WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.001 --> 00:00:11.859
Monireh Mohammadi: the 30 min, and we might as well just begin. I think. our second speaker is on his way, probably. So. Hello again. Everyone. My name is Mona Mohammed, and I'll be sharing this second section of sociology. of hate speech laws.

2
00:00:11.860 --> 00:00:36.679
Monireh Mohammadi: we have in this session we have 4 speakers presenting very interesting topics within the hate speech discourse, but related to different countries like India, Canada and the United States. So I'm very excited, and look forward to hearing all of them. The format is that each presenter has 20 min.

3
00:00:37.020 --> 00:01:01.049
Monireh Mohammadi: and I kindly ask that the is here to that 20 min, because there are 4 presenters, and we only have 30 min left for Q. A. So could you kindly keep within the time limits. but I will give you a not at the eighteenth minutes, so that if you have, so that you have 2 min to present your concluding thought.

4
00:01:01.180 --> 00:01:14.019
Monireh Mohammadi: at the end of this session, as I said, we have 30 min of Q. A. Q. A. And hopefully it will be a lively Q. A session. So our first presenter is

5
00:01:14.280 --> 00:01:15.870
Monireh Mohammadi: Anurora Singh.

6
00:01:15.960 --> 00:01:33.549
Monireh Mohammadi: I think she is in the audience at the moment. She can come to the podium if she wants and she is a student of sociology. currently pursuing her Ph at the center for the study of law and

7
00:01:33.920 --> 00:01:39.590
Monireh Mohammadi: governance in. Oh. I keep losing my screen.

8
00:01:40.740 --> 00:02:04.039
Monireh Mohammadi: of law and governance in Java, her lawn Nero University in New Delhi. She's recently been awarded her M. Fit. So congratulations to her, and her research focuses on cast and hate speech in India with her interests, including the study of law and emotions, law on technology censorship and cast.

9
00:02:04.040 --> 00:02:15.420
Monireh Mohammadi: As for the the law and technology research group based in center for this city of law and governance at in A. J. And you. She has been working on

10
00:02:15.520 --> 00:02:29.510
Monireh Mohammadi: Marius. Public policy and governance aspect of technologies in India. The paper she is presenting today is part of her M-field research and focuses on the differential studies of her sentiment claims

11
00:02:29.510 --> 00:02:48.469
Monireh Mohammadi: emerging from different social locations in a highly diverse and hierarchical Indian society. It is a contextual study of hate, speech, and its laws specially concerning cast and its implications for the free speech tradition in India.

12
00:02:48.560 --> 00:02:51.810
So you have the floor.

13
00:02:52.410 --> 00:02:53.510
Monireh Mohammadi: Please go ahead.

14
00:02:55.290 --> 00:03:04.059
Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the lovely introduction I'm very honored to be presenting with this wonderful panel here.

15
00:03:04.190 --> 00:03:11.939
The title of my presentation to day is her sentiments on the law. In independent India. Liberal writes, cast, heaped speech, and redress it

16
00:03:12.850 --> 00:03:17.320
so primarily. this research is regarding just a

17
00:03:22.200 --> 00:03:40.260
all right. So primarily, this research is regarding the claims of her sentiments evident in contemporary times. And how do we study such claims, visa? We write to free speech. That is, Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, especially in the context of the way hate speech cases are on rise and are currently being adjudicated in the court of law.

18
00:03:40.920 --> 00:03:59.569
Hate! Speech has not been defined explicitly in India. Legal system, hits be due to students is found to limit hate speech more mainly on the grounds of public order. This overwhelming Importance on the disruption of public or order overshadowed, overshadows the issues of structural power. Relations.

19
00:03:59.780 --> 00:04:11.529
Consequently both the critical, dissenting voices against the hegemonic structures of power, and the derogatory expressions targeted at the marginalized social groups are accorded equal status to qualify as hate speech.

20
00:04:13.920 --> 00:04:33.850
Ok. So right to free speech has been understood as a vital liberty, however, its practical application invites contestations. opinions of critics and defenders of free speech are divided on where to draw a boundary, so that values such as equality, right to dignified life and non discrimination are not threatened

21
00:04:34.170 --> 00:04:39.599
in this regard more speech argument was provided to combat ill effects

22
00:04:39.890 --> 00:04:43.560
and dangers of hate, speech, and State light regulations

23
00:04:43.710 --> 00:04:55.859
Bikupari, Catherine Mcinnon, and others are critical of this argument, as it assumes that everyone is equally entitled to free speech, and has all the resources and infrastructures at their disposal.

24
00:04:56.330 --> 00:04:58.690
When I,

25
00:04:58.770 --> 00:05:11.989
legal scholar argues that not all speech is free meaning. It is constrained by what Kalpna Kanabirin calls conditions of on freedoms, or, in other words, it is mediated by institutionalized forms of inequalities.

26
00:05:12.320 --> 00:05:31.470
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution provides for guarantees of non-discrimination against the grounds, such as race, caste, sex, place of birth. etc. Freedom in this context would mean freedom from discrimination on the grounds of article which I just elaborated.

27
00:05:32.180 --> 00:05:44.629
now, coming on to hate speech, it is not defined explicitly in the Indian legal system, which in turn invites a whole lot of complexities. Here are 2 definitions, one.

28
00:05:44.630 --> 00:06:09.189
Firstly, it is from Law Commission of India's 2 60 seventh report on hate, speech which describes hate, speech as expression, which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing, or which incites violence, hatred, or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as once race, religion, place of birth, residence, region, language, cast or community sexual orientation or postal convictions.

29
00:06:09.650 --> 00:06:13.279
Second, definition is from international validity network

30
00:06:13.350 --> 00:06:36.399
which defines, cast hate, speech as any communication form, such as speech-writing behaviors, courts, science, or memes, that manifest hierarchies, invoke cubilations serve to dehumanize inside discrimination, degrade self-worth, or perpetuate discrimination, and are often the sources of physical, mental, or material violence to a person or a group based on cast identities.

31
00:06:37.080 --> 00:06:43.220
What is visible from Both the definitions here is this

32
00:06:43.330 --> 00:06:55.890
stressing on incitement to violence and incitement to the discrimination part here. Article 19, 2. Clause 2 of the Indian Constitution provides 8 grounds of reasonable restrictions on free speech.

33
00:06:55.970 --> 00:07:04.680
Some The grounds are sovereignty, integrity, friendly relations with neighboring countries, public order, incitement to an orphans, and so on.

34
00:07:05.890 --> 00:07:06.970
Oh.

35
00:07:08.630 --> 00:07:19.189
hate! Speech, however, does not qualify under reasonable restrictions enumerated in Article 19 2 only hate speech issues which are restricted are mostly based on the grounds of public order.

36
00:07:19.260 --> 00:07:35.629
His speech Issues which are caught above hits which issue issues are usually caught up in 2 important lines of arguments, firstly, the speech which incites violence, second speech, which could harb or hurt. This is especially true of when religious hurt is involved.

37
00:07:35.710 --> 00:07:42.680
Third line of argument, which has not been much deliberated upon, is a speech that would potentially incite discrimination or hatred.

38
00:07:43.710 --> 00:07:49.690
Hate, speech, provisions in Indian penal code. such as section 2, 95, a. 153 a.

39
00:07:49.790 --> 00:07:51.109
Which are.

40
00:07:51.150 --> 00:08:00.880
I mean, I could use Lee translators, deliberate or malicious, intent to outrage religious feelings. provides for equal immunities, and are universally applied for.

41
00:08:00.990 --> 00:08:14.429
and they fail to take into account the context, social structures, or the direction of power flow, I mean, for When section 2, 95, a. Or 153 is invoked, it doesn't matter whether a margin a minority group is

42
00:08:14.550 --> 00:08:15.779
like a

43
00:08:16.040 --> 00:08:32.679
saying something derogatory towards much majority, or the or the vice versa. So, in order to problematize that. I have foregrounded the politics of her sentiments which enables us to differentiate the nature and the context of her sentiments emanating from marginalized and the dominant community.

44
00:08:33.180 --> 00:08:39.280
Thus for grounding social structures to argue that not all expressions of hostility are equal.

45
00:08:41.830 --> 00:08:45.460
unknown. For. just to briefly

46
00:08:45.750 --> 00:08:48.580
give your background off car social structures

47
00:08:48.620 --> 00:09:09.049
various students of caste have elaborated on different organizing principles of caste structure for Dumont, Louis Dumo. It is purity and pollution for doctor by Rambeka, who is lovingly called Baba Sahib by anticast activists and scholars alike, argued endogemy is the foundational organizing principles. He explains mechanisms of caste.

48
00:09:09.430 --> 00:09:18.019
The Widley, in his paper called Castes in India. and he further explains the role of customs in maintaining the systems of end of

49
00:09:21.310 --> 00:09:24.439
or without going too much into

50
00:09:24.790 --> 00:09:38.510
it. caste has basically metamorphosized itself in contemporary times and continues to remain important and relevant for Indian social structure.

51
00:09:39.120 --> 00:09:56.519
Indian legal system envisioned various anti-discriminatory measures, some are which, some of which are protective in nature, while others are developmental. One of the important and significant outcomes of anti-discriminatory measures is scheduled caste and schedule trice prevention of atrocities, act 1,989.

52
00:09:57.710 --> 00:10:09.130
The act represents a a unique historical rupture, as it presents itself as one of the important political events which recognized and visibleised cast violence as atrocity.

53
00:10:09.320 --> 00:10:22.690
While cast violence is not new to Indian society. The post-colonial legislation. such as protection of Civil Rights act and untouchability offenses act only provided definite several civil remedies, and were found in inadequate to

54
00:10:22.760 --> 00:10:33.020
contain the moderate forms of increasing cast violence. The act also marks an important break from the approach of untouchability and civil offenses to atrocity and criminal offenses.

55
00:10:33.450 --> 00:10:49.200
It also represents important negotiations between members of schedule, caste, and Indian State, which is characterized by setting up new rules of social interactions. These rules recognize caste, hate, speech as an important aspect of mechanism, of cast atrocity.

56
00:10:49.440 --> 00:10:58.369
The nature of regulations, accompanied by a legal actions, renders distinctive meanings of personal liberty and equality to members of schedule cast

57
00:10:58.560 --> 00:11:16.570
here. Section 3, one. A. X penalizes car State speech this is after 2, 2,015 amendment 2,015. Amendment section 3, one X is now known as section 3, one R. But I'm using here as section C, one X. Because the case loss that I've dealt with majorly web

58
00:11:16.870 --> 00:11:28.940
before 2015 in this regard. I looked at popular cases of caste herd sentiments in media and case laws for analysis of claims of both marginalized and Domin and cast communities.

59
00:11:30.700 --> 00:11:39.989
 Now the politics of her sentiments reveals the sum, is the object of humiliation, while others have the repositories of cast pride and glory.

60
00:11:40.440 --> 00:11:51.420
The caste connotations. There are cast connotation inherent in her sentiment, claims of dominant, which enables the relations of cast dominance, and upholds the hierarchical cast structure.

61
00:11:51.580 --> 00:12:03.729
However it the framework or the language of emotions also enables the marginalized to foreground the claims which morally disapproves of the relations of cast dominance.

62
00:12:04.080 --> 00:12:10.460
For example, there are different signs of words that is, Chambar Chamberman is basically a custody slower?

63
00:12:10.570 --> 00:12:18.469
That is used for untouchable and touchable cast on And who

64
00:12:18.730 --> 00:12:34.669
are in the profession of skinning the dead cows and leather work. So basically, the language emotions do not carry the humiliation inherently, but are consequences of histories of its use of derogation, insult, and humiliation.

65
00:12:35.380 --> 00:12:55.249
Now, on one hand, marginalized, raised concerns of dignity, historical injustice, and humiliation through their claims, suffered the procedure and justification for committing atrocities, finds legitimate sanction in the victims of Hindu religious courts, which was challenged by the claims of marginalized. On the other hand, the claims of dominant Hindu herd

66
00:12:55.290 --> 00:13:01.200
can be traced back from the attempts at resisting colonial interventions and the reform movements by the cast elites.

67
00:13:01.330 --> 00:13:06.760
the dominant Hindu hurt emerges from their commitment to an unreformed Hindu way of life.

68
00:13:07.450 --> 00:13:25.640
The nationalism used Nationalist rhetoric and mobilized Hindus in the name of superior Hindu way of life, which is heard due to colonial interventions in the Hindu-private sphere. The Nika Sarkar calls it a defense of Hindu patriarchy to maintain and legitimize the domestic structures of exploitation

69
00:13:25.660 --> 00:13:33.090
during the colonial rule. Now the dominant uses a manufactured victim, Hood, for the articulation of the loss of caste

70
00:13:33.210 --> 00:13:36.720
time and again by invoking their glorious past in history.

71
00:13:36.860 --> 00:13:49.779
Here what can be observed is that her sentiments emerge from different social locations and are differently foregrounded, and this challenge the oversimplification of her sentiment arguments, and adds complexity to the free speech discourse.

72
00:13:53.920 --> 00:14:04.370
Here in I'll be discussing a few cast hate speech events. First, one is relating to the marginalized claim of her, and the second one is got to his dominant claim afford.

73
00:14:13.370 --> 00:14:29.510
She, however, was the only woman to score a hat trick at Olympics. The Rajpoth uppercast men gathered outside her home while she was in already into Tokyo. They were dancing and fighting crackers outside her home, basically mocking her and her family.

74
00:14:29.580 --> 00:14:39.930
It was said the team lost the match because it had too many the lip players in it. Dal, it is basically a term and a sort of term used by the lid. she didn't cast themselves.

75
00:14:41.110 --> 00:14:48.670
Nietzsche's Guywart and Antika's director in this regard tweeted that no matter how much we achieve in life or prosper, the burden of caste remains

76
00:14:49.130 --> 00:15:08.569
the but the Sisyphusian mountain of dignity we must climb. This is one of the routine examples of cast humiliation and violence. However, what is explicit from her sentiment claims of the marginalite is that dignity, equality is foregrounded and rooted in substantive democratic ethos.

77
00:15:08.820 --> 00:15:12.660
Now the second one deals with dominant claims, came forward.

78
00:15:12.700 --> 00:15:29.990
An Ngo in Gujarat, invited application for the post of sweepers which stated that preferences shall be given to Brahmin, Chatriya mania, and so on, basically cast elites. This invitation or the application went viral on social media and invited a lot of outrage.

79
00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:39.059
Hindu social outfits, vandalized the office and asked for a public apology, and further threatened with violent consequences. Here the claims of

80
00:15:39.090 --> 00:15:45.980
hurt are usually at least with violence, and consider it as an authority driven from the Hindu social order

81
00:15:51.150 --> 00:15:59.819
now coming on to case laws, I'll be really, I mean, here are 4 case laws that have Lester, but I will be discussing 2 of them due to positive time.

82
00:16:00.160 --> 00:16:03.960
So the first case is forns in case

83
00:16:04.920 --> 00:16:16.309
Here the complainant filed a complaint, saying that he was insulted, using cast name. He was called Chudas Chamar, by the appellant appellant of this case, which is swallen, saying.

84
00:16:16.490 --> 00:16:28.099
here the appellant's wife and daughter had also thrown a dirty water on him while he was waiting near the car of his employer. He was also said that he should not come in his way, and that they were making him take bath.

85
00:16:28.270 --> 00:16:34.169
Here the complainant said that he was hurt, and thought of quitting his job, which he had taken because he was poor.

86
00:16:34.250 --> 00:16:50.469
Here the legal question, Before the court was that whether calling jam or someone amounts as an intentional insult. quote, dismiss the appeal. quote hell. That interpretation of section 3, one x. Should be in consonance with the statement of the objects of the act.

87
00:16:50.790 --> 00:17:05.280
and further deliberated upon the popular meaning of the word chamar, which it has acquired over the time now used as an abuse, and does not denote a caste. Name alone quote even refer to the context of the usage of the word nigger to substantiate its argument.

88
00:17:07.290 --> 00:17:11.729
Now, the next case I'm discussing here is Anna and Betty Card.

89
00:17:12.150 --> 00:17:25.959
here. The claim was that that the poster the poster there was a post on, and which said, smashed by medical patriarchy, was held by a twitter. CEO, Jack Dorsey in an event.

90
00:17:26.040 --> 00:17:33.980
 It was said that if the poster maligned, the Brahmins are March, the Brahmin is basically the uppercast

91
00:17:34.230 --> 00:17:50.620
of so basically maligned the Brahmins Samarjis community, and was aimed at inducing religious hatred towards German community as whole. It also stated that Shastras was the original creations of Brahmins, who were keeping Hindu culture alive.

92
00:17:50.650 --> 00:17:56.739
Politicians, industrialists, and people from other countries seek their blessings before beaming anything of species.

93
00:17:57.010 --> 00:18:14.199
Anna here elaborated on the sociological meaning of the concept and cited Omar Chakra, but a leading sociologist in India to argue that how bramanical patriarchy intends to enforce effective sexual control over women, to maintain cast purity and patrilineal succession.

94
00:18:14.530 --> 00:18:28.680
Port argued that no case of her sentiment can be made. One of the journalists, following up one of the journalists in an interview compared brothers with Jews, saying that what Nagis did to juice is what is happening to dominance of India

95
00:18:28.760 --> 00:18:41.930
for dominant the articulation of now that is a very far-fest statement. For dominant, the articulation of hurt is such that it explains much about the manufactured victimhood, fear of losing hierarchical caster status.

96
00:18:42.130 --> 00:18:50.279
and they believe themselves to be the guardian of Hindu social order. Any attempt to challenge caste structure is seen as challenging Hindu way of life.

97
00:18:51.410 --> 00:18:56.189
The claims of victim would hear. The Hindu is in danger, is usually

98
00:18:56.600 --> 00:19:03.250
at least with threats of public order, which is one of the grounds of reasonable restrictions in Article 1,902

99
00:19:03.540 --> 00:19:07.140
gender and cast priority is overstressed in their claims.

100
00:19:13.960 --> 00:19:19.779
Okay, so these are basically the 3 thresholds or the ingredients which are required for

101
00:19:19.830 --> 00:19:22.770
the recognition of cast weight speech.

102
00:19:22.790 --> 00:19:31.230
Here also we found that matter. Here is I mean, these are 3 thresholds. Post is intentional insult or humiliation.

103
00:19:31.340 --> 00:19:37.980
and the you should be aware of the cast of the victim, and it should happen in the place of public view.

104
00:19:39.030 --> 00:19:43.419
Here we found that these are some of the observations from different studies.

105
00:19:43.440 --> 00:20:10.389
 So Members of schedule cast here! Face insurmountable problems in getting their cases registered under the Act, reasons being a a pathway of the executives, threatening with consequences, pressurizing for mutual settlements, bargaining with money, lack of social and economic capital to pursue. The case also adds to the part of the problem further, in accurate record of allegations, undue delay in trials due to procedure, lapses.

106
00:20:10.430 --> 00:20:13.520
members of scheduled cast keep on suffering enormously.

107
00:20:16.850 --> 00:20:23.609
are now coming on to the adjudication. I mean, these are the few of the observations that I had

108
00:20:24.120 --> 00:20:45.479
in almost all the matters, the technical or the mechanical aspects of the applicability of the ingredients was mostly debated, on the consequence of which is, that that there is no comprehensive debate on harmonizing the value of free speech and other constitutional values, vis-a-vis degradation inflicted by Castesler, that the the jurisprudence on caste-hit speech could not be

109
00:20:45.600 --> 00:20:47.659
developed and remains very limited

110
00:20:48.340 --> 00:20:55.250
in this one. My case, the case I mentioned before you have in 2 min left.

111
00:20:55.480 --> 00:21:04.309
Yes, thank you. I see. the quote reasoned in Heteshwa, Marquis does not matter. If one is aware of the cast of the victim.

112
00:21:04.370 --> 00:21:08.569
it is upon victim to prove that it is purely cast-based crime.

113
00:21:09.070 --> 00:21:26.990
The consequences of such precedent, and in this case was invited a lot of criticism from different colors. It was precisely because the consequences of these such precedence is very dangerous, and if it were to be true, the possibility of a crime to be tried under the act becomes nil.

114
00:21:28.400 --> 00:21:40.959
 Further on, the charges of conviction by the accused are usually challenged in high courts, but during my research I barely noticed cases where acute equivalent of the culprit was challenged.

115
00:21:41.180 --> 00:21:49.430
This also showcases how lack of social and economic capital and infrastructure constitutes the conditions of on freedoms in accessing justice.

116
00:21:49.540 --> 00:22:04.350
Lastly, also like to say that a rate of conviction under a prevention of Atrocities Act is very dismal. There. Usually other very serious crimes, like rape, murder, or property theft, are usually associated with cast-head speech.

117
00:22:04.600 --> 00:22:09.840
And there are very miniscule cases where someone was tried under section 3, Onex. Alone.

118
00:22:09.970 --> 00:22:29.920
for the conclusion, I would like to say that section 3, one x. Is very well within the realm of democratic framework, which balances the substantive notions of free speech, principles, and other competing values, such as dignity, commitment to non discriminations. And further, is the goal of Article 15, which is guarantees of nondiscrimination.

119
00:22:30.120 --> 00:22:39.750
And section 3. In this regard ought to be understood as a speech. Enhancing measures inculcate the robustness of free and responsible speech. Thank you.

120
00:22:44.450 --> 00:23:07.800
Monireh Mohammadi: Thank you very much for that very interesting presentation. There is so much to really discuss. And unpack as we're very unfamiliar with that context, I am actually so thank you so much. Our next speaker is from Barra. I hope I'm pronouncing your name right

121
00:23:07.800 --> 00:23:32.780
Monireh Mohammadi: so you have also 20 min. But let me introduce you first. if Ron is an incoming third here law student in the common law program at the University of Ottawa, he has worked as a research assistant for the University Center for law, technology and society, where he has analyzed technology, law and

122
00:23:32.780 --> 00:23:49.700
Monireh Mohammadi: AI regulation prior to law school, a frame completed a bachelor's degree in public ethics and a masters of art in philosophy. If Ron's graduate research focused on ethics, political philosophy, and emerging technologies

123
00:23:50.370 --> 00:24:05.140
Monireh Mohammadi: during his studies, he published an Academic Book review and a research paper on the intersection between Virtual Ethics and AI Ethics. So a from you have the floor. You're looking forward to it

124
00:24:06.630 --> 00:24:20.680
Monireh Mohammadi: like you're about very much for the introduction. Monterey. Am I saying your name correctly? Is it, Monterey?

125
00:24:23.700 --> 00:24:28.329
Ephraim Barrera: And hope that everything is all nice on the zoom front.

126
00:24:32.280 --> 00:24:33.669
Yeah, you can see it

127
00:24:33.900 --> 00:24:36.080
Ephraim Barrera: fantastic. Now

128
00:24:36.690 --> 00:24:49.480
Ephraim Barrera: you're seen to frozen a bit and went on freezes. I'll set up the slide show. I also send my slides to the tech support in case my computer cannot handle it. For some reason

129
00:24:49.500 --> 00:24:54.389
Ephraim Barrera: that way, I could just say, next slide, okay, here we go. Can you guys see my slide show?

130
00:24:55.020 --> 00:24:55.720
Hmm.

131
00:24:56.150 --> 00:24:58.440
Ephraim Barrera: okay, I guess we're good to go. Fantastic.

132
00:24:59.650 --> 00:25:17.159
Ephraim Barrera: Okay? Well, yes. Thank you again for that. Intro video meetings are really helpful for events like this. But unfortunately, there's no app to avoid time zones right now. It's 1 50 in the morning where I am in Ottawa, Canada. So please forgive me for any sluggishness on my part.

133
00:25:17.370 --> 00:25:34.359
Ephraim Barrera: I want to thank the Isa for allowing me to present on such an interdisciplinary topic. To me it really seems that sociology in general is essentially interdisciplinary, because studying social life necessarily involves understanding the way that political, legal, and moral frameworks influence that society.

134
00:25:34.660 --> 00:25:36.880
Ephraim Barrera: I think this applies to our topic as well

135
00:25:37.069 --> 00:25:55.580
Ephraim Barrera: as you can see here my title, online speech, laws and modern democracies, and a very long subtitle, holistically thinking about the social effects of online speech laws regulating hate. Speech is a complex but necessary exercise. My goal in this presentation is to approach this challenging topic with 2 lenses, law and moral Philosophy

136
00:25:56.210 --> 00:26:01.660
Ephraim Barrera: overall. My thesis is that the controversy around Canada's proposed hate speech, law.

137
00:26:03.380 --> 00:26:11.729
Ephraim Barrera: and as well as the perspective of virtue. Ethics provide important insights on the inherent risks of crafting any online speech law

138
00:26:13.279 --> 00:26:26.200
Ephraim Barrera: towards the structure of my talk, I'll begin by unpacking strong public backlash to the Government of Canada's proposed law. Next, I will touch on how this can of Supreme Court has wrestled with the problem of hate, speech laws chilling free expression.

139
00:26:26.220 --> 00:26:35.819
Ephraim Barrera: Moving to philosophy. I will apply an idea from virtue ethics to help conceptualize how citizens ability to develop good political judgment can be damaged by such laws.

140
00:26:36.979 --> 00:26:40.059
Ephraim Barrera: So first, the government of Kansas proposed online speech law

141
00:26:40.540 --> 00:26:47.680
Ephraim Barrera: on July the 20 ninth, 2,021, the Canadian Government published a draft bill that would regulate harmful content online.

142
00:26:47.930 --> 00:26:54.539
Ephraim Barrera: The government provide discussion, guide and technical paper summarizing the proposed law for the public to provide feedback.

143
00:26:54.680 --> 00:27:02.309
Ephraim Barrera: Although the bill died on August fifteenth, 2,021, its content and the public response provide a valuable case. Study.

144
00:27:02.700 --> 00:27:24.239
Ephraim Barrera: The purpose of the bill was to regulate social media and to combat hateful content online, to support a safe, inclusive, and open online environment. The law required that social media users should be able to flag content as hateful, and that social media platforms should review the flag, content within 24 h to determine if it should be taken down.

145
00:27:24.870 --> 00:27:29.059
Ephraim Barrera: The law of regulate hate. Speech is one of 5 different categories of online speech.

146
00:27:29.130 --> 00:27:37.520
Ephraim Barrera: terrorist contents, content and sites, violence, pay speech, non-consensual sharing ofencement images and child sexual exploitation contents

147
00:27:39.020 --> 00:27:47.550
Ephraim Barrera: because of the controversy these definitions of the 5 categories would draw from existing criminal law in Canada under the criminal code.

148
00:27:47.560 --> 00:28:13.610
Ephraim Barrera: What this law would do differently, though, from the criminal code, is, adjust the definitions of these 5 categories into a kind of regulatory context for online speech. Now, after the draft bill generates significant controversy, the Government appointed an expert panel to provide recommendations, and we're going to look at what the expert panel had to say first and then look at some of the public's response. So policy and law experts quickly noticed a coherency problem with the law.

149
00:28:13.730 --> 00:28:20.010
Ephraim Barrera: These 5 categories of speech have almost nothing to unite them other than the fact that they're all illegal.

150
00:28:20.170 --> 00:28:26.780
Ephraim Barrera: The problem is that the particular legal assessment for each of these 5 kinds of prohibited speech is completely unique.

151
00:28:26.990 --> 00:28:40.340
Ephraim Barrera: The Government's expert group also emphasized creating a special duty to protect children because of their inherent vulnerability. They argued that a stricter speech standards should be imposed for child sexual exploitation and terrorism.

152
00:28:41.110 --> 00:28:51.190
Ephraim Barrera: The experts also raise an issue of defining hate speech. They stress that some forms of harm are extremely difficult to define, even if they should be covered by regulation.

153
00:28:51.610 --> 00:28:54.670
Ephraim Barrera: The group also diverged on how to define the term harm.

154
00:28:55.140 --> 00:29:02.580
Ephraim Barrera: Some argued that the law should not identify specific types of harmful content because they may become incomplete or outdated.

155
00:29:02.730 --> 00:29:08.680
Ephraim Barrera: others held that there should be some definition of what harm means to help regulatory agencies comply.

156
00:29:08.810 --> 00:29:17.479
Ephraim Barrera: while others suggested that a definition should focus on the likely effects of a piece of content rather than any specific definition of what harm in general is

157
00:29:18.210 --> 00:29:22.110
Ephraim Barrera: the expert group's insights provides with 2 preliminary points.

158
00:29:22.240 --> 00:29:32.530
Ephraim Barrera: number one. An online hate speech law should have its own regulatory standards, distinct from other forms of harmful speech. It's unique. It has a particular way of

159
00:29:32.560 --> 00:29:39.950
Ephraim Barrera: of of causing harm that's different from other forms of speech. And so it's regulatory standards should also thus be particularized.

160
00:29:40.050 --> 00:29:50.580
Ephraim Barrera: and secondly, defining harm or hate. In such a law, war in special attention it should be recognized as a particularly difficult task, especially in an online context.

161
00:29:52.250 --> 00:29:58.730
Ephraim Barrera: Moving back to the submissions, there was a very strong public backlash and widespread criticism on the proposed law.

162
00:29:58.980 --> 00:30:18.770
Ephraim Barrera: but the Government also stirred the controversy by refusing to disclose the actual public submissions. Instead, the Government released a what we heard reports that they claimed summarized the submissions. The Government was later legally compelled to release the submissions to the public under Canada's access to Information Act.

163
00:30:20.360 --> 00:30:30.269
Ephraim Barrera: After reading through the release submissions. Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Some have had the pleasure of of working with also at the center for law and technology at you. O

164
00:30:30.310 --> 00:30:48.039
Ephraim Barrera: revealed that the Government's report dramatically understated the public concerns about the law. He then published all the the different submissions on his websites and other another people following. This also did it likewise, because the Government still has not published those release submissions according to the act.

165
00:30:49.200 --> 00:31:17.639
Ephraim Barrera: The takeaway here is that citizen should scrutinize government summaries of public consultations, because governments will be tempted to downplay, or altogether conceal, the full extent of criticism against their law. I mean, one sense really shouldn't be anything surprising. When the government proposes a law. It want it. It wants feedback, sure. But it wants to maintain, you know, a good reputation for the laws proposing. So it's important for citizens to keep in mind that downplaying that temptation is very, very strong, especially in this area of law.

166
00:31:19.400 --> 00:31:39.049
Ephraim Barrera: I want to focus now with the criticism of the law, particularly from marginalized communities. In fact, they provide some very interesting insight and some of the strongest criticism against the law. The Government recognized that marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by online hate speech, and they stated that the Bill was informed by their perspectives.

167
00:31:39.180 --> 00:31:46.799
Ephraim Barrera: However, some of the strongest blowback against the bill was from marginalized communities, including racialized and women's groups.

168
00:31:46.880 --> 00:31:48.260
Now, why was this?

169
00:31:48.920 --> 00:31:55.040
Ephraim Barrera: Well, because these groups in Canada recognize the problem of practically implementing this bill?

170
00:31:55.240 --> 00:32:01.950
Ephraim Barrera: Who would review the flagged online content to determine if it should be removed as hateful.

171
00:32:02.120 --> 00:32:03.850
Ephraim Barrera: There are really 2 options here.

172
00:32:04.280 --> 00:32:14.229
Ephraim Barrera: Number one is human reviewers. Human reviewers of flag content are notoriously prone to error, sometimes due to misinterpreted company policies or inadequate training.

173
00:32:14.430 --> 00:32:21.260
Ephraim Barrera: Human reviewers are often given very little time to assess the flight content, sometimes just a matter of seconds.

174
00:32:21.410 --> 00:32:32.060
Ephraim Barrera: and are also given very high pressure deadlines and have to go through a vast amount of content that's flagged. This results in a rush. Assessments and poor take down decisions.

175
00:32:32.410 --> 00:32:46.599
Ephraim Barrera: The Prom is worsened by well studied human biases that lead reviewers to make snap judgments which often misunderstand the Content's cultural, social, or political contact, especially if that cultural context is a minority or marginalized group.

176
00:32:47.090 --> 00:32:54.080
Ephraim Barrera: The result is a disproportionate removal of legitimate content by minorities and marginalized communities.

177
00:32:54.700 --> 00:32:56.020
But option 2

178
00:32:56.670 --> 00:32:58.710
Ephraim Barrera: option, 2 is AI reviewers.

179
00:32:59.100 --> 00:33:15.199
Ephraim Barrera: One of the strongest criticisms by marginalized communities against the proposed law was its support, if not requirement for social media companies to use AI to review flagged content. Now tech companies are already keen to use AI for content review, because AI is cheaper and faster.

180
00:33:15.640 --> 00:33:27.680
Ephraim Barrera: The proposed law required that flagged content to be assessed within 24 h, making AI almost necessary to meet the time. Requirements for will likely be a massive amount of content that's flagged.

181
00:33:28.010 --> 00:33:40.330
Ephraim Barrera: The law also required platform to take all reasonable measures to make harmful content inaccessible, and states that reasonable measures include quote the use of automated systems based on algorithms.

182
00:33:40.430 --> 00:33:48.349
Ephraim Barrera: Thus the law would practically require AI to be used by social media platforms to meet the compliance requirements.

183
00:33:50.100 --> 00:34:00.119
Ephraim Barrera: Marginalized groups notice this, and they point out that the well-known algorithmic bias in AI systems already would occur in the automated enforcement of this bill

184
00:34:00.410 --> 00:34:14.039
Ephraim Barrera: and that algorithmic bias would intensify pre existing problems. As it has already been shown to do. For example, Facebook's hate speech rules have been found to favor elites and governments over grassroots, activists and racial minorities.

185
00:34:14.080 --> 00:34:27.640
Ephraim Barrera: Tik Tok's algorithm was found to unfairly and disproportionately flagged blm. Content as hateful is found that certain terms used by the black community and casual way were just weighted in a negative sense generally by the AI.

186
00:34:27.730 --> 00:34:34.759
Ephraim Barrera: Youtube has also gained a reputation for systematically hiding or to monetizing Lgbtqi plus content through its AI algorithm.

187
00:34:36.060 --> 00:34:49.660
Ephraim Barrera: The backlash from marginalized communities reveals some key points about AI and online speech laws that are important to keep in mind regulatory monitoring of online hate. Speech likely means that the government and private companies must use AI,

188
00:34:49.790 --> 00:34:58.889
Ephraim Barrera: thus deciding on how we should allow these institutions to wield a technology as powerful as AI is actually intertwined

189
00:34:58.970 --> 00:35:02.030
Ephraim Barrera: with any proposed online hate speech law.

190
00:35:02.650 --> 00:35:12.560
Ephraim Barrera: And what falls from that is that a content monitoring will be vulnerable to the biases and errors that we've already seen AI, which often disproportionately impacts marginalized communities

191
00:35:14.150 --> 00:35:25.269
Ephraim Barrera: moving now to the Kenneth Supreme Court on on hate speech. Even if an all in his speech law is drafted with the best of intentions. It it creates a risk of a chilling effect on free speech.

192
00:35:25.350 --> 00:35:35.749
Ephraim Barrera: The chilling effect in this context occurs when citizens, self-sensor from engaging in online democratic discourse at a fear of being flagged, removed, or labeled Hate Monger.

193
00:35:36.030 --> 00:35:46.979
Ephraim Barrera: Now this is a reasonable fear to have, because both human, and I and AI. Reviewers, as we've seen, make errors and have biases when determining what counts is hateful.

194
00:35:47.270 --> 00:35:55.730
Ephraim Barrera: The Supreme Court of Canada has found hate speech laws in general to have a chilling effect that stands in tension with Canada's constitutional right to free expression.

195
00:35:56.260 --> 00:35:58.200
Ephraim Barrera: just to give some background. Canadian law.

196
00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:05.359
Ephraim Barrera: constitutional rights for Canadians are found in the chart of Rights and Freedoms, which amended the Canadian Constitution in 1,982.

197
00:36:05.470 --> 00:36:20.849
Ephraim Barrera: Section 2. Be of the charter is what's key here. It grants that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication. All this is captured under free of speech or freedom of expression in Canada.

198
00:36:21.420 --> 00:36:28.750
Ephraim Barrera: Now, 2 Supreme Court cases illustrate how the court has wrestled with the issue of chilling speech through hate loss.

199
00:36:29.190 --> 00:36:41.960
Ephraim Barrera: The first one is Rv. Kickstra, in 1,990, James Keystra, a high school teacher, was charged under the criminal coding Canada with willfully promoting hate against Jews by making anti Semitic statements to students.

200
00:36:42.220 --> 00:36:55.810
Ephraim Barrera: The court split 4 to 3 on whether the restrictions on teachers for your speech under the criminal code were justified as a reasonable limit under the charter, with the majority upholding the hate speech law as a reasonable limit.

201
00:36:55.810 --> 00:37:19.360
Ephraim Barrera: The way that charter analysis very broadly works in Canada is at first it's asked, is there a violation of the right in this case. Yes, keyst is right to freedom of speech was violated or fringe. But the second question is key. The second question is, was that a reasonable limitation? If yes, and the law is allowed to stand in, the violation is justified, if not in the law or part of the law might be stricken down, and the the violation is unjustified.

202
00:37:19.450 --> 00:37:33.269
Ephraim Barrera: Here the court split 4, 3 for saying yes, it was a justified limit under the Criminal code, age, speech law, and 3, saying No. but the dissenting a pain of the 3 judges was written by Justice Beverly Mclaughlin, as she then was.

203
00:37:33.370 --> 00:37:38.949
Ephraim Barrera: who thought that the hate speech law was on was an unjustified limit on freedom of speech is particularly relevant here.

204
00:37:40.010 --> 00:37:51.489
Ephraim Barrera: See, Mclaughlin wrote on something called the Martyr effect, sure that the Government should be required to present evidence that the real world effect of the hate speech law would be to, in fact, reduce hate speech.

205
00:37:51.550 --> 00:38:09.220
Ephraim Barrera: She pointed out that the law might actually increase hate, speech. They hate the very hate speech it tried to reduce by promoting sympathy for the propagator of hate. Some may believe that the H. Speech has some truth to it, because the Government is trying to suppress it. This is known as a martyr effect.

206
00:38:09.220 --> 00:38:34.019
Ephraim Barrera: In her descent she wrote, quote the argument that criminal prosecutions will reduce racism and foster multiculturalism depends on the assumption that some listeners are gullible enough to believe hateful expression if exposed to it. But these listeners might be just as likely to believe that there must be some truth in the racist expression, because the Government is trying to suppress it. Theories of a grand conspiracy can become all too appealing.

207
00:38:34.980 --> 00:38:46.729
Ephraim Barrera: She also wrote about the chilling effect, and was concerned that in this particular hate speech law. It's broad wording would have a chilling effect on legitimate expression that is essential for a democratic society.

208
00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:53.610
Ephraim Barrera: Now, although these concerns were expressed in the dissenting view, though closely decided case, they became a majority view

209
00:38:53.630 --> 00:38:58.800
Ephraim Barrera: in in a subsequent case, in 1,992, that cases are be in dell

210
00:38:59.430 --> 00:39:08.299
Ephraim Barrera: Ernest Sundell, a well known holocaust denier, was charged with willfully publishing false news that he knew his false and likely to cause injury to the public interest.

211
00:39:08.560 --> 00:39:18.839
Ephraim Barrera: It's important here to note that he was charged under an old and obscure provision of the criminal code for some administrative reasons rather than the welfare promotion, promotion of H. Street as in key stroke.

212
00:39:19.160 --> 00:39:24.849
Ephraim Barrera: This time the court split 4, 3 again over whether the old false news provision was justified.

213
00:39:25.290 --> 00:39:27.379
Ephraim Barrera: but the majority found that it was not

214
00:39:27.420 --> 00:39:44.989
Ephraim Barrera: justice. Mclaughlin, this time writing for the majority of the court, found that the law apply to all forms of false expression, and could be used whenever a false statement is accused of injuring the public interest. The the accusation of injuring the public interest was too readily at hand and easy to use for any particular form of speech.

215
00:39:45.420 --> 00:40:00.760
Ephraim Barrera: So she and the majority of the Co. Court noted that the over breast of this particular law would cause a chilling effect on a range of legitimate expression, on debatable claims of fact, which are things that should be the topic of open political discussion.

216
00:40:01.830 --> 00:40:21.210
Ephraim Barrera: Now these cases should not be interpreted as providing the Canadian Supreme Court's definitive view of hate. Speech, in fact, legal scholars conclude that, quote these cases demonstrate some degree of ambivalence about using the criminal sanction to prohibit. Ca to prohibit hate speech. In other words, the court is not entirely clear on their approach to age speech.

217
00:40:21.460 --> 00:40:28.409
Ephraim Barrera: however, it can at least be said that the Supreme Court is taking the martyr effect and chilling effect of hate speech laws. Seriously.

218
00:40:29.610 --> 00:40:31.840
Ephraim Barrera: Now the core offers us these 2 insights.

219
00:40:31.900 --> 00:40:42.570
Ephraim Barrera: number one, hate, speech laws may not result in a reduction of hate. Speech, on the contrary, the effect of these laws may be to increase sympathy for the propagators of hate through the martyr effect

220
00:40:43.150 --> 00:40:54.739
Ephraim Barrera: additionally over broad hate speech laws can capture legitimate speech that critically questions controversial issues. The consequence is a chilling effect that restricts public discourse often when it is most needed.

221
00:40:58.010 --> 00:41:04.429
Ephraim Barrera: Now let's move to philosophy. Many philosophical perspectives can be legally brought to bear on this issue.

222
00:41:04.510 --> 00:41:14.460
Ephraim Barrera: I will limit my discussion to a particular idea about how human beings develop the ability to reason and judge well from the tradition known as Virtue. Essex.

223
00:41:15.130 --> 00:41:18.420
Ephraim Barrera: I will draw the work of philosopher, Alistair Macintyre, in particular.

224
00:41:18.630 --> 00:41:25.929
Ephraim Barrera: who uses a nearest toing framework, informed by the insights of Karl Marx. He's not for his unique synthesis of these 2 thinkers.

225
00:41:26.320 --> 00:41:39.400
Ephraim Barrera: Mcintyre stresses the importance of cultivating good judgment that can identify the truth and highest good to aim for in different circumstances. The recently in term for this faculty of judgment is practical rationality.

226
00:41:39.740 --> 00:42:01.489
Ephraim Barrera: A person was well developed, practical rationality to identify the range of goods at stake in diverse situations, weigh the relative importance of these goods, and decide on the best action to take in the unique circumstances. One other. One important point from that Mcintyre mentioned is that Aistol's understanding of product rationality can be applied today in modern sense, in that anyone can develop it.

227
00:42:01.610 --> 00:42:17.189
Ephraim Barrera: Aristotle was indeed a man of his time, with his own prejudices, and we have certain things to say about women and slaves. We can reject those and still maintain the coherency of the of the notion of product rationality understood as something that human beings in general have the potential to acquire.

228
00:42:18.080 --> 00:42:22.440
Ephraim Barrera: So how does this this philosophic concept apply to our discussion on pay speech law?

229
00:42:23.620 --> 00:42:43.619
Ephraim Barrera: Well, first, individual citizens need to develop quality, practical rationality to effectively think about political issues, especially complex ones. More importantly, though, societies need groups of citizens with this skilled judgment to deliberate on identifying common goods and achieving common goods through collective action.

230
00:42:44.410 --> 00:42:46.570
Ephraim Barrera: Drawing from call marks.

231
00:42:47.450 --> 00:43:01.709
Ephraim Barrera: Mcintyre notes that practical rationality in the political context requires sociological self knowledge which is an awareness of how wealth and power affect the distribution of common goods. So this is you to be aware of this. I know how to transform these structures for the better.

232
00:43:01.980 --> 00:43:09.420
Ephraim Barrera: The key issue here is that the ability for citizens to develop good political judgment could be obscured by online paid speech laws.

233
00:43:09.730 --> 00:43:31.959
Ephraim Barrera: Now, it's important to recognize that rampant hate speech can also hinder good judgment for healthy discourse, hate speech further marginalizes vulnerable groups who may self-centered a fear being a target of online hate. When H. Speech reaches a certain point, it could threaten social cohesion. The possibility of any consensus, and even more seriously prolific hate speech could translate into real world violence.

234
00:43:32.410 --> 00:43:50.840
Ephraim Barrera: However, considering the previous points about the risks of online hate speech laws, it must also be recognized that they could seriously damage the development of good political judgment. The challenge here is that quality, public discourse takes effort. It requires a citizens exercise or practice their political judgment.

235
00:43:50.840 --> 00:44:04.719
Ephraim Barrera: The self censorship from the chilling effect leads to less voices, and thus an impoverished political discourse online. The result is less opportunity for citizens to refine and nuance their political thinking, especially with new and controversial issues

236
00:44:04.870 --> 00:44:12.369
Ephraim Barrera: before we think that all band online speech would be hateful. Comments in bad faith recall that both human and AI reviewers

237
00:44:12.420 --> 00:44:25.820
Ephraim Barrera: make errors and have biases that remove legitimate speech. On top of that the difficulty of defining hate speech can lead to over broad applications. These over broad laws can capture more than what many would consider indeed paid for.

238
00:44:26.110 --> 00:44:28.739
Ephraim Barrera: We must also remember that Government regulators

239
00:44:28.810 --> 00:44:37.880
Ephraim Barrera: could ban speech that is merely critical of the Government. But these dissenting voices might be exactly what citizens need to properly assess their Government's actions.

240
00:44:38.080 --> 00:44:45.549
Ephraim Barrera: The temptation for governments to do this with newfound powers under these laws can already be seen the Government's temptation to severely downplay criticism.

241
00:44:45.810 --> 00:44:55.439
Ephraim Barrera: Furthermore, imposing hate speech laws may actually exacerbate a speech by creating a martyr effect that glorifies hate speech mongers as censored truth tellers.

242
00:44:56.590 --> 00:44:59.650
Ephraim Barrera: These consequences from the law are not to be taken lightly.

243
00:44:59.880 --> 00:45:07.760
Ephraim Barrera: All of these consequences would seriously damage the ability of citizens to exercise their political judgment and collectively deliberate towards common goods.

244
00:45:07.840 --> 00:45:24.150
Ephraim Barrera: There is always a risk where public discourse is at play, and thus our proposals for an online speech law should not only be attuned to the real risk of hate speech, but also very much attuned to the real risk inherent in online speech laws themselves.

245
00:45:24.580 --> 00:45:25.670
Ephraim Barrera: Thank you for listening.

246
00:45:31.830 --> 00:45:56.570
Monireh Mohammadi: You and I have so many points of agreement from we. We should get together and talk more. Thank you so much for your interesting presentation, and we will have a more discussion on this issue. Hopefully, in the Q, a. A section so we have to quickly move to the next Speaker.

247
00:45:56.600 --> 00:45:58.920
Monireh Mohammadi: who is

248
00:45:59.080 --> 00:46:21.829
Monireh Mohammadi: Professor Valerie Jennis, who is a distinguished professor in the Department of Criminology Law and society at the University of California, Irwine. And she is the president elect of the American Society of Criminology. Her research has focused on prostitution, hate, crime, prison violence

249
00:46:21.830 --> 00:46:31.960
Monireh Mohammadi: and the present grievance system, and the condition of confinement of for confinement for transgender women in prisons for men. Very scary

250
00:46:32.000 --> 00:46:57.509
Monireh Mohammadi: Professor Jenn is the author of 4 books and many articles published in sociology, law on society, criminology, and Gender journals. Her research has been honored with awards from about half a dozen professional associations, and she is a multiple award-winning teacher as well. Today Professor Jennis will present ground breaking findings from an

251
00:46:58.010 --> 00:47:15.589
Monireh Mohammadi: federally funded, a study titled policing the rainbow which focuses on the experiences and perspectives of Lgbtq plus individuals regarding the law enforcement. You have the floor, Professor Genes, please go ahead.

252
00:47:25.080 --> 00:47:32.679
Monireh Mohammadi: We can't hear you. Do you have the mic? Let me try again. Yeah. Now we can hear you.

253
00:47:32.710 --> 00:47:49.050
Val Jenness: Okay. Now you can hear me go ahead. I was just saying Thank you Monterey, for the nice introduction. And I really like to be there in person, but flights prohibited that. So here we are virtual. And it's about 1130 pm. My time on the West Coast in California.

254
00:47:49.080 --> 00:48:05.039
Val Jenness: What I'd like to do today is talk about some research that I'm working on in tandem with some collaborators. So throughout my talk, I'm going to use the word we because I really am working with a team at multiple universities and at multiple phases in their career. And

255
00:48:05.040 --> 00:48:23.189
Val Jenness: this is the kind of work that really does take a team effort. And I think that'll become clear as we move through it. I want to show you the team here, and in particular identify Dr. Stephen Vogner, who is the lead on the team for postdoc of mine, and soon to be an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, Champagne, Orvana.

256
00:48:23.270 --> 00:48:43.889
Val Jenness: So this research begins with a kind of observation that's beyond dispute in the United States. And that's an observation that police relationships with marginalized and minoritized communities, especially black communities, are fraught both historically and in the present moment.

257
00:48:43.890 --> 00:48:58.089
Val Jenness: In the United States we continue to witness police misconduct and abuses of power often on full display in the media, including some recent brutal beatings and the murder of people of color at the hands of the police.

258
00:48:58.100 --> 00:49:11.719
Val Jenness: This is a memorial for George Floyd. George Perry Floyd, Jr. I should say an African American man who was murdered by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

259
00:49:11.810 --> 00:49:21.629
Val Jenness: during an arrest made after a store clerk suspected. Mr. Floyd may have used a counterfeit $20 bill in May of 2,020,

260
00:49:21.750 --> 00:49:30.029
Val Jenness: so this kind of incident and attendant images and memorializing are part of a national discussion in the United States

261
00:49:30.040 --> 00:49:51.239
Val Jenness: about policing, and how it intersects with race in particular, but it raises all sorts of questions about marginalized communities more generally. And today I want to focus on some work we're doing that looks at the Lgbtq plus community and a history of policing abuses and discrimination.

262
00:49:51.270 --> 00:50:02.530
Val Jenness: and how that contextualizes and sets the stage for some new empirical work we're doing. So. This is a very famous picture taken in and archived.

263
00:50:02.650 --> 00:50:26.850
Val Jenness: and it's a picture of the Stonewall in protests in 1,969 in New York City. And this is famous for an event wherein back then they would have said gay trans. Patrons. Now it was the Lgbtq. I. A plus patrons. were patroning the stone wall in, and police rated the bar.

264
00:50:26.910 --> 00:50:43.149
Val Jenness: and on this particular evening the patrons of the bar resisted, and some use the word riot. Some use the word protest. The picture on the left is particularly telling, because it shows one of the patrons both resisting and kind of being apprehensive.

265
00:50:43.260 --> 00:50:55.859
Val Jenness: So I start with this because there's a history of contestation and discrimination and abuse between the police and the Lgbtq plus community in the United States.

266
00:50:55.950 --> 00:51:10.249
Val Jenness: when I started doing this work along with the team. I was also working with a group called Black and Pink. It's an abolition group in the United States, and one of the folks I was working with is this, and I was telling ze about this work.

267
00:51:10.250 --> 00:51:28.649
Val Jenness: and in an impromptu way, Zeph said, without police, without leasing, we would not have community stone wall. With such a tipping point the police embolded us to come together, build community, stand strong and respond. We had to, so we did so. Police enabled us as a community.

268
00:51:28.650 --> 00:51:55.060
Val Jenness: I can't think about pride, and by that referencing the month of June is a celebratory month for the Lgbtq community without thinking about police. That was kind of in the course of a conversation. And I said to Zeff, Wow, can I write that down and quote you, and Zeph said, Sure as long as you cite me and show my picture for me. It was a nice way to think about the contemporary context, including pride celebrations

269
00:51:55.240 --> 00:52:18.759
Val Jenness: intimately, inextricably connected to a history of police targeting and abuse and discrimination. Now, in the modern context, and I think, relevant for the theme of this panel. We know that things have changed. So I have, and others have studied anti Lgbtq hate crime laws in the United States, which began to proliferate in the late

270
00:52:18.760 --> 00:52:41.739
Val Jenness: 70. Certainly kind of diffused throughout the turn of the century, and now are commonplace. We also had changes that kind of encouraged Lgbtq police hiring practices in the name of diversification and representation. Many major police departments have Lgbtq plus police liaison, and of course, just public opinion in the United States, changing.

271
00:52:41.740 --> 00:52:49.330
Val Jenness: perhaps most most kind of well known around things like same sex marriage when we pull the public.

272
00:52:49.460 --> 00:53:03.499
Val Jenness: So it is in this context that I want to talk about some work that we're doing on what we call the Lgbtq police nexus, and I give you some pictures here from the United States? In the modern moment.

273
00:53:03.570 --> 00:53:16.660
Val Jenness: you know. Just recently I was invited to a pride reception between the Lapd and the Lgbtq plus community in Los Angeles, something that would have been unfathomable back in the stone wall days.

274
00:53:16.720 --> 00:53:34.729
Val Jenness: So I start with this context to make a very simple takeaway point, that is, history has consequences and legacies, and I want to make sure that we're well aware of those, at least in the Us context, which is the context I'm going to talk about today. And at the same time, of course, times do change.

275
00:53:34.800 --> 00:53:40.919
Val Jenness: And it's in that context that we now know. Thanks to lots of social science, research.

276
00:53:41.020 --> 00:53:57.390
Val Jenness: a number of things that are incontrovertible. First, Lgbtq people experience criminal victimization and higher rates than the general population. Yet they report that criminal victimization to police at lower rates than their non Lgbtq pound counterparts

277
00:53:57.390 --> 00:54:12.030
Val Jenness: and nonetheless, Lgbtq plus people have disproportionate contact with the criminal legal system. We also know that these facts are kind of shrouded in layers of discrimination and abuse

278
00:54:13.410 --> 00:54:38.259
Val Jenness: in the current moment, and I'd I'd ask you to look at some of the dates on these headlines. They're 21,921 or 21. And now, May 23, contestation about the role of policing and something as highly visible as celebrations of pride. So coming from the New York Times, cops don't belong at pride. Police officers, even in San Francisco won't march in pride.

279
00:54:38.460 --> 00:54:45.249
I say, even in San Francisco, a city that historically, has highly visible Lgbtq plus communities.

280
00:54:45.540 --> 00:55:08.609
Val Jenness: Here's another picture I would share with you. That points to some contradictions and some tensions. On the one hand, in the city of Los Angeles you can now find sheriff's car down here with a rainbow flag. Sheriff, by the way, places the county, and yet at the same time you get a big banner that says no cops at pride. You get this large police department trying to recruit.

281
00:55:08.740 --> 00:55:21.270
Val Jenness: There's a lot of competing images and a lot of kind of diverse views within this historical moment, and I would go as far as to call it an inflection point between the past and the present.

282
00:55:21.320 --> 00:55:39.239
Val Jenness: In that context I want to raise 2 very important questions and give you some research. We've done that answers these questions. how? What the Lgbtq people across the United States perceive the police as today, and in particular, do they see him as friends or Fo, or something else?

283
00:55:39.440 --> 00:56:04.549
Val Jenness: And what is the kind of distributional diversity within that community in response to how people orient to the police. Now, we've done something. This team I've identified. We've done something pretty historic. We've done the first ever National Representative National probability representative sample to understand how the Lgbtq plus community in the United States

284
00:56:04.550 --> 00:56:24.290
Val Jenness: compares to non Lgbtq people so large probability based random sample, and it represents 97 of American households couple of caveats. It does not include youth, and it does not include people that are unsheltered or homeless.

285
00:56:24.740 --> 00:56:51.579
Val Jenness: The data that I'm going to describe to you today and give you some findings based on are weighted so that they generally map on to the American population with those 2 caveats that I've already mentioned, and I want to focus on a particular question we asked in this survey. The question was, which statement best describes your view of the police in general. I see the police as a friend. I see the police as a foe. I see the police as both a friend and a foe, and I see the police

286
00:56:51.910 --> 00:57:04.499
Val Jenness: as as neither a friend, Norfo, I want to point out we did not use the word your or my. I see the police as my friend or foe. I see the places. My, neither. We really wanted it. Generic.

287
00:57:05.370 --> 00:57:33.740
Val Jenness: Okay, let me tell you what we found about this kind of inflection point between the history and legacies and times do change. So these are our respondent characteristics in this national probability sample representing 97 of American households, and you'll see that it maps on pretty closely to what we know from other research is the distributional characteristics of the American part, the Us. Population. So about

288
00:57:33.740 --> 00:57:36.930
Val Jenness: 8% or Lgbtq plus.

289
00:57:36.930 --> 00:57:58.220
Val Jenness: we have a distribution of different genders, different sexualities, different age ranges. And I would ask you to pay attention in particular to the young people as we move forward here, racial, ethnic composition, we made a measure of socioeconomic status which I'm happy to talk about in the Q. Q. A. But it's a pretty standard. index we use.

290
00:57:58.400 --> 00:58:04.829
Val Jenness: And we kept track for the purposes of this presentation of political ideology, moderate, liberal, conservative.

291
00:58:05.160 --> 00:58:12.510
Val Jenness: So I want to share with you a a set of findings that are now in the first publication from this work.

292
00:58:12.620 --> 00:58:27.730
Val Jenness: and that is not surprisingly Lgbtq. Plus people are more likely to see the police as a Fo. Than a friend. That's kind of consistent with the history I just laid out very briefly but surprisingly, to me.

293
00:58:27.730 --> 00:58:45.790
Val Jenness: the majority of respondents, both Lgbtq and not have a more complicated relationship to the police as indicated by friend and foe, or neither friend or foe. So this part we predicted this part was a bit of a surprise.

294
00:58:46.220 --> 00:59:03.350
Val Jenness: and when you begin to break it down, views of the police by gender and sexuality. You even see some more disparities here. So Lgbtq, plus, of course, is an umbrella term that captures a range of types of people range of types of genders and sexualities.

295
00:59:03.510 --> 00:59:11.220
Val Jenness: And again, we wanted to make some comparisons. Here light blue means fo dark blue friend.

296
00:59:11.390 --> 00:59:26.530
Val Jenness: predictably cisgender males more likely to see the police as their friend, less likely to see the police as their foe. You might compare that to the exact reverse. Here, if you look at non-binary plus folks.

297
00:59:26.530 --> 00:59:45.190
Val Jenness: you get an almost a reversal there. So at a glance, you can see where some of the disparities in the basic orientation to police is across these different genders and sexualities. Going back to where I began to contextualize this talk which had to do with race and ethnicity

298
00:59:45.190 --> 00:59:54.010
Val Jenness: when we bring race and ethnicity into the picture, because ultimately, of course, we want to look at intersectionality here. What you can see

299
00:59:54.010 --> 01:00:08.300
Val Jenness: is that the racial ethnic effects are pretty profound in this figure. What you see plotted or predicted probabilities of viewing the police as a foe by gender sexuality and race. So, in other words, what's the probability

300
01:00:08.300 --> 01:00:28.600
Val Jenness: of Cisgender, male sister or females transgender folks? Non binary bisexual seeing the police as a foe? And I want to point out 2 findings 3. Really, first, notice the incredible variability in that probability based on race ethnicity, gender and sexuality.

301
01:00:28.930 --> 01:00:32.900
Val Jenness: and in particular notice that black non-hispanic

302
01:00:32.980 --> 01:00:39.410
Val Jenness: in every grouping has the highest predicted probability of seeing the police as foe.

303
01:00:40.180 --> 01:00:43.590
Val Jenness: and that's across the board in every grouping.

304
01:00:43.640 --> 01:00:54.130
Val Jenness: but particularly in this non-binary, plus which, as you can see from the footnote down, here, includes people who identify as queer gender, fluid, etc.

305
01:00:54.490 --> 01:01:05.679
Val Jenness: This is our first kind of analysis from this national survey, and it's what we call a kind of demographic portrayal of the relationship to policing

306
01:01:06.070 --> 01:01:30.349
Val Jenness: the takeaway is that there's a clear disparity when we compare the Lgbtq plus community and the non Lgbtq plus community, and there is considerable variability within the Lgbtq plus community. It is that variability that we really want to understand further, that is what explains that kind of

307
01:01:30.430 --> 01:01:33.660
Val Jenness: disparity across these groupings.

308
01:01:34.670 --> 01:01:52.869
Val Jenness: The key questions that we're grappling with now. And this is work in progress is what might be driving these patterns. Are there other demographic factors such as age and class? The answer is, yes, on age, in a lot of our analyses. And in some analyses we've really struggled to find a class effect.

309
01:01:53.530 --> 01:02:15.619
Val Jenness: What about things like what we call direct and vicarious experiences, things that have actually happened to people that inform how they think about not just the police, but but trust in government state power more generally. And for today I want to kind of think a little out loud about the larger context of trust in government in the United States.

310
01:02:15.780 --> 01:02:27.170
Val Jenness: If you follow public opinion polling in the United States. There's been a clear decline in trust in government, Federal government, State government, the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch.

311
01:02:27.320 --> 01:02:39.540
Val Jenness: and that trust is in decline for people who identify on the right and the left. It's a very, very serious consideration in a democratic context. When people lose trust in their government.

312
01:02:40.180 --> 01:02:47.189
Val Jenness: we are doing interviews now. So I told you a little about the survey represented sample.

313
01:02:47.200 --> 01:03:11.439
Val Jenness: We've identified people in that survey that have agreed to do an interview. And we've done 59, 60 interviews as a team. And in these interviews we're trying to understand people's relationship in a kind of qualitative, rich way that the survey can't capture by asking them a variety of questions about their early socialization and exposure. Things like, how would you describe

314
01:03:11.440 --> 01:03:26.280
Val Jenness: your relationship to Lgbtq people and your community growing up. What do you remember growing up? We asked about direct experiences? One of my favorite questions is this, one of all the experiences you've had with the police, which one was the most memorable.

315
01:03:26.280 --> 01:03:39.710
Val Jenness: and people can say a positive or a negative or an ambivalent one. Again, these are from across the United States. We also ask about willingness to report, which is really a a question about how willing are you to engage with State power.

316
01:03:39.980 --> 01:03:47.320
Val Jenness: and we ask people a lot of questions about their comfort about the conditions under which they will do that. Why why not?

317
01:03:48.450 --> 01:04:12.790
Val Jenness: We ask a lot of questions about you know, how do people see policing? And do they think these are getting better or worse? And a really interesting question is, are there alternatives to policing that you feel increase the safety of Lgbtq people? We ask people about changes in their views over time and interesting? What would change your view. Now.

318
01:04:13.240 --> 01:04:20.709
Val Jenness: in all of this, what is interesting to me is the kind of layering between how people see the police.

319
01:04:20.720 --> 01:04:36.169
Val Jenness: how they see the government and how they see state power. And so today, I'm not prepared to kind of give away the findings from the interviews. We're still analyzing those findings, and we're still doing the coding. But what I am kind of

320
01:04:36.230 --> 01:04:57.779
Val Jenness: giving you a precursor to is that they're coming soon, so we'll be prepared to talk about that at a future date. I want to conclude by telling you the type of analysis you just saw. We're also replicating for things that are equally important outcome measures. What is your willingness to report to the police? How much do you support, defund the police?

321
01:04:57.790 --> 01:05:23.739
Val Jenness: How much would you like to reallocate resources. And what is your view on particular proposed reforms, that everything from abolish the police to perhaps reinvigorate policing in America? So that's the kind of work that we're doing and that In some ways he hearkens back to the long history of abuse, discrimination, and harassment.

322
01:05:23.750 --> 01:05:47.809
Val Jenness: But put in a modern context where there has been new form, regulatory regimes by the State most visibly in hate, crime law that provides criminal penalties for the targeting of all sorts of minoritized people, including, of course, Lgbtq. Plus people and Monterey. I'll leave it right there, and I think I'm within time

323
01:05:47.810 --> 01:05:59.439
Monireh Mohammadi: and thank you. I was just about to intervene. Thank you so much, very, very important and interesting research. And I do have a few questions that I I

324
01:05:59.530 --> 01:06:13.229
Monireh Mohammadi: ask at the end. And again because of time. We have to jump right into right to the last presenter who's a Ronita Das.

325
01:06:13.230 --> 01:06:31.809
Monireh Mohammadi: She is a Phd student in Socio legal studies program at York University. She holds a an Ma in sociology through all her graduate studies and work experience with nonprofit, charitable organization does has been

326
01:06:31.930 --> 01:06:43.230
Monireh Mohammadi: developing research in racism, hate, hate and extremism. colonization and feminist criminology. For over 5 years

327
01:06:43.370 --> 01:07:09.830
Monireh Mohammadi: her current research research examines the relationship between online hate, speech, hate, crime and free expression law laws in Canada, and my apologies for stumbling over myself and my my words. It's it's almost 2 30 here, and I hope you forgive me. So you have the floor and please go right ahead, and you know the time limit. Thank you.

328
01:07:10.370 --> 01:07:26.480
Yeah, thank you very much, Monterey for that introduction, and thank you everyone for coming today. So, as Monterey mentioned, my doctoral research examines the way Canadian far right women uses social media to spread hate and gain female supporters.

329
01:07:26.490 --> 01:07:48.829
You'll notice, if you have the abstracts in front of you, that my presentation today is slightly different than the abstract. I submitted to the conference. As I apply a focus on different subcultures and factions of far right women in Canada, and the hate that grows and stems from such groups. I'm really grateful for the order of the presentations, because I, from in the beginning

330
01:07:48.830 --> 01:08:10.039
gave such a comprehensive backdrop to the hate speech laws in Canada. the issues with interpreting such hate speech laws and also how the online hate conversation contributes to hate speech policy. And also I'm thankful for Monterey's presentation in the morning for those of you that were there as well. So thank you for doing all that works that I can talk about

331
01:08:10.480 --> 01:08:16.670
these examples that I'm interested in. So it is a more oh, sorry.

332
01:08:24.570 --> 01:08:35.020
just need to. Oh, there we go. So it is a more narrow focus while I'm still discussing the same themes of hate and regulation that was discussed in my abstract, that I submitted

333
01:08:35.030 --> 01:08:47.000
importantly exploring the differences, patterns, and nuances of the online posts by women in Canada helps us understand the ways such women negotiate their place within far right ideologies.

334
01:08:47.080 --> 01:09:00.500
And I use this research to examine also the challenges and possibilities for the legal regulation of online far right extremism and hate speech in Canada. in ways that balance constitutional protections concerning freedom of expression as well.

335
01:09:01.520 --> 01:09:17.620
so you might wonder why place a focus on women? well, despite there being growing scholarship in the area of hate, online hate and far right extremism and fascism. In Canada the relevance of women within far right movements remain understated and under researched.

336
01:09:17.770 --> 01:09:28.599
as broadly. The literature speaks about far right extremism generally, and typically uses examples of groups predominantly led by men.

337
01:09:28.650 --> 01:09:49.359
And there are a lot of male far right extremists. So there is. This is that's why those examples are used. and those far right male, far right. Extremists are usually in direct proximity to insel movements as well, and extreme misogyny. so it became curious as to women are involved. So how women

338
01:09:49.360 --> 01:10:12.260
grow to support groups and become involved in such groups that typically are so against their existence. and roles. so yeah, so what you'll see in this presentation also is very early stages. evolving work and things, I'm still interpreting and understanding for myself. So any feedback comments or compliments are greatly appreciated. If you have any

339
01:10:13.150 --> 01:10:32.220
So today I focus on 2 far right subcultures that I looked at through the lens of certain Canadian female influencers on Instagram. I chose to study Instagram because it was a mainstream social media platform which held the most consistent number of posts. In a short timeframe from certain profiles.

340
01:10:32.700 --> 01:11:01.900
I tried looking through subreddits and Youtube and Twitter, which all had interesting things are and are coming in to like a an interesting socio political climate. but those mainstream social media platforms didn't have very consistent posts, and I wanted to look at a shorter timeframe of posts, to see the current picture of hate, since hate trends shift as society changes and evolves, and as there is certain events transpiring at the same time.

341
01:11:02.710 --> 01:11:10.949
so overall, I look at the digital lives of far right women as they seek new recruits for far-right ideologies, including the spread of white nationalism.

342
01:11:12.020 --> 01:11:33.130
My position is that through social media, far right, women are marketing themselves as authentic and accessible in order to reach new followers and spread hateful ideologies. And this highly gender discourse takes advantage of the structure of social media platforms where far right women influencers. Content is shared with and promoted to mainstream audiences.

343
01:11:33.740 --> 01:11:43.669
before I share the next few slides, I wanted to make you aware of the sensitive content in the post that are uploaded. This is a session on hate speech laws, but these slides

344
01:11:43.700 --> 01:11:50.980
hold some transphobic anti Lgbtq racist and anti-immigrant sentiments which can be discomforting.

345
01:11:51.080 --> 01:12:11.559
however, Speaking in context to broader academic discussion, I show the post to explain first how normal looking they are, giving you a sense of the alarming growth of conspiracies, misinformation, and disinformation that appeals to women and most people figuring themselves out and developing a sense of identity.

346
01:12:13.400 --> 01:12:24.390
So to but provide context. To this first self-culture I studied. There are a number of Canadian organizations and influences that up front seem empowering and feminist.

347
01:12:24.430 --> 01:12:38.770
Cosbar, for example, has a very simple goal to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls, which on the surface sounds like a very positive advancement for the rights of women broadly, something we can all sort of

348
01:12:38.990 --> 01:12:51.540
support and get on board with. However, if you focus on your on their posts, if you actually pay attention to their posts they are. They are largely made up of transphobic content, basically saying that

349
01:12:51.640 --> 01:12:58.550
a woman is a woman is a woman, that, accepting trans people as women insults the rights of biological women.

350
01:12:58.570 --> 01:13:03.010
basically, considering transgender rights as a symptom of female erasure.

351
01:13:04.150 --> 01:13:17.410
a partial region, this type of thought emerges and becomes associated with far-right politics is because 2 far right extremists, reproduction and children play an important role in maintaining quote unquote ethnically pure bloodlines.

352
01:13:17.620 --> 01:13:25.120
So if their version of feminism means placing key emphasis on motherhood, the family and child rearing.

353
01:13:25.340 --> 01:13:28.590
It's inferred that anyone that is not cisgender

354
01:13:28.860 --> 01:13:37.740
attacks core far right values of femininity, and to them almost mocks any efforts to maintain 7 ethnically pure bloodlines.

355
01:13:38.870 --> 01:13:56.129
This hate is harmful in of itself, however, posting a reframe of such content on social media has the potential to influence a large audience across Canada with a clear message that if you join us you will find like-minded women who care about traditional values like femininity.

356
01:13:56.210 --> 01:14:02.570
while also at the same time promoting transphobic homophobic sentiments.

357
01:14:03.160 --> 01:14:04.090
Okay.

358
01:14:06.710 --> 01:14:26.590
another intriguing subculture. and this is a group that are popping up in other countries, namely, the United States, Canada, most of North America, probably in Europe as well. While the former trend I spoke about interestingly, was in their perspective, advancing their own version of feminism.

359
01:14:26.720 --> 01:14:33.769
The crowdway subculture might appeal to women who consider themselves anti-femnists wanting to return to traditional values.

360
01:14:35.530 --> 01:14:40.699
so to provide a definition. A Tad wife is sort is short for a traditional wife.

361
01:14:40.900 --> 01:14:53.920
while the word has wider uses, it becomes, it has become commonly used in the far right to refer to an idealized partner who embodies traditionally feminine norms, such as submission, obedience, modesty, and home making.

362
01:14:54.760 --> 01:15:12.660
Typically these accounts pepper their messages with strap, scrapbook style, cottage core collections of 1950 s. Advertising images showing glamorous mothers in lipstick and heels, with happy families and beautiful clean organized very very neat and opulent homes.

363
01:15:13.230 --> 01:15:22.400
not all aspiring tradwives are white nationalists or even fundamentalists. To say, however, the Tadwife movements traditionalism

364
01:15:22.580 --> 01:15:37.699
puts it in constant overlap to other reactionary ideologies, such as white Nationalism, anti-semitism, and Anti- 2 S. Lgbtq. Hate the 2 S. Means two-spirit indigenous persons that in Canada.

365
01:15:38.850 --> 01:15:53.440
So such profiles are not just promoting a return to traditional agrarian motherhood. What is different with tried wives compared to other women who choose to stay at home is in the shift of ideals that justify why they're in this role.

366
01:15:53.480 --> 01:16:11.029
Now, I want to take this moment to emphasize. There are a lot of women that choose to stay at home, or are homemakers or housewives that are are are purely out of choice to raise a family, and it's it's due to their specific family situations. Amongst other reasons.

367
01:16:11.270 --> 01:16:34.539
this subculture of trade wives does not encompass all women that stay at home, or all women that perform those roles. What really sets those who specifically identify as trad-wives apart from others is that the movement is seen as revolving around modesty and submission or service to one's husband all while sharing the lifestyle via social media as an influencer.

368
01:16:35.140 --> 01:16:38.050
So it's very heter normative. Amongst other things.

369
01:16:39.530 --> 01:16:45.960
what it also comes down to is the emphasis on tradition and distinct label of traditional life.

370
01:16:46.290 --> 01:16:59.060
What's interesting here is the word tradition which can manifest in countless ways depending on the religion, race, nationality, time, period, gender or ethnicity to which is being referred.

371
01:16:59.770 --> 01:17:19.210
So when we think of whose tradition they're following, women seem to become interested in traditional living simply because it negates the modern present. which has, you know, constitutional rights, women's rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, diversity and equality, amongst other things.

372
01:17:19.440 --> 01:17:29.020
so that's sort of where you can see which political parties these profiles might align with as well. And what goes on said is that

373
01:17:29.040 --> 01:17:30.120
the life

374
01:17:30.210 --> 01:17:45.039
that they consider traditional and is being romanticized, is certainly not a universal universal family, but rather a white, predominantly Christian, upper middle class, suburban, privileged, and heterosexual one

375
01:17:46.600 --> 01:17:53.920
in the slides before me are common themes that emerge from these subcultures. So the backdrop, under all of these

376
01:17:53.950 --> 01:18:00.729
movements that are in direct overlap with far right movements are

377
01:18:00.810 --> 01:18:20.739
their own versions of femininity and empowerment which follows under the guides of sisterhood and motherhood. playing a supporting role to while also promoting nationalist ideologies and also using hate, hate, transphobia and racism under the guise of female empowerment and feminism.

378
01:18:22.130 --> 01:18:33.300
So what is what I? What my next phase of research needs to do is basically look at

379
01:18:33.390 --> 01:18:56.270
a comparison between mainstream and alternative social media platforms. what I found to be an issue is with studying mainstream platforms is that these accounts don't typically provide very clear messages of hate. because it's a mainstream platform and they're trying to reach a wide audience. They don't openly state what

380
01:18:56.630 --> 01:19:20.779
they are hating against, or what they don't believe in while it's already inferred, the messages that aren't entirely clear. So there are platforms born in the United States and Canada that are more alternative and based on free speech models. So typically, these same influencers have accounts in those on to alternative social media platforms, such as gab or rumble.

381
01:19:20.960 --> 01:19:37.429
So my next phase of research is going to sort of assess to see what sort of presence they place on those alternative social media platforms, and then also compare those to the mainstream platforms and then see how that contributes to

382
01:19:37.700 --> 01:19:41.749
The issue of policy regarding online hate speech.

383
01:19:45.920 --> 01:20:02.000
What I find particularly alarming, but also why I'm so drawn to studying these 2 subcultures is just how seemingly natural their posts are, if you're not paying attention to the entirety of their profiles and messaging even some parts of their posts might be agreeable

384
01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:23.179
when I'm scrolling on Instagram or Facebook or any other social media. Like many I'm I'm not really thinking about what I'm looking at. I'm not really dissecting or trying to analyze what I'm looking at. But then, when you look at these posts and you actually, I'm speaking about this in academic and an academic context, it's pretty alarming how normal looking they are and how naturally they might seem.

385
01:20:23.310 --> 01:20:34.129
so you can see that these women in the far right serve to legitimize and naturalize a movement by presenting it through subtle framing and through content that is assumed to be non-political.

386
01:20:34.860 --> 01:20:46.509
And typically it is women who promote hate and nationalism in this way, because women know how to appeal to other women emotionally through either their own trauma or a sense of self.

387
01:20:46.870 --> 01:21:03.989
since women link themselves with the concept of the nuclear family. They can evoke notions of conventional motherhood, wisdom, warmth, discipline, thoughtfulness, caring, and an overall, wholesome nature which many women seek, community which many, many women seek.

388
01:21:04.740 --> 01:21:18.389
and these sentiments line women in far right groups, an inconspicuous sense of authority that ultimately mass the volatility of their actions. and it is a form of hate, a more insidious, highly gendered form of paid as well.

389
01:21:20.180 --> 01:21:36.680
And it's these nuances that the Government does not consider when defining or enacting hate, speech, legislation. indeed, the Government has some initiatives on online hate. including this new approach to handling online harms with Bill C. 36, which everyone discussed.

390
01:21:36.700 --> 01:21:47.620
new privacy legislation changes to the broadcasting act, and also Some policies related to private regulation and corporate regulation of the social media platforms.

391
01:21:48.080 --> 01:21:55.949
regulating hate, however, becomes complicated when assessing which types of speech is actually considered hate speech, and what is free speech?

392
01:21:56.480 --> 01:22:22.289
Another issue is the government is working to. It's trying to work with private companies and corporations. that run social media platforms to see if they they can also create policy on their own private regulatory bodies to sort of So it's so we're putting the responsibility of the social media platforms to regulate the hate speech in their platforms.

393
01:22:22.990 --> 01:22:37.720
But the issue with that is because social media networks thrive on viral engagement, and they make money just on viral engagement. of any kind, since hate. If hate is

394
01:22:37.720 --> 01:22:56.339
trending and is giving the the money back to the platforms, they're probably gonna they're going to adopt more of a free, free, free speech model sort of backing away and not not not interfering or enforcing any hate speech. If it makes the money essentially

395
01:22:57.150 --> 01:23:16.350
The other issue is the diversity of PIN of opinions on whether or not hate speech should be protected. Some policy policy experts and scholars believe in the marketplace of ideas, that people should be able to express free speech freely, without necessary suppression or censorship, that comes with hate, speech regulations.

396
01:23:16.590 --> 01:23:20.729
as the belief is that hate speech itself does not produce harm on its own.

397
01:23:21.100 --> 01:23:33.079
This is a very valid position. My position and I am out the mindset that regulation, better regulation is needed to counter online hate and disinformation.

398
01:23:33.150 --> 01:23:46.610
not limiting the speech of those who advance and encourage hateful speech, goes against overarching values that are held by Canada's charter and fundamental democratic values of freedom of expression. For all

399
01:23:47.060 --> 01:24:09.170
there is studies that show that the current hate speech policies are further harming marginalized, indigenous, and Lgbtq groups. So which is why I emphasize that better regulation is needed, that broadly and specifically encompasses and protects freedom of expression while also regulating hate speech online.

400
01:24:09.660 --> 01:24:32.990
But it's also why further research is needed that looks at how specific groups, such as female lead groups promote hate online. because one of the most critical debates in the 20 first century of Canadian courts specifically concern online hate speech, particularly on whether the fundamental rights of hate groups should be protected over the targets, groups, freedom to live peacefully.

401
01:24:33.660 --> 01:24:44.899
however, regulating hate can be a challenge, and the laws applicable to online hate can lead to conflicting dates, debates on the definition of hateful behavior, payful speech, and freedom of expression.

402
01:24:46.670 --> 01:24:53.700
further research, just to conclude, must explore this topic with a more intersectional lens.

403
01:24:54.000 --> 01:25:10.549
As it is important to examine the social media pages of far right women as they reflect their set of values, ideologies, belief systems and links to other websites and organizations that may potentially further produce harm and violence to the individuals that they target.

404
01:25:10.870 --> 01:25:20.350
I'd love to share more about this project with you during the Q. And A. Period, but otherwise thank you all for listening, and I hope you find this topic as interesting as I do. Thank you.

405
01:25:23.470 --> 01:25:24.900
Very interesting.

406
01:25:25.500 --> 01:25:47.619
Monireh Mohammadi: Thank you. So I don't need to talk, concludes the presentations. Now, if you're in the queue, and they say session a section. And if you have any questions, please let me know, or is kindly there as well. If you, if your present in the room, and would like to

407
01:25:47.660 --> 01:25:55.989
Monireh Mohammadi: ask your question just put your hand up, and she will let you

408
01:25:56.350 --> 01:26:09.210
Monireh Mohammadi: go ahead with your question. And if you have, if you're online and on Zoom, I would like to ask you a question through chat. Or would you would like to have the microphone. Just let me know. And I'll do that.

409
01:26:09.380 --> 01:26:13.360
Monireh Mohammadi:  So

410
01:26:13.560 --> 01:26:23.649
okay, so there's 3 people in the audience that want to ask a question. So are there people in the zoom chat?

411
01:26:23.890 --> 01:26:31.450
Karmvir Padda: but you can go ahead first in and then let me know. Okay, my great presentations overall. Sorry.

412
01:26:31.590 --> 01:26:40.329
Monireh Mohammadi: very, very good presentations. so no, that we have you here. Why don't you start? Why? Why don't we start with your question?

413
01:26:40.980 --> 01:27:06.920
Karmvir Padda: Thank you. I have a question for. okay, so a great presentation. I love the topic that you're presenting. And it's basically like very similar to what I am doing. I'm a. I'm a Phd. I candidate at the University of Waterloo in Canada. and I have a question in regards to the the

414
01:27:06.920 --> 01:27:19.709
Karmvir Padda: the the Instagram pages that you chose. So I saw that, like it has a had like 250 followers or something. so it's not like huge amount of followers that

415
01:27:19.710 --> 01:27:43.000
Karmvir Padda: like would make a lot of impact in social media. So that's why I wanted to ask, like, what was the what was the reason to choose that specific specific platform when there were not too many followers like is there like, like? Wh? What do you think the impact of that would be if there are like more or less kind of thing.

416
01:27:43.880 --> 01:28:02.970
Yeah, no, thank you very much for your question. So actually, the way I approach. This topic is so I began with one profile, and then I saw who they follow and they follow, and they follow And I started initially. How I started was there was

417
01:28:02.980 --> 01:28:11.999
a story of a nurse. I can't remember her name specifically, but you might remember her name, basically she

418
01:28:12.500 --> 01:28:37.330
she claimed that she was fired from her job because she didn't believe Trans. People it should be counted in like it counted as women, because that sort of goes against and insults quote unquote by the the rights of about women who are biologically women. So I sort of started with that news article and then started seeing

419
01:28:37.380 --> 01:28:39.540
profiles that support

420
01:28:39.620 --> 01:28:54.410
support the same messaging. And then that's how I saw Causebar the problem with people that in the mainstream platforms that have multiple like more followers is that they're all private social media accounts.

421
01:28:54.430 --> 01:29:23.259
which is why the next phase in my research will look at these alternative platforms to see if there's some different discourse and messaging and going there. but yeah, Cosbar was the one that was public, and those posts were drawn from from that profile as well, and if I can access it, that means other people can access it. So I don't think it really it, the the number of followers do matter. But at the same time, I think what's more important is that this is public and accessible by everyone.

422
01:29:23.260 --> 01:29:32.290
and everyone can see it. So 250 is still a lot of people, in my opinion, that hold the power to share the same messaging.

423
01:29:32.560 --> 01:29:41.759
I hope that answers your question. No, that actually answers. No, that's perfect. I was just curious about it. So thank you so much for for everything and for the great presentations as well.

424
01:29:41.860 --> 01:29:44.290
No, thank you so much. Yeah, for the questions.

425
01:29:44.840 --> 01:30:03.900
Monireh Mohammadi: Okay, so I, there's no questions in the Zoom Platform. I think I'll take in-person questions. If that's okay with you. Monitoring, sure definitely. Yeah, go ahead, please. Thank you. No, we don't have anybody hand up here so you can. We can go ahead and to the audience

426
01:30:04.260 --> 01:30:11.909
there's an audience on me. Yes, and I'll make sure they speak to the mic, so that the people in zoom can hear it as well.

427
01:30:13.120 --> 01:30:20.540
Who wants to go first? Yes. So if you can.

428
01:30:20.980 --> 01:30:28.119
 perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Hi, I'm bid up from the University of Alberta and Spain.

429
01:30:28.270 --> 01:30:34.109
I just wanted to ask you something more about the methodology.

430
01:30:34.260 --> 01:30:40.029
Did you use some software or just give up. Go and check

431
01:30:40.040 --> 01:30:43.480
a you stop now and see.

432
01:30:46.050 --> 01:30:58.039
Yeah, that's a good question. So what I initially did was, I went to a public public library computers. Just so I could fully do a search of what is actually

433
01:30:58.040 --> 01:31:20.949
what is present in a Canadian context? without, you know, like cookies and targeted ads, following my calling my computer, my personal computer. So I started there and then, I, yeah, I just as I mentioned to Carm Beard that. Who Asked a question previously I started with the news article. that's when I started looking at profiles, and then

434
01:31:20.950 --> 01:31:50.559
in those profiles, looking at their posts as seeing who's commenting, who's liking their posts? Searching their followers and profiles, and what sort of What sort of accounts they follow. So just sort of it's snowballed through there. It's still very early stages. So I didn't choose an exact methodology on how to study all of these at the same time. But I was I. I don't plan on working with a big sample, since my method is more qualitative, and I just want to focus on

435
01:31:50.700 --> 01:31:56.950
what's there in like a short timeframe? Maybe in like a 6 months or so, just to see what the trend of hate is

436
01:31:56.990 --> 01:32:01.340
is in the next 6 months. does that answer your question?

437
01:32:04.390 --> 01:32:07.979
The problem is, you know, to generalize.

438
01:32:08.010 --> 01:32:13.990
because if we want to speak of the discourse from the

439
01:32:14.290 --> 01:32:16.709
I to something.

440
01:32:16.910 --> 01:32:17.980
So

441
01:32:18.370 --> 01:32:21.179
how to reach this point.

442
01:32:21.340 --> 01:32:29.470
you understand? Because it's like it is representative or known. Or you know how many people

443
01:32:29.500 --> 01:32:40.620
absolutely. Yeah, we have loose, maybe some part of the discourse, or what? Yeah. So you'll see the subcultures I picked

444
01:32:40.670 --> 01:32:42.469
were from

445
01:32:42.960 --> 01:32:51.719
people that specifically use that hashtag or also follow those accounts. Similarly.

446
01:32:51.850 --> 01:33:16.979
I'm aware of the different types of subcultures and factions that are there. There are still other types of groups that I didn't include, because they didn't specifically identify with the subcultures that I discussed. there was a lot of women that were anti-science starting out in medical careers, and then moving away from that following the vaccine mandates, protests in Canada, the Freedom Convoy, 142.

447
01:33:17.000 --> 01:33:28.789
They don't openly identify as far right. Which is why I didn't include them in the sample. Which is why I'm specifically focusing on people that use these certain

448
01:33:28.820 --> 01:33:48.409
use like So say they use this language of tadwives or use this language of anti- anti-trans, feminism as well. So that's why I'm presenting on those 2 specific cultures to subcultures today, because I know for a fact, those are the in my data. Those

449
01:33:48.530 --> 01:34:04.430
people specifically identify with those subcultures. So that will be an issue that I encounter when I'm collecting data, it was already so difficult. Which is why I'm still. It's it's a long process that I'm still collecting and making sure that I group them

450
01:34:04.590 --> 01:34:16.640
like in a proper manner. The other thing is also, I use this terminology because that's how they identify themselves as well. Otherwise I probably wouldn't say it out loud. Yeah, thank you.

451
01:34:18.650 --> 01:34:19.559
See.

452
01:34:27.330 --> 01:34:33.449
Thank you so much. All for us in any presentation. Actually, I have a present. It's a question for everyone that's really

453
01:34:33.770 --> 01:34:54.199
yeah, it's I'm I'm also interested in. They file like women, in hate, speech, online or offline. And then in the context of my country. Japan? Why, like women? In many cases their sort of volumes are associated with nationalism.

454
01:34:54.200 --> 01:35:20.129
or like in the wartime memories. So it's like, you know. the family values they embrace. Of course, you know, like I'm doing, they are. It's a it's called generalization. But many of examples, actually, or like a post in online associated with the family value, which is really like a strongly connected with it. like the national nationalistic ideas like in a in a case of calendar.

455
01:35:20.129 --> 01:35:29.400
I'm just wondering if there's any like sort of nationalistic discourse, or like it, just more anti-science, or, you know, like the other

456
01:35:44.840 --> 01:36:00.240
When early February of 2,022, there was a huge a protest under the name of freedom, they called it the Freedom Convoy, where, because of vaccine mandates in Canada specifically for cross border truckers, that

457
01:36:00.240 --> 01:36:27.399
ship goods and services across the border to the States. There. became a huge backlash in against needing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to be able to cross the border. So a lot of groups. use that to to impose their own belief on and to sort of voice their own opinions against the vaccine mandate broadly that it is a constitutional violation.

458
01:36:27.400 --> 01:36:43.729
a lot of women specifically used language around reproductive rights. So you know. Pro-choice my body, my choice, you know, sort of that sort of language to apply it to vaccine mandates and

459
01:36:43.780 --> 01:36:54.699
feeling that needing to get a COVID-19 vaccine is an infringement of their reproductive rights and like rights against freedom. so

460
01:36:55.110 --> 01:37:24.569
that there are prolific figures that in our in direct proximity and overlap to far right ideologists, specifically, tamera lich became a central figure in the Canadian Freedom Convoy. And what happened was there. It started out with people that broadly were against the vaccine mandate, and then later became adopted and turned into almost a far right movement in Canada, where a lot of fireright groups imposed their own thinking and sort of made the movement their own.

461
01:37:24.580 --> 01:37:33.249
So that's sort of where the Nationalist conversation is. The problem with studying women in those groups is

462
01:37:33.250 --> 01:37:56.069
in mainstream mainstream platforms. They don't openly identify as far right individuals. Which is why I didn't. So sorry present on that today. But that is sort of the next phase of my research is to gather data on what's there first? what sort of presence they have online. And also what sort of hate they're promoting and transmitting. Thank you for that question. Yeah.

463
01:37:56.560 --> 01:37:58.089
Monireh Mohammadi: I have a question.

464
01:37:58.590 --> 01:38:09.810
sure, I'll let Monterey go first, and then there's somebody else in the somebody in the room, wants to ask the question a question. Let them go ahead. I'll go after.

465
01:38:09.820 --> 01:38:14.909
sure, if you don't mind. Thank you. Oh, not at all. Thanks to that

466
01:38:15.310 --> 01:38:25.850
I I just wanted to give a bit of a melancholy here, connect up some of the presentations to that, because I'm sitting there listening particularly to the last 3.

467
01:38:27.240 --> 01:38:31.089
But just a couple of months ago.

468
01:38:31.150 --> 01:38:43.590
Parliament. Here in Melbourne we had a transphobic railway from Ouch Parker, who came over from the Uk to deliver a tyrant against trans rights here, talking about the rumors

469
01:38:44.080 --> 01:38:51.739
during that time the far right extremite and the announcing National Socialist network turned up on the steps of Parliament

470
01:38:51.900 --> 01:38:54.069
from a Nazi salute.

471
01:38:55.280 --> 01:38:57.260
The really intense.

472
01:38:57.290 --> 01:39:03.090
While police were there, police were accused by LGBT activists of

473
01:39:03.340 --> 01:39:23.310
protecting the National Socialist network protecting the trans folks. And and so in the wake of that, we've seen a really a lot of community support for actually putting in hate hate speech laws. And here in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, we're actually looking at Banning, Nazi salute.

474
01:39:24.050 --> 01:39:28.149
and in Swastika I was just really struck by that sort of convergence, of of

475
01:39:28.260 --> 01:39:34.730
these police, clear community relations that hate speech laws and

476
01:39:34.920 --> 01:39:49.050
and the far right influence all just come together here in so just, really great presentations. And it's great to hear it from that Canadian context where I think there's a lot more similarities between the Australian context and the Canadian context of Australian.

477
01:39:51.370 --> 01:39:54.839
Thank you. Thank you so much.

478
01:39:56.820 --> 01:40:26.089
Monireh Mohammadi: Okay. Monterey, you can go ahead. Thank you. My question is source of a curiosity and a feedback to your work, and the question is whether you've thought about what you want to do with your finding when it comes to hate speech loss. What do you envision to be the ultimate question to be answered by your findings? And how are you going to

479
01:40:26.090 --> 01:40:28.530
Monireh Mohammadi: think about?

480
01:40:28.530 --> 01:40:35.290
Monireh Mohammadi: You know how, for instance, the State or the legal regime I should treat.

481
01:40:35.310 --> 01:40:37.009
Monireh Mohammadi: what you find?

482
01:40:37.400 --> 01:41:02.119
That's a very good question. It's a question I'm still thinking it's stuck in thinking through in my dissertation proposal. so first is knowledge mobilization. I am as an academic. I think it's important to share this contribution. Importantly, I find the issue with a lot of academia is that it stays within a published private like inaccessible journal articles and

483
01:41:02.120 --> 01:41:28.639
sort of just get circulated within an academic circle. doesn't really get out and translate into knowledge that perhaps the general public could use and adopt. So my, I always try to work with community activists, or even like policy experts and other people that might be on the front lines that know better know the situation better to

484
01:41:29.050 --> 01:41:35.430
accurately present their voice, and to provide sort of an understanding of what the situation is.

485
01:41:35.580 --> 01:41:55.239
I mentioned early on in my presentation that typically, we discuss far right extremism and even hate as like sort of a broad broad issue. hate speech law. We talk about the importance of hate speech law. And we typically speak about it in context to

486
01:41:55.310 --> 01:42:14.699
Anti-racism, anti-homophobia, so sorry homophobia, transphobia, which are all valid concerns. What I want to bring to the discussion also is this discussion of intersectionality and focusing on specific groups such as women and female mud groups, and how they might contribute to this conversation. So

487
01:42:15.120 --> 01:42:43.899
I do believe there is a nuance in the contribution that women have, because maybe there's a side of hate that is being expressed and promoted in a way that gathers supporters that the government might not even know. That's that's there and is growing. so yeah. So that's ultimately what? Where? I imagine my contribution to be to sort of shed light on this other side of hate speech that might later contribute to

488
01:42:43.950 --> 01:42:55.119
a different definition that later policy experts can use to understand and develop more nuanced, more comprehensive hate, speech, legislation.

489
01:42:55.130 --> 01:42:58.590
and also knowledge mobilizing in a way that

490
01:42:59.440 --> 01:43:05.099
it provides an accurate depiction of sort of what groups are out there as well that are promoting such hate

491
01:43:06.570 --> 01:43:16.839
Monireh Mohammadi: great forecast, grateful. I wish I wrote that down because I should, I should write it in my proposal. Thank you.

492
01:43:16.970 --> 01:43:32.719
Monireh Mohammadi: However, I I I probably didn't put the question right. I want to know, for instance, if you find the content of this Instagram group to be hates

493
01:43:32.720 --> 01:43:53.179
Monireh Mohammadi: hate speech that is, interpreted can be interpreted from you know, communication of promoting a source of lifestyle that would condescend others, or, you know, send hate messages and or perceived hate messages to others.

494
01:43:53.180 --> 01:44:09.459
Monireh Mohammadi: So in that sense, because what we have at the moment in the Canadian legal system is exactly the problem of interpretation. As I spoke about in the morning. So because it's very difficult to define

495
01:44:09.650 --> 01:44:16.320
Monireh Mohammadi: what hate speech is, or even if we do have the, you know, the ultimate definition.

496
01:44:16.360 --> 01:44:43.670
Monireh Mohammadi: there is still a high level of interpretation involved, so doesn't matter what into what interpretation or what definition you you bring to the table. It it matches. How, for instance, the system the legal system is going to deal with this category that you bring in. I want to. You know, I just wanted to raise this issue so that you have it somewhere in your dissertation, too.

497
01:44:43.670 --> 01:44:51.640
Monireh Mohammadi: to just, you know, focus your attention and give it some. You know, energy and thought, probably

498
01:44:52.050 --> 01:45:04.209
absolutely. And thank you for sharing that note, because it is something I'm still working through. Currently, my focus is also on social media platforms as regulatory bodies as

499
01:45:04.600 --> 01:45:11.299
Canada itself can impose such regulations. But I'm also curious to know

500
01:45:11.370 --> 01:45:35.349
And from discussed AI and algorithm. Perhaps there is something in this common discussion and research that also contributes to either risk-based approaches or changes to policy on corporation and social media regulation as well. that is currently where the work that I'm reading and what I'm studying. But you are correct and also raising that.

501
01:45:35.350 --> 01:45:46.370
I need to look at the bigger picture. And what this means for it's relation to to hate speech laws per se, exactly. Yes, yeah, thank you so much. Yeah.

502
01:45:47.510 --> 01:45:49.780
Monireh Mohammadi: Any other question from the room.

503
01:45:53.930 --> 01:46:07.209
I don't see any. Yeah, nobody's raised their hand. Are there any questions in the oh, sorry. Go ahead. I have a question for a while. Actually, because her research is so important and

504
01:46:07.360 --> 01:46:14.980
Monireh Mohammadi: the situation in in in L. A. Is a sort of duplicates of the So situation in Toronto

505
01:46:15.130 --> 01:46:27.240
Monireh Mohammadi: the Lgbtq plus community or saying the same thing about the police. But I'm wondering whether you have you know, ever you have

506
01:46:27.310 --> 01:46:45.079
Monireh Mohammadi: focus for a paid attention from the content that could come out from the police side. As to because all of these grievances and all of these perception of police is because of the police behavior, right? Because it has a long history.

507
01:46:45.120 --> 01:47:04.719
Monireh Mohammadi: is there a part of your work, or is there literature on focusing on what comes out of that body to see their view of different social groups, and why such view views exist. So

508
01:47:04.720 --> 01:47:24.369
Val Jenness: I was wondering if you have thought about. Yeah, I know you're that's a great question. And yeah, there's other people researching kind of the the evolution of policing in particular context. And you know, we often focus on large police departments like Lapd, part. It's so much in the popular imagination through media. But

509
01:47:24.490 --> 01:47:51.089
Val Jenness: you know, it's important to remember that even in a place like United States the majority of police departments are small. If you look at kind of the big picture, so just, I always like to pause at first. Just remind people that that what occupies our imagination, which is big, urban policing is not the beginning and end of policing in America. So there's lots of ways in which police departments are responding. I mentioned some of them on a slide.

510
01:47:51.090 --> 01:48:11.200
Val Jenness: incredible pressure to serve the Lgbtq community. Be responsive to the challenges setting up special units, liaisons into the community. The flyer I had up on a slide inviting the community in it. It's really quite stunning to see the outreach and some of these departments.

511
01:48:11.490 --> 01:48:29.190
Val Jenness: And it's some sense it's kind of reflects the changing, at least the changes in the promises. Changes in policy, too, right? And trainings and policies. it's just so shrouded in such a long history of distrust. And you know, complications. So

512
01:48:29.210 --> 01:48:42.169
Val Jenness: I don't study that there are other people studying that, including in Australia, by the way, who are studying Lgbtq plus policing relations who are looking at kind of from police point of view, you know, it's interesting.

513
01:48:42.530 --> 01:48:54.080
Val Jenness: I interviewed a person. And again, we're just now getting into the interview data. It's a lot right? And I interviewed a person when we and I asked, so what kind of ideas do you have for changes in policing?

514
01:48:54.250 --> 01:49:07.690
Val Jenness: The person said, well, they they have to hire more Lgbtq people. and then caught themselves before I said anything. But then again. if some gay cop showed up at my house, I'd wonder what are you doing

515
01:49:08.050 --> 01:49:34.650
Val Jenness: like almost, for by virtue of being a cop, that person suspicious? And it's a complicated thing. But we are asking in the interviews, how do people see change moving forward? What would it take? And the things that come up, of course, are the things you hear about all the time? More training. But then, almost with a kind of immediate rejection of the idea, I just put out, what do people really have? Confidence in training.

516
01:49:34.930 --> 01:49:48.960
Val Jenness: or better representation or more oversight. And again, I'm hearing it from people from all over the United States again. This isn't. You know me interviewing for people in my neighborhood. It's all over the country.

517
01:49:49.260 --> 01:50:08.489
Val Jenness: Other people are doing that from the police point of view. and it's fascinating, you know, some of the things that come up, of course, is is police. It's certainly in big urban police departments, you know. I once saw a list of the different communities the Lapd des liaison with. It was pages long. It was pages long.

518
01:50:08.760 --> 01:50:33.369
Val Jenness: some trees I wasn't even aware of. It's a big city. It's very diverse. It covers a lot of territory. And so I do think, in this era of kind of policing and outreach, not to mention calls to defund the police and reallocate resources to clinical workers and social workers and emergency responders and interdisciplinary teams. You can see police kind of grappling with all of that.

519
01:50:33.410 --> 01:50:46.189
Val Jenness: it's not what I study, but it is interesting, and I do go to the meetings, and I do. I'm on a work group with the Lapd Lgbtq. Plus kind of work group. It's right there with the intersection there in the room together.

520
01:50:46.370 --> 01:50:49.399
Monireh Mohammadi: Yeah, it's like the size of the same coin

521
01:50:49.540 --> 01:50:52.310
Monireh Mohammadi: that need to be

522
01:50:53.010 --> 01:51:20.079
Val Jenness: some homage. And because one feats the other so. And I like to remind people, you know, in the United States. And I I don't know how it is in other contexts. So much of the national discussion about policing is anchored in kind of racial vice and racial discrimination in these high profile murders. And I do say murder. They've been criminally convicted. Right? This is not alleged. This is not bombass, that's what the Court said.

523
01:51:20.260 --> 01:51:21.660
Val Jenness: you know.

524
01:51:21.770 --> 01:51:36.289
Val Jenness: the Lgbtq community, of course, has a lot of diversity, including racial ethnic, including political diversity, which is interesting. We, we've interviewed people who identify as conservatives, and that is a lives through which law enforcement is seen.

525
01:51:36.680 --> 01:51:57.809
Val Jenness:  you know, I think one of the things we have to do is recognize. This is an umbrella term, but unpack it, and for me. Some of the most interesting interviews have been when you interview a conservative person living in a rural environment, in a what we call a a red state. That means it's a conservative state. So

526
01:51:58.230 --> 01:52:06.279
Val Jenness: I I guess part of it. And going back to the last question, you know our biggest goal for this project. In fact, we're creating a website.

527
01:52:06.290 --> 01:52:13.980
Val Jenness: It's not just to push the findings out because we know how to do that. We give talks. We show up we go to work.

528
01:52:14.290 --> 01:52:32.629
Val Jenness: but to kind of set up a platform for the data, so other people can look at it.

529
01:52:32.960 --> 01:52:56.669
Val Jenness: to try to capture and unpack that diversity because we use the umbrella term so freely, and and I would say, sometimes bludgeoning lead right? The Lgbtq plus Ia community. Well, there's a lot of unpacking in there. And I just did a few today. I mean, I didn't even talk about age. I didn't talk about political affiliation. There's some real drivers in that variability.

530
01:52:57.190 --> 01:53:01.030
Monireh Mohammadi: a relative to the kind of far, right, far left.

531
01:53:01.230 --> 01:53:03.600
Val Jenness: Those are just such kind of

532
01:53:03.820 --> 01:53:10.039
Val Jenness: anchoring lenses through which people see the world. It's how they see their government. It's how they see policing.

533
01:53:10.140 --> 01:53:17.410
Val Jenness: the political affiliation variable is really interesting. How it pervades kind of people's worldview.

534
01:53:17.890 --> 01:53:45.359
Monireh Mohammadi: Very important work very important. I I would particularly like to to read your work on the prison system and keeping the transgenders in men's presence. When I read that I just got scared, and I think that is a very important and interesting part of your work as well. So all the best. Thank you so much.

535
01:53:45.660 --> 01:53:54.790
Monireh Mohammadi: You so I think we are over time we were supposed to wrap up, I think, 10 min ago. Right?

536
01:53:54.890 --> 01:53:59.650
Monireh Mohammadi: Oh, am I not right. anyway. This. This was a great panel.

537
01:54:00.060 --> 01:54:24.589
Monireh Mohammadi: Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much, and I am so glad that both sessions of hate, hate, speech laws, a sociology of hate hate, hate, hate speech. Laws, I'm stumbling because it's 3 30 in the morning. Both sessions went very well, and I can't be more happy

538
01:54:24.610 --> 01:54:27.649
Monireh Mohammadi: So if any more company.

539
01:54:29.700 --> 01:54:30.790
Monireh Mohammadi: Thank you.

540
01:54:31.880 --> 01:54:47.149
Monireh Mohammadi: thank you so much. Thank you. Great time. And we're going straight to bed. Yes, I hope you have your day off a day off tomorrow or later today. Bye, guys, bye, bye.

541
01:54:47.240 --> 01:54:58.360
would you mind? Just staying for a bit to take a picture. an rather wanted a group picture of all the presenters, if you don't mind. Yes, yeah. So you're all in the screen here.

542
01:54:58.600 --> 01:55:05.719
Oh, but if you want to say it's just like for a quick, quick minute, just one.

543
01:55:07.220 --> 01:55:10.090
Monireh Mohammadi: That's right. You and I. We have to get together.

544
01:55:10.670 --> 01:55:22.200
Monireh Mohammadi: Sounds good one. Right? I look forward to it.

545
01:55:22.660 --> 01:55:24.410
Monireh Mohammadi: for this is.

546
01:55:24.620 --> 01:55:30.880
Ephraim Barrera: Thank you so much. I'll email you the picture so that you can see it right?

547
01:55:30.950 --> 01:55:38.000
Monireh Mohammadi: Okay. Gosh! Have a good one. You, too, take care bye, bye.