman innovating of law are different. Right?

568
01:33:53.000 --> 01:34:00.000
Personally, and if you look at the text of the page, speech image, yeah.

569
01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:06.000
But there's no mention that doesn't mention international right?

570
01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:17.000
And also, how about that? I'm discussing the diet for diet for the of course, of course, Kyoto Korean school and career management.

571
01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:25.000
I don't know. Quality. Of course they mentioned yeah, of course they mentioned that and international, but that they try to proceed.

572
01:34:25.000 --> 01:34:38.000
Their activities using digital as an instrument right?

573
01:34:38.000 --> 01:34:41.000
It's a bit far from internalization, like a socialization sociological term.

574
01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:52.000
So that's very. I wish I hope you have a think about that.

575
01:34:52.000 --> 01:35:06.000
Yeah, I will. Still here. Yeah, thank you.

576
01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:21.000
Thank you for the question. As I understood your question asked, about you, asked me to throw some light on the current situation in India, as well as the current social setup.

577
01:35:21.000 --> 01:35:40.000
As so I would like to begin with, the historical background you see, scheduled caste and scheduled tribes have always formed a marginalized communities in India, and their marginalization has also been recognized in the constitution as and like I said, article 17 has

578
01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:51.000
abolished uncouchability. So it is like their marginalization has been recognized through the Constitution, but the debate on hate crime has only emerged very recently.

579
01:35:51.000 --> 01:36:14.000
When there is a huge upsurge in the incident of crime against minorities, and for that I think the region is this new emergence of the majoritarian tenancies in India, and I think that has much to do with the State State policies as well as the political setup of the

580
01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:21.000
country. So we see the debate has only gotten the attention, because now it has come to the minorities.

581
01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:29.000
Otherwise, we have socially backward sections, like schedule cast and scheduled tribes, and scheduled tribes like throughout the history, though we have the laws.

582
01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:34.000
But you know, on there they seem to be fit on the paper.

583
01:36:34.000 --> 01:36:38.000
Only reality is completely different. And now this issue has become more serious, because now there are like explicit manifestations of violent crimes.

584
01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:50.000
Till now there were somewhat subtle expression of prejudices, vices, etc.

585
01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:51.000
Those scheduled cast and scheduled tribes.

586
01:36:51.000 --> 01:36:56.000
Have always been at the receiving end of the violence. But yeah, minorities were.

587
01:36:56.000 --> 01:36:59.000
I'll say somewhat safer few years back, but, like Ncrb data, which is the official data record of India.

588
01:36:59.000 --> 01:37:27.000
And other independent organizations, like amnesty, international and all they have done a research, and they have come up with a data which clearly indicates that in past few years, basically like 10 years or so, there has been a huge spike in the incident of hate crimes and it has partly to do

589
01:37:27.000 --> 01:37:34.000
with the majoritarian tenancies, backed by the party in power.

590
01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:40.000
If I may say so. Yeah. So yeah, that is the reason we cannot lie about it anymore.

591
01:37:40.000 --> 01:37:49.000
Like, there is data. The government data itself is explaining the story.

592
01:37:49.000 --> 01:38:04.000
So, yeah, I think that is the reason. Thank you. Thank you.

593
01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:10.000
So thank you so much, Taramuto Sanzay, for your very good question.

594
01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:18.000
So I think it consists like 2 questions. First, is differentiation of norm and low.

595
01:38:18.000 --> 01:38:41.000
Distinguished, you know, in my presentation, you know what is sort of like a legal requirement which is more normative requirement, which I definitely need to clarify in my thesis as well as maybe like future presentation, but I think mainly because it's you know, as I mentioned.

596
01:38:41.000 --> 01:38:50.000
like is Third International convention against elimination of based on racial disease discrimination actually urged the Government to criminalize, criminalize. It.

597
01:38:50.000 --> 01:39:10.000
So again in terms of internalization of that specific, like legal provision or request in requirement, you know, like, there's no internalization so I think I'm mainly looking at norms like, what I think I'm mainly looking at norms. You know, like how it is what is the core of this.

598
01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:12.000
You know, like anti hate speech, or like anti- racial discrimination.

599
01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:36.000
Norms in international human rights law, and like sometimes coming back to the negotiation process of those votes. And then in Japan, I also like to make a reservation on the Article for so like, okay, you know, like, it is not really even like not really internalization of legal like international law in a

600
01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:37.000
specific sense, or like a legal sense, but in a still internalization of norms are happening.

601
01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:48.000
So that's maybe what I'm trying to say in my presentation of norms are happening. So that's maybe what I'm trying to say in my presentation.

602
01:39:48.000 --> 01:39:55.000
So I definitely, I maybe specify even definition of nodes in a presentation, or like thesis.

603
01:39:55.000 --> 01:39:58.000
But yeah, make a bit of it like I need to be clarification.

604
01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:28.000
More clarification in a in the future, and then also, like the the yeah, because but you know, like, the interesting thing is, even though, like as you mentioned, the International, sorry, like an anti hate speech, elimination act in Japan, it doesn't really mention in the in the text like main text international human rights law, but you know, they

605
01:40:30.000 --> 01:40:37.000
have sort of like a supplemental supported resolutions of the household houses of national diet, and then it is expressitory, like I mentioning.

606
01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:47.000
It should be. This law should be interpreted in 9 weeks in alignment with international human rights law, you know, even specifying is third and iccpr.

607
01:40:47.000 --> 01:41:02.000
So I think you know, like this is sort of like, of course, like supplementary legislation is not binding, but it gives some guidance on interpretation, even in a judiciary.

608
01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:12.000
So I think this is. And then Ngos, this supplemental resolution is a sort of a tangible outcome of the campaigns of Ngos.

609
01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:14.000
So outcome of the campaigns of Ngo. So you know they are.

610
01:41:14.000 --> 01:41:18.000
They really like they're not only using international humor as or as the tools of a democracy.

611
01:41:18.000 --> 01:41:28.000
I think they are trying to internalize how international human rights interpretation of the law in a in alignment with international human rights.

612
01:41:28.000 --> 01:41:45.000
So it's important. And then, you know, then in Allega, they did their best to including that specific human rights role, they wanted to make it in the main text, but if they couldn't make it so, I can at least supplement the reservations.

613
01:41:45.000 --> 01:41:52.000
But you know, like this is something the proving they are not only using it as a advocacy or a policy to, but most, you know, depending on the values in there.

614
01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:57.000
That's yeah. That's what I could say. Now.

615
01:41:57.000 --> 01:42:07.000
But thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you very much.

616
01:42:07.000 --> 01:42:14.000
Before I go back to the in the chat that there's in general.

617
01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:20.000
So, Cina asked. They're not in the audience right now.

618
01:42:20.000 --> 01:42:23.000
Is a design.

619
01:42:23.000 --> 01:42:31.000
Was listening to you.

620
01:42:31.000 --> 01:42:44.000
I have no choice. I mean, thank you so much. We're like, Oh, yeah.

621
01:42:44.000 --> 01:42:50.000
Thank you. I can't tell you how important I think this session is.

622
01:42:50.000 --> 01:43:00.000
By the few people here we're true believers. First thing, for your presentation on India.

623
01:43:00.000 --> 01:43:08.000
I was really taken aback by the raping and killing of the girl.

624
01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:19.000
The medical students sing. Sorry I can't remember her Christian name, and I was wondering about what happened to the legal process.

625
01:43:19.000 --> 01:43:36.000
There because my understanding was women were actually well. How we were told in Australia women were lynching men and and men and women were demonstrating about this case in India.

626
01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:42.000
That this woman and her boyfriend are were killed by these people on the battle.

627
01:43:42.000 --> 01:43:54.000
It's a very famous case. Secondly, more nearest distinction between hate, speech, and hate.

628
01:43:54.000 --> 01:44:24.000
Crime is very important. May I suggest that you turn to a Australia's anti-discrimination act, which I think actually leads the world, and it has in there an outlying of anti-hydred laws, and one is the incitement to violence which can be interpreted and

629
01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:39.000
that is very important. That only came about in 1994 by a progressive government, that they amended the Anti-discrimination Act here to include anti-haterred laws.

630
01:44:39.000 --> 01:44:58.000
So, even in silent is a crime, and that bothers me because in this country, here in Australia, trump could not get away with saying the kind of things that he said so my other question, whoever wants?

631
01:44:58.001 --> 01:45:00.000
And.

632
01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:05.000
Good night, is it? Thank you.

633
01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:11.000
Thank you. Sorry. We cut out for a minute I'm not sure what happened specifically, but we're back.

634
01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:33.000
Welcome back everybody. So let me let me just and yeah, okay, so are there any questions from the audience for the members of the panel?

635
01:45:33.000 --> 01:45:38.000
So okay, so we're just reaching 1020.

636
01:45:38.000 --> 01:45:48.000
Does any panelists have any last-minute remarks before we end the session, Monterey, I'm sorry we you got kicked out for a minute just a while.

637
01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:56.000
Hershey that was answering her questions. So maybe I'll allow you to say a couple words if you have any last-minute thoughts.

638
01:45:56.000 --> 01:46:01.000
Sure. Was there any question for me while I was gone? No, okay.

639
01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:02.000
No, so there isn't. Yeah. And.

640
01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:14.000
Hello. Okay. One thing that popped up in my mind that I thought would be useful for the researchers in this field is a scholarship by someone by the name of Susan Benesh, who's actually taken.

641
01:46:14.000 --> 01:46:23.000
You know her knowledge of violence, who's actually taken, you know her knowledge of violence, studies, international laws, and hate speech.

642
01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:48.000
Discourse all of them into account, to come up with distinguishing what he calls, or she calls dangerous speech, and we have a leader scholar in Canada by the name of Richard Moon, who calls a category of speech as extreme speech.

643
01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:58.000
So I think, for people who are in the field. This is very important to actually visit this scholarship, both from a buy.

644
01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:09.000
Susan Bennett and Richard Moon to get a sense of what dangerous speech that could lead to violence, or one what extreme speech that could actually affect the audience!

645
01:47:09.000 --> 01:47:12.000
Mean, and how to distinguish it so that we wouldn't mix it up with hate.

646
01:47:12.000 --> 01:47:39.000
Speech, which is basically we should say, alleged hate speech, because in in a liberal society like Canada or other countries, such can, such as Canada, and a crime is, it's called innocent until proven guilty, right?

647
01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:40.000
So hate. Speech is not his speech until it is adjudicated.

648
01:47:40.000 --> 01:48:00.000
Legally as hate speech. So I think distinguishing, distinguishing all these concepts, or should be, should be foundational to any work on this topic. And that is my closing remarks here.

649
01:48:00.000 --> 01:48:06.000
Yeah, thank you very much, Monterey. And I think the theme for this panel was exactly that.

650
01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:17.000
The difference between hate, crime, hate, speech, discrimination, racial discrimination, homophobia, transsovia.

651
01:48:17.000 --> 01:48:18.000
That's right.

652
01:48:18.000 --> 01:48:26.000
There's so many different words under the umbrella of hate itself, and there's so much deliberation between the definition of hate on its own across different countries.

653
01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:32.000
Ayaco. You mentioned the important work by community activists, the organizations that I'm that I support.

654
01:48:32.000 --> 01:48:52.000
And I work with, even within those members there's contradiction and conflict between exactly what the definition of hate is, how we should regulate and also you know, under who has the power and control to authorize certain policies and regulations.

655
01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:53.000
So I think there's a lot of work to be done.

656
01:48:53.000 --> 01:49:05.000
And obviously we need to keep talking about it and discussing it and have conversations like these to discuss it more internationally and nationally as well.

657
01:49:05.000 --> 01:49:24.000
So thank you very much to our wonderful panelists. If we can give a round of applause I think it was a great discussion, so I'm not sure if anyone's coming into this room as of yet, but no one's like knocking down the door, so you might have a couple minutes to talk amongst

658
01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:27.000
yourselves, if you want to go up to the Panelists to ask any last-minute questions.

659
01:49:27.000 --> 01:49:30.000
If people do start coming in, maybe you can also speak to them outside as well.

660
01:49:30.000 --> 01:49:35.000
Thank you very much. Take care and enjoy the rest of the conference.

661
01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:36.000
Alright!

662
01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:39.000
Thanks, Monterey, try it, take care!

663
01:49:39.000 --> 01:49:42.000
Actually see you in a few hours.

664
01:49:42.000 --> 01:49:45.000
Yes, thank. Oh, that's right. Yeah. I'm presenting.

665
01:49:45.000 --> 01:49:46.000
Okay? Bye.

666
01:49:46.000 --> 01:49:47.000
Take care! I'm gonna end the session now.