Description of the video:

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. I'm so happy to be able to have the opportunity to welcome you here with us this morning. My name is Christiana Ochoa and I'm the Academic Director of the IU Mexico gateway, which is as the great honor of getting organized this event. I just heard my email, so I'm going to close that right now. I before proceeding, I'd like to direct our multilingual audience to the interpretation button at the bottom of your screen. It looks like a small globe or a basketball. You can click on the button there and then you can choose your preferred language. So once you've found that, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you, to our audience and also to our esteemed panelists that this panel, the challenges of law and ethics in today's society is such an important topic, seems to be growing in importance daily. And it is part of a collaboration between Sorbonne University, National Autonomous University of Mexico, and Indiana University. This conference today is part of the second season of this wonderful and fruitful collaboration. It's the ninth of the conferences that we've had of this sort, which has attracted audiences from all over the world, including, including contents from the, from both the global north and the global south. And over the course of our sessions, we've had more than 600 audience members and I understand they're close to a 100 today as well, so welcome, welcome. It's, it is also my great pleasure to introduce our moderator of gravity. A lot of us. Dr. Rios is currently working as an academic secretary of the humanities ordination. Her experience includes more than 20 years of specialized research and tax and budget bond. She's currently a full-time researcher to let us say, of the Institute of legal research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where she is the coordinator of the tax lot area and also the government training school. And in addition as a member and Liaison of the Institute of institutional research line, bought and informal economy diagnosis causes an implementation proposals. The US has a Doctorate in Law from the University of Salamanca and Spain. She's a member of the national system of researchers, level 2. She's received the sort of Juana Ines de la Cruz 2016 award given by nom to the most outstanding academics. And she has also received the 2001 Ignacio in when I was coming down though, and it will research Prize awarded by the I j. As a practicing attorney, she has she also has experience in strategic litigation and has served as a special prosecutor in the former Attorney General's office. Before passing, you want to talk to us? Again, like to point our multilingual audience to the interpretation button at the bottom of your screen, which again looks like a small lobe or a basketball, and you can click on that button and then choose your preferred language. So welcome again. And I now leave you and Dr. Maria says capable. Yes. I hope you very much enjoyed this discussion. I knew I am planning to Dr. Rios. You are unmuted. Thank you very much. Thank you, Christian. I wouldn't just like those. Good morning, everyone. Well, as the assets, those are the last CMS or Navaho and his work journey. Excuse me. Do you think than yesterday app with colonial settlement of a family, SAS has a soluble carrier. A very interesting discussion about the principles of ethics and law today. Yes. Okay. And I have what a life skill welcomes all our panelists. We have great panelists from the Sorbonne, saline spike Burke and William Sherman. And as Christina mentioned a few seconds ago, this synergy that is, has been organized for a year and a half. I had about this collaboration between these three universities. Cell B1 and Indiana University, has been a very important tool for direct and rethink different topics in different areas. Especially in the humanities and social sciences. Today, we are talking about a subject that NFV, world context. It takes us to reflect about the challenges that law and ethics from different point of views. Therefore, we have great panelists. I will now read at their CV. Bees are in English. And later I will give the microphone to submarines and later to Dr. William Sherman who begin at this interesting discussion. Each one of them has a 35 minutes for their exposition. And then later we will have a dialogue and a Q and a session. And those who are interested in participating, please. You can yes. Write your questions in the chat section so we can read them to our panelists. So I will begin creating selling factors, biography, keeping. We'll see you soon. I have her presentation here, inferences in French. Associate did them on this to illustrate television history, at least 30 to illustrate the law through and write in the work of Montesquieu. Those of you that research includes impaired EF only pick that content. So every month I still Rousseau is so Legos, public SEO and SEM best inclusions, Aleppo and lately wholesaler hops. All these within CEQA called CDSS, yarn in Oxford, University Press. Enlightenment. No mammals. So the animal class, yeah, I'll upgrade path. Join me. Very much. Cilium. Okay. A, a a Now I read Bill shower means that biography. As you can see, I am shifting from one language to the other. And that's what's interesting about these conversations. Research and teaching interests are no. Germ and politicos thoughts, democratic theory, theory, theory. Most recent books. Breath for me. Well, this is the rule of law. In 1994. Blueprints you use for your 990. Leave it on democracy. 100 workers. Low. Rutledge. He has she moved than very messy. The rule of law on their seats. Yeah. Well, we didn't know what race. I would say is Oh, night. And the Cambridge companion. Okay. I'm sorry. Numerous. He's a number of internal review. And then welcome. And we began with a formula with SLE. I first presentation. You have 35 minutes for your presentation. Go ahead and actually present Poincare locomotives. You Professor Southern University, I hope you can hear me. I am a professor at Harvard University and a specialist in the philosophy and contemporary promises. I am going to talk about motor skill is pre-delay, which is a flagship work which was published in 1848. Why did I choose to talk about this work? Because I think it's still echoes or analyses of political tensions and geopolitical tensions, as I've tried to show you this, Let's quintile What is unique. Work with a general analysis of legal structures in all the peoples of the world, ancient and modern peoples, western peoples and Eastern people. It is an immense work and he gave, the goal of this work is, the object is to analyze the institutions of the people and the end to come from there with their customs. Let's prevail what was interpreted in different ways. According to some, this piece of work that is foundation of historical science or law or of sociology of law. However, layoffs caused, amongst others, did not want to compromise between philosophy and sociology. Main SQR would be, according to them, a political philosopher who judges, evaluates and who not only explains a diversity of society is a legal order, but it goes beyond, is Montague skews ambition would be to deliberated about the true principles of freedom. Where he plays the role of a counselor to the legislator, whether the legislator be a prince or a people. Now, these contradictory judgments, so one tissue, being a sociologist or a philosopher are really symptomatic to me, they revealed the strategic place of this deal. Why in the philosophy of law not discriminated proposes a new reflection on justice, on the rationality of law in a famous formula he actually writes and hence the title of my presentation today. History must be enlightened by laws and laws by history. And that is on this enigmatic quote that I will focus during my analysis today, it is necessary to understand in what sense the law must be related to the Spirit, the mindset of each people, each society, which is the goal, or at least printed by the Spirit of Laws. And in this short lecture today, I would like to dwell on the decisive question of the relationship between law and morality in society. The question I'm going to ask you is the following. There is the rationality of light and it's adequacy to abstract principles of justice such as equality of freedom, as capacity. At all? Does it correspond to historical circumstances, to the general spirit of the people? And if so, should we say that some people are distinct or other scientists will have access to freedom or others doomed to servitude. I think it's appropriate to question the way in which teachers work in the 18th century rationality and justice community below. Now this question is not only a technical one, but also opens to a better understanding of the principles of political liberty. Indeed, one of the most shocking thesis for us in Montesquieu, montesquieu sparks as the one according to Welch and I quote, Not all peoples are ripe for freedom. Are ready for freedom was taken out by Rousseau and buy. A lot of philosophers of the Enlightenment. Offense, at least a universalist. And liberalism. Liberalism, which would like to be able to extend to the whole world into a universal notion, the principles of liberty and democracy. How can we understand this code? And this concept that not all peoples are ready are ripe for his liberty. How can we enlightened on those by history, and should we be content with Montesquieu trust, Craig, restrict the scope of the principles of liberty even if it means condemning a good part of the world, in particular, Asia, Africa, Russia, and Turkey, take political and civil slavery. Slavery. The first part of this conjugation of this presentation, I will allow us to establish the meaning of the concept that the spirit of laws and thus the titles mr. Montesquieu chose to give to his work. Then, during the second phase of my presentation, we will see that Montesquieu considers that there is a spirit of free peoples which in fact restricts the field of political freedom to European peoples, but also to Amerindian people's will benefit from another form of freedom. Finally, for our analysis, we will look at the notion of slavery, civil slavery, and colonial slave trade in order to see whether the Montesquieu deserves criticism of postcolonial studies can see hermit, hammer, Germanic and imperialist reason and the enlightenment. So first part of my presentation, the spirit of the law. According to Montesquieu, the government, quote, most, and keeping nature is not the one deduced from the universal nature of humanity, but rather a government that has the most in line with the particular nature of the people this July. It is therefore Montesquieu, the suitability of those, their adaptation to the circumstances which is deemed of primary importance. According to him, the Lord must be so appropriate to the people for whom they are made that the loss of a people could not be appropriate to another people. So notice you keep whoever the hypotheses here of a perfectly rational code of a universally valid system of laws is rejected. The idea of a model of law or an archetype of law is replaced here by sort of a singular system. Each legislation according to him, must be thought in its relation to a set of characteristic factories of the life of the people. The laws must relate to the, to the political regime, but also to the side of the states, to the climate, to the kind of life, a lifestyle of the people, to the economy, democracy, to the religion. So integral to all elements related to culture, secure, restores the architecture of his back. His intention is to direct the political art by the principle of suitability to the singular situation of a people. And here appears the founding project, the printed one, which is the setting in relation of the geopolitical sphere, whether it's exteriority, the refusal of a pure and abstract science alone. What can we conclude at this from the point of view of the relations between low Ethics and Society. The rationality of law according to Montesquieu as possible, due to its conformity, suitability to the constitutive relations of the nature of things. Geographical, economic, social, moral, political, and religious relations which constitute the general spirit of the people in relation with the Spirit. And I would like to give you just one example among many others. At this figure, rationality as a relationship of convenience between the general spirit and the spirit of the law. It's example of the Adalja are the traditional combat and the Middle Ages. The Odin II, or judgment of God, was a form of trial, religious trial, which consisted in subjecting a suspect to a painful or even deadly. Do. The outcome of which, in theory was determined by God itself. Allowing one to conclude the guilt or innocence of a suspect. Against a large scale. Here wants to reveal the rationality, internal rationality of this practice of our dahlia, which is described by everyone as absurd and barbarians. The spirit of the laws makes emerged from the darkness, quote unquote, image from the darkness, the cellularity of the rules that govern the judges shall comeback. Or Dahlia. Now it's not about saying that the practice itself is rational and make sense, but actually that it comes from a double rationality. On the one hand, practice is not fundamentally contrary to liberty according to obscure. But on top of that, it is aligned with the spirit of the people. And for freedom, notice skew. It compiles all the provisions of judicial combat that make it possible to avoid slender accusations. I quite got 28. The spirit of the law, as there are an infinite number of ways, things that are conducted in a very foolish manner. There are also finish things that are conducted in a very wise man and so there's some sort of rationality assure, aiming for freedom. Secondly, the rationality of law does not come from it's conformity to a two. Rational universal principles, but more from conformity to the spirit of the people they use, other judicial combat. All of this or Dahlia can actually be understood in the light of the general spirit of the Germanic peoples. The spirit is Marshall, very military spirit in his constant contexts, the judicial come back constitutes a form of law. The rationality of letters. What can seem like the most irrational of customs lies in the coherence of a value system and in a warlike nation cavities, according to Montesquieu indeed of blinds, other vices. And it proves that one has been sensitive to honor. So winning in a combat does not mean that you're not guilty. And when you are defeated, it does not prove one's guilt at the victory. This victory does the combination of strength and courage, and otherwise the possession of virtues that are in the indispensable to the survival, real and symbolic of the community. Above all, the victories manifests the subjective importance of the belief and honor. I believe that has lead men to exercise themselves or their lives in order to accomplish. Great. It's indeed that will allow them to obtain glory in battle there for rationality comes from customs twice or the law in so far as they correspond to the conditions of conservation of a community, in particular circumstances, to its principle, as much as to its nature. The definition of good and evil. Virtue, advice is at the origin of the definition of the just and unjust or unfair. It's the social ethics. There are certainly Stripe, as Hegel would've said, which gives reason for the formation that rules of law and there a man and rationality. Now, second part of my presentation, right, for freedom, what does it mean? So this theory of law also includes another aspect not as interesting for us. It seems that according to Montesquieu, freedom is a privilege that should only be reserved for certain people AT world european peoples and not yet Asian, African or African peoples. Montesquieu share relies on an abandoned and travel literature on China and Japan, Persia, or the Ottoman Empire. We must remember the climate theory, which yeah, montesquieu borrowed from Aristotle. Amongst others, follow this. Hippocratic. According to him and his cure, human nature is diversified and can be distinguished by climate is cold, temperate or towards Sebastian. And B-form of this cube, Pascal had stated there's nothing right or wrong which does not change quality. Database pool. If the climate changes three degrees of elevation of the poles overturn or jurisprudence and adequate. This was coined by Pascal. Now here, this does not draw any skeptical conclusion from the indexation or lose on the climate. According to him, on the contrary, is a positive knowledge for signs of long. As Montesquieu and the structures a lot today naturalized as freedom. Freedom is not accessible to all of that. It is out of reach for some people's. Indeed, the political consequences of any of his theory of climate is a crucial. According to Montesquieu, the peoples of the North are pathetic. While the peoples of the South are asked in the first, go to, Northern peoples are hardworking. They don't take much pleasure. They don't show much pain, which is why according to Monte Montesquieu, it is necessary to, failure must commit to give him feelings, to make him feel anything the second, so the southern peoples are on the contrary, central and voluptuous were reluctant to any morality. As a consequence, despotism, which is the worst regime, the one where one governance without lobe that are imposing his domination through fear. Also certain nations that are incapable of having of the mind strong enough to govern themselves. And according to kill, the possibility of men that makes despotism tolerable. In some climates, the spite of your love for freedom and hatred for violence. And Montesquieu argued that freedom finds its natural home either in temperate climates such as Europe, or in the mountains and Islands, wherever men are willing to fight for their freedom. However, consent to salvage, which can also compromise one small from geography, but from history. From the conjunction between the size of the state, the presence or absence of trade, and possibly from some sort of lading religion. Let's take the example of Russia, which is at the heart of not excuse analysis. Why is Russia locked in despotism? Why candidate? She freedom? According to motor skills, the cause or the inertia of despotic morals in Russia as not so much related to the climate, which is a cold climate, nor to the gigantic side of the empire, but rather in the absence of trade, a free movement of people, of goods and capitals, and the institution of serfdom in Russia. And I quote Montesquieu in Russia, that people are composed only of slaves, attached to the limits of slaves. We'll call this Ecclesiastes text, or gentlemen. Because there are loads of these slaves, there's nobody left for the Thursday, which must form and train the workers and the merchants. And this is the conclusion of Montesquieu. Not all people are ripe for freedom. Freedom is like breathing in the face of the swamp of servitude which suffocates and craftsmen and leads them to stagnation by preventing them from turning themselves away from the nature and our politics. And I quote again, freedom itself has seemed unbearable to peoples who were not accustomed to enjoy. It does, but sometimes harmful, harmful to those who have lived in swampy countries. Enter the final element. Degree zip attack. This illusion you progresses. Nietzsche. Illusion of progressivism when we learned the lessons, of course colonial times. Montesquieu's work is deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, Montesquieu is the first philosopher and the history of the West in condemning slavery so firmly. And based on book 15, he explains that civil slavery is never a good thing, but it's useful neither to the master nor to the slave, that it makes men survive. Or cruel, vicious, and imperious. The time when the slave trade was developing as never before in Europe in the 18th century, particularly in Bordeaux. Wine Montesquieu was born. Let's PD-L1 took a courageous stand group. Montesquieu condemns slavery by virtue of a self-evident principle. Slavery's always unjust if it makes one man the property of another and annihilates freedom, which is the most precious of all goods. I will quote again Montesquieu, slavery is contract contrary to the fundamental principle of all societies. End of the quote. It's Montesquieu even insists on the hypocrisy of Christianity. As the Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru did not want to agree to let the mirroring Amerindians be damned and thus became as Catholics. And he calls them very devout brigands, the worst destroyers and enslavers of history. Of course, he brought in the 18th century for Montesquieu. No packed by virtue of which a man consents to a lineage is freedom. Don't know. Willing servitude can be just such an act of giving or selling one's liberty without any real counterpart is iniquitous. And North, he writes, liberty is priceless to the one who sells it. And from this perspective, there are many texts they cannot go into detail that show how Montesquieu, montesquieu defends freedom against all forms of slavery. However, and that's what I will focus on now. Condemning slavery is not the last word of Montesquieu. The rejection of the origin of slavery gives room to the real origins of slavery. Based on the nature of things. Physical cause, especially climate, can indeed explain and slavery. The heat can indeed make the body nervous and renders men unfit for any kind of work if they are not spurred on by the fear of punishment. He tells, he says that climate to therefore sharps reason less 6. And moral or political causes also explain that in despotic regimes, one can finally want to sell oneself to the Lord. Escape a greater tyranny. He therefore supports that in certain, despite the countries where the condition of man is to be subject or slaves, like Russia, for instance, freedom is, and I quote, worth nothing. Rousseau. Montesquieu actually relies on an interesting source, Perry, who said exactly the same thing in Muskogee as they used to say. One sees men willingly accepting to sell themselves. The reason is simple, where men are already slaves of bizarre. They still prefer to join the domain of the Lord in order to benefit from a form of protection. Then his that child and Feeney, the ambiguity strong as all men are born equal and must be said that slavery is against nature. Although in some countries it is founded on a natural reason. We stop there and denounced the ethnocentric reason of the Enlightenment, the chiaroscuro of a narrow even danger, dangerous rationalism. I don't think so. As Montesquieu himself amended himself in a later edition of PD-L1. I would like to insist on this to conclude. In an addition introduced in 757, following the objections formulated by one of his interlocutors, Zhong Guo Li, a historian and man of letters, Montesquieu, underlines henceforth that the interests of a small number cannot be a criteria to justify slavery. To go leg. Who asks if he should not have examined if it was easier to undertake great constructions with slaves than with day laborers. Montesquieu answers by a new principles. To know if slavery is used for two all, we need to examine a system of random pick, drawing lots where 1 tenth of the population in each seating could draw white tickets and would be free. Some of the masters and the nine tenths that would have black tickets would still be subjected to slavery in that case. And I will quote Montesquieu. Those who speak most in favor of slavery would be those who would most aborts. And the most reached would abort. It still holds. The cry for slavery, he says, is therefore the cry of wealth and pleasure and not that of the general good of men or that particular societies. In the final analysis for Montesquieu, slavery is always unjust. And Montesquieu even adds that the argument in its favor comes from the fact that people refuse to improve working conditions in order to employ free men because they wanted to make profit. They found men to be lazy, and they invented ideological arguments to reduce them to slavery. Conclusion. Even if Montesquieu and I'm trying to show this always wants to particular, like to particularized the law to adapted to geography and history, to culture. He does not renounce to the universal and the criteria of justice. On the same, however, 30 years later made this accusation. And the seventh 1780 condos say, reproach to Montesquieu to be neglecting the issue of legitimacy of the laws. He says he prefers the art of governing to the science of the law to be cautious rather than favoring justice. And I will quote him, a good law. What he says must be good for all men. As a true proposal that is true for all end of the quotes. And unlike Montesquieu, who considers the legislature based on his knowledge of what is singular on the UFC sees him as a geometers who can reason based on universal laws, the natural law. And to make true proposals that comply with the rights of humanity conduct, say who admires the American Declaration of Independence goes further than multi-skilled slavery. Starting in 1781, he says that slavery is, and I quote, a crime against humanity by radicalizing the arguments of moisture. Later. As part of the society of the friends of the blacks, he will defend the gradual end of trade and political equality. And in the end, for multiscale as well. The legislative reason includes certain universal principles. Society, he must be based. In its usefulness for all, it can only tolerate practices that may be chosen by those who, in the end don't know what position they will have in society. Which for Montesquieu, includes a radical criticism of slavery, which is always unjust. This is my last word. Enlightening laws by history and history by laws implies learning what we can from the diversity of richness of cultures, of circumstances, but without giving up on justice or human rights, which must remain our compass. Condorcet wrote, and I quote, that those rights of humanity are the same everywhere and that there is no state. Despite the difference in climates, habits, and constitutions where man cannot enjoy it fully. End of the quote. So this principle throughout the 19th century will be at the heart of the brights extension processes, which include more and more citizens, the poor, protestants, Jew, Jewish, slaves, and women who were first excluded from brights of Humanity. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Ms. Is received good. Thank you so much saline for your conclusions with this app. Next session about monsters, you, especially when you talk about Russia and his thoughts about it. If the very current topic and how this idea of justice develop into it. Regardless of how law as adapted to each region. Now, I will give the microphone to William Sherman. Thank you so much. Bail. And once we're done with your words, we have a questions for saline which will take place at the end. Please. Go ahead. Can you can you all hear me? I hope so. Well, thank you so much for the invitation. I'm thank you for the gracious introduction, Gabriele and isoline. Thank you so much for that fascinating talk book you've been talking about. Steward of the law is one of my favorite books in graduate school. So that led me just to pose a very personal and perhaps selfish question is there's some relationship between them I'm going to be talking about in a moment. And that book. And I actually think there might be even know that there's not an obvious connection between our topics. Much a skew is just such a wonderful analyst and brilliant critic of political cruelty. This of course, is why e was revised again in the mid 20th century. A century filled with horrible cruelties as our, as our century well appears to be political cruelly critique acrylic is not the same thing as non-violence principle of nonviolence. But I do think one can interpret the tradition of political non-violence, which I would say some more recent tradition as building on that sort of legacy that we can see and modesty, so modest use, the combination of slavery you talked about so powerfully, all of these things I do, do you think are the basis for the tradition that I want to explore with everybody today. Alright, so if you listen to both popular and scholarly discourse about recent political protest movements, you may have heard that for better or for worse. Typically for worse, depends on where you sit politically. The days of nonviolent protests are coming to an end. At the very least, this is a now commonplace political narratives from Portland, Oregon to Hong Kong and many other places we could talk about. We indeed are seeing a growing number of protests that include acts of politically motivated law-breaking that no longer are nonviolent in strict sense of the term. And by that I mean nonviolence gets understood as prohibiting harm to persons and also damage to or destruction of property. The crux of my argument today is going to focus on the limitations of this conventional, I think, very commonplace understanding of non-violent political protests, as I'm going to try to argue. And I hope I can convince you this broad understand, the broad understanding of violence that is implicit in that few gets in the way of allowing us to make the sorts of distinctions we need to make if we're going to properly evaluate. Respond legally or otherwise to these recent protest movements. Now let me just mention some examples of what I have in mind. And even though like everybody else I had been doing for a couple of years, I may mess this up, but let me try to share an image with you. Let's see if that works. I'm sure you don't want to see my e-mail. Okay. There it is. Okay. So hopefully you can see that, right? So first and foremost, first example of what I have in mind. I'm thinking of the massive Black Lives Matter protests that occurred during the summer of 2020. This slide is deceptive. And here's why those protests were overwhelmingly nonviolent character. I mean, there were social scientists who were collecting the data and there is no question about this. However, it is true that some of these protests, and you see one of them here, included incidents of arson, looting, and vandalism. In some rare cases, there were also physical injuries to protesters and state officials to typically to police offers. There's been some very rare cases. There were, of course, fatalities, very rare cases. A second example, it worked Wonderful, Okay. If you have followed recent protests calling for action to mitigate climate change, most of the activists who are engaging in politically motivated law-breaking in this area are pursuing. There's no question about it. Familiar models of strictly nonviolent civil disobedience. This is true, for example, if you look at extinction rebellion, a group which began in the United Kingdom, which has since expanded, gone elsewhere. It's also true here in the United States for the sunrise Movement, very active, for example, even our Bloomington campus, I know they're doing nonviolent civil disobedience. However, here as well, we're seeing a growing number of calls for and yes, some increased incidence of environmental sabotage. Eco Taj, as it's called, gas pipelines, construction sites for new pipelines that vandalized, often under the cover of Nightfall by protesters who try to mask their identities. And that's what this is an image of. I mean, obviously this is not under the cover of nightfall and it's not people aren't masked, but there's a reason we don't see their faces. It's photograph was taken by protesters. I think it's at the Canadian border. And they're trying to analyze one of these new pipelines. My final example, most dramatic and for me at least most discouraging one, Hong Kong, where there clearly was a shift in the tactics of the pro-democracy movement over the course of the last decade or so. First the protesters embrace, I don't think there's any question about this conventional ideas of strictly nonviolent civil disobedience. One of the leaders, Benny tie, an academic who has since been fired from his position and desk, was released from jail. He spent two years in jail. He's a believing Christian and he was clearly inspired by Dr. King of Kings spiritually based conception of non-violence for political reasons that are perhaps understandable. I think this is a very complicated situation. Conventional nonviolent civil disobedience was not producing the desired results like the clampdown, it was continuing to happen against democracy. Hong Kong activist came to embrace what the philosopher Canvas dilemmas. A major voice in the recent philosophical debate describes and defense as an civil disobedience. This is law-breaking, that's covert. So it's not public, it's disruptive and morally offensive, so it's not civil, at least in some familiar senses of that term. It's legally invasive. So you don't try to provide any evidence for respect for the law that you allegedly are supposed to have, nor do you accept illegal penalty. And it's often violent, especially in so far as it include substantial acts of property. Again, that final feature of these and other recent protests, politically motivated property damage is my main focus today and why? Let me see if I can stop sharing this. There we go. I'm always happy when that works. Well, here's why I think we have to focus on politically motivated profit again, when commentators either lament or embrace the end of non-violence in the context of political law-breaking. This is chiefly, I think what they are talking about. I can't prove this point to you right now, but it's property damage overwhelmingly bill, of course, not exclusively constitutes the political violence that they are thinking about. Now one level, I think this makes a lot of sense in the examples that I just mentioned and many other examples we could talk about the so-called violence that we see is not in fact typically violence against persons that has been in many of these scenarios, not null, but many of them marginal. And I would say very minimal. But rather it has been violence against objects or property. So in my reading of the debate today, the claim that political nonviolence is passe, that its days are numbered, is first and foremost a claim about the increasingly prominent role of property damage. Looting, vandalism, sabotage, and so on. So we have to pay attention to politically motivated property damage, which of course, is not to deny that other aspects of political violence are important, as you will hear me say just a few moments, of course they are. However, it's really politically based property damage. I think that's the main thing that's going on out there. So we need to make sense of it normatively, legally and politically. Another reason why I think we have to analyze it. If you look at the massive scholarly literatures on civil disobedience, nonviolence, on resistance, on whistle-blowing and all of these things. The issue of politically motivated property damage is ubiquitous. It's all over the place. But it's typically not really analyze in a very systematic way. It's typically marginal to the political theoretical, philosophical, sociological, and so on. Arguments that end up getting made. So for both political and intellectual reasons, because of its importance, I think we need to do better than this today is a modest attempt to try to begin to do so. So let me try to sketch the outlines of my argument. First thing I want to do is push back. And recent scholarly literature. In particular, the work of wellness I just mentioned here and some of her allies, they doing very important work and what they call on civil disobedience. But also I'm thinking of many others who had very different ways are trying to develop defenses of militant, potentially violent protests. And while braking. Now to their credit, they are beginning to sketch some normative and political criteria for evaluating these sorts of protest has, you will not be surprised to hear, I think this is important. However, I worry that these mostly left wing writer's implicit, implicitly reproduce the problem that we also find in harsh critical responses to militant law-breaking that are coming from politically mainstream and indeed sometimes unambiguously right-wing positions. I'm thinking, for example, of conservatives would of course many others who instinctively describe even the most limited forms of symbolic property damage as acts of horrific violence and destructive may have. Just recall how one Cable News Network here in the United States I mentioned which one I'm talking about, but I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out. Covered the summer 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. One might have thought that every time a confederate statue was defaced as my daughter who was looking at this covered, said to me, the zombie apocalypse was upon us. In other words, the response was just over the top. The fundamental problem I think here is an overly broad over inclusive and I think badly misleading understanding of violence. We're environments without much, if any justifications he just assumed to be the case, ends up referring both to ax harmful to and or destructive persons and acts that are harmful to objects and property. There's a conflation of violence against persons with property damage when we need, in fact, to treat them very differently. Something, by the way, we're talking about the law today, all modern legal assistance acknowledge, of course, damage to property is punished typically less punitively then manslaughter or murder. Unfortunately, too much of the existing popular as well as scholarly debate fails to make similar distinctions. So when writers describe and sometimes justify violent protests more often than not, in my analysis, meaning of this debate, they are conflating or they're clumping together is very different types of violence, violence versus persons and property damage. So why do we need to separate these two things? Why delineate them from one another? Well, I favor a limited and I think analytically normatively, legally more useful notion of violence. One problem with the broad view we find in Dell moss and in many others, is that vandalized public monuments. Gas pipelines do not experience discomfort or intense pain in the matter we associate with physical harm the person. And yes, perhaps this is of course, very complicated. Other sentient beings as well. It's a long, big debate about that course. Properly understood. Violent TV and subject in human beings to physical one, yes, extreme psychological pain and damage to the body and psyche cannot be clearly delineated from one another. Inanimate objects do not experience this sort of pain or damage. I mean, if I dropped my glass and smash it, that's very different from if someone falls from where it's pushed off as. Part of the torture right, pushed off the top of a building. Evil and property damage can be links. And I'll be talking more about this in a moment to tangible, physical or psychological harm. Let's say houses burned down, its occupants are homeless, they traumatize. The relationship between the initiating Act and its consequences is much less direct and more complicated than in commonly recognizable cases of extreme physical or psychological environments. For example, a father beats his or her son or daughter, a soldier shoots somebody. So I worried that broad notions of violence function as potentially confusing stand-ins for a variety of very complicated political and social phenomenon. They get in the way of a nuanced analysis that we very much need that would allow us to capture potentially vital differences between and among different types of phenomenon. Now if you think I'm being unfair about the broad notions of violence, I would encourage you to go and take a look at a great theoretician of the idea of what's often called structural violence is named Johann got to him, he was a Norwegian peace theorist. He describes violence, I'm paraphrasing as present whenever human beings are negatively influence, you actually says it's in this very famous piece so as to impede their full potential. So guess what? Structural violence, quote unquote, includes every conceivable form of injustice under this time, everything we don't like, lack of education, poverty, denial of basic rights, denial of democracy and so on and so on. The bottom line, this is not a very productive way for us to think about these very complicated issues that are being raised in by political violence. In contrast, the Australian political theorist, John Keene, I think he makes a very strong case for limiting violence to, I quote, unwanted physical interference by groups or individuals with the bodies of others, consequently made to suffer a series of effects ranging from shock, bruises, scratches, swelling, headaches to broken bones, heart attacks, loss of limbs, or even death. All of which of course, are unlikely to have more or less dramatic psychological effects. Broader definition to obscure what is truly terrible about violence. How it violates in deeply traumatic ways, the body and the psyche. We extending the concept of violence at the risk of trivializing its real artworks and it misses the point index. I think it's very powerful. Now if we just left the story there, I don't think we would've made a lot of progress. Why not? Well, one reason property damage and violence are conflated. The conflated by lots of people is that the former, at least sometimes, is related, albeit I would say it's somewhat complicated ways to the ladder. So this leads me to take a second step. I want to argue that we need a more nuanced account of the relationship between violence and public. They're not the same. But sometimes, yes, we can identify a clear relationship between them and that's crucial. Now this is where Dr. King comes into the story. I have another image I will try and share without being too inept about this. Okay, so there we go. Whoops, that's not what I wanted to share. I am and I'm sorry, I'm still enact with it after two years of COVID. So this is where it comes into my sir, no. All I want to show you it's the texts that I'm drawing on here. So if you look at King's speeches and writings on the riots shaped American cities in the sixties. And you'll find a lot of them. This wonderful collection that he wrote before he was assassinated in 1968, he makes them very astute observations. He argues there that we have to delineate violence against persons from property damage, which of course is my point as well. He also begins to suggest how we might distinguish between and among different types of property damage. And this is how he takes us where I think we need to go. In his comments, king remains principally committed to non-violence in relation to persons, which by the way, is not the same thing as being an absolutist on nonviolence. We can talk about that. This is where it gets very complicated. However, nonviolence, as it relates to property, becomes determined chiefly a matter of political tactics. It's not a strictly principle, Matt. So I think in these writings you find a very differentiated analysis of political not violence and perhaps a more differentiated analysis that he might have expressed in some of his earlier Franklin were famous speeches and writings. So King says that property should serve to preserve and protect sacred human life. Property is an instrument, It's a means towards an end. Only that and the human person is sacrosanct. And obviously this isn't religious argument, although I think one could reconstruct it if one wants to, in secular terms. By implication, property that buttresses or supports human beings should possess a privileged position vis-a-vis property that does so only indirectly or perhaps not at all. I don't think it would've surprised king that we still wins instinctively at politically motivated property damage that seems closely related to tangible injuries to person. So for example, the destruction of the small shopkeepers business and his or her loss of livelihood. While we are usually less decks by property damage, unrelated to harm against persons defacing. That's a racist or colonialists monument. King is right to suggest we can and should distinguish between and among different types of property damages is the takeaway. For me, by examining possible causal causal ties to tangible violations of persons. That is, violence in the proper sense of the term. So political acts that harm or to face property so as to invite more or less directly, violations of human beings should be required to pass vastly more demand and tests than those that do not. And one application of this newest kid says, and he's fascinating lectures is that when militant protests are subjected to legal penalties, which they typically will be, these differences should matter. Some of these acts shouldn't be legally sanctioned less severely than others. And he suggests we need to be much more nuance in our legal treatment of these hacks. And I think he's absolutely right about this. So building on Kim, I think we can begin to offer a more differentiated analysis of property gouge. Now the terms we historically have used to describe these things, looting, vandalism, riots, et cetera. They do not invite impartiality, and they're all kinds of interesting things that have to do with the genealogies of these terms which allow us to understand why. So I want to suggest the need for topology that is, I hope potentially more impartial. That's going to consist of three ideal typical components. I'll call the symbolic property damage, disruptive property damage. And last but not least, property seizure. Severe is another slide. So let's start with some symbolic property damage. Now what I want to capture here is a subset of Acts were illegal damage to or destruction of property is directed against a target that has been selected primarily because of its symbolic or expressive value. So here's a recent example. There are many more anti-racist activist in Bristol in the United Kingdom during the summer of 2020 spray painting. You can see that we're in the statue. It looks like it's supposed to represent blood and then toppled the statute. Edward constant, a wealthy philanthropist who profited from the Atlantic slave trade. They then toss the statue and you can see into the river. They did so to express support for anti-racism and the aftermath of George Floyd's killing in Minneapolis. A jury, by the way, just found them not guilty of any criminal charges. Which by the way, it works quite nicely in terms of my argument for reasons that I hope will become clear. I think symbolic property damage represents the easiest face for us. It's not easy, but it's the easiest case. Especially when activists stick close to conventional ideas of civil disobedience. In other words, a law-breaking is public, nonviolent and so on. When intended as communicative acts supposed to change public opinion. There's no identifiable bodily or psychological violation persons, protesters, except possible legal consequences. These acts can indeed be described as civil disobedience and arguably nonviolent civil disobedience. And they should be treated by the courts as such. In other words, they should be treated differently from how we treat ordinary criminal acts. And this is a very complicated story. But if you can go to a judge or a jury and make the case that what you have done, the civil disobedience, you have some expectation, at least in some jurisdictions and you're going to be treated someone more leniently than you otherwise wouldn't be. And I think that is the right way to go. Indeed, some liberal theorists and they precisely the sort of arguments and this is not an original claim. Marshall colon, a liberal philosopher. John Rawls, the most important liberal theorist of civil disobedience, defended damage to public property has potentially consistent with civil disobedience, understood, and relatively strict nonviolence terms. However, things get messy the way symbolic property damage occurs secretly when activists try to avoid any kind of legal consequences, you'd even that I think their acts may take and identify me nonviolent form. The fact that the damage targets, as in this case, our public property right, monument statutes, often, not always, but often means that defacing, destroying them in trounced few direct damages or harms to anyone. Even went out to the SNR graffiti on a privately own shop. The consequences may be older, respect their heartbeat life-threatening. As King, I think correctly argued, what ultimately matters here is the impact on persons. Only if there is some clear bodily or psychological violation that ensues. Should we speak of property damage resulting in violence. If my protest as preserve anonymity or fail to provide some sort of public justification for their acts. It's fundamentally symbolic character means that it may make an important contribution to public debate. Damages to statues or monuments can be viewed as political counter speech. This is what some reason philosophers have argued, and I agree with this, that targets flawed hegemonic interpretations of history that we should be challenging or recent maybe good reasons to challenge. Now of course, let me be clear about this. Activists can always select them on targets. They can fail to impart the desired message that causes may be unjust or just plain dumb. No question about this. This is not an invitation to just go and do whatever you want to do. We might decide on grounds of political judgment or ideology to condemn the acts. And of course, anyone engaging and property damage needs to pay attention to possibly counterproductive political repercussions. This was a crucial point by the way, King hammered away at, in these speeches and lectures he gave before he was assassinated, 67, 68. He thought property damage typically was counterproductive, and I think he's probably right about that in terms of its consequences. Nonetheless, it seems wrong to assert property damages, a priori, and legitimacy because of its supposedly essentially violent. Come talk to me. That's the key point I'm trying to make. The second main type of that I want to talk about here is what I call disruptive property damage. And I think this is a more problematic and more controversial subset of cases. Illegal acts of this type will typically have symbolic significance. But they additionally, we'll aim and this is why I think the, the different category describe them at immediately obstructing practices. Protesters view as unjust or illegitimate. The targeted property, in other words, is seen as essential to some disputed practice. So this is what we often called sabotage. The image you're looking at is I think it's from 1961, 1862 at South Africa. Famous act of sabotage. The ANC, which was committed to sabotage, engaged him, knocking down these power lines as a way of communicating the fragility of the apartheid system. More recent examples, we can think that a hacktivists, right, they disable the computer servers of large firms, of state agencies in order to disrupt practices. Consider unjust. Much of what is described as eco Tosh, again, I mentioned this before, will fall under this rubric as well. Okay, lot of examples. Now here as well, I think it's just wrong to characterize such acts as intrinsically violent. Many, and perhaps most of them do not generate or even seem related to severe harm or injury to persons. Nonetheless, disruptive property damage can sometimes pave the way in relatively direct way through direct ways, excuse me, to harm persons. In these more difficult cases, the boundaries between property damage environments may indeed begin to blur. And I think visit the source of the conceptual conflation that worries me. But there's, again, there's a reason for that inflation. You have to take it seriously. Tree spiking, for example, right? You stick big males are spikes in trees to keep loggers from doing their job, poses direct physical threats to the loggers, although not by the way. And I think this is also something that's important to the owners of the companies that employ them. It's, it's too often the small frog will pay the price for some of these acts. And that's something we'll have to talk about. Politically motivated arson is always dangerous and fires, of course, can rage out-of-control, threatening persons and property unrelated to any injustice. These very real dangers suggests to me that anyone engaging in disruptive property damage should be expected to pass some demanding tests. Protesters will need to minimize any possible harms to persons whenever possible, pursuing the least harmful course of action. They're actually always be, I'm quoting The political theorist, will sniff, not the actor Will Smith. I note, okay, here's what he says is x have to be a constraint proportionate and discriminating such that they're intended impacts are concentrated as far as possible on the actual lawn doing end of quote, collateral damage to property. A person's unrelated to the protesting and justice has to be avoided. Disruptive property damage is also, I would say, most easily justifiable when it's a last resort, when it's defensive in character, it's intended to ward off some manifest harm or injury. Now from this perspective, it's very difficult nonetheless, to justify recent act, some recent acts of politically based property damage. For example, were Minneapolis anti-racist protesters inadvertently or otherwise, burndown immigrant minority own, family owned businesses. Their acts had devastating consequences for concrete person. These acts were assaults on property that directly supported immigrant families and communities. They could not, in my view, conceivably be justified as part of the battle against racism. One would have thought that those fighting racism instead made a point of respecting the property of businesses and non-profits in which racial and ethnic minorities directly depend. Now this is also a photograph from St. Paul, Minnesota right after the killing of George Floyd and the upheavals and follow. This is Saint Paul has insignificant among each and OMG community. Man were US allies during the Vietnam war. Many of them came to United States. Not surprisingly, end of the Vietnam War is a large community of them in St. Paul and many of the businesses that were decimated belong to these. I live 5.5 years, not too far from its neighborhood. And instruction. I saw it recently. It's just, it's pretty devastating. Alright, the last piece of my topology, what I call property seizure. Now what I have in mind here are incidents where property seized or appropriated for one's US. This is different from disruption that results in property damage or destruction. So I'm redescribe what we often will call looting or plundering. Here again, maybe some of you will remember him. He broke into J store. That's this electronic collection of journals and scholarly article that's now privately owned, which scholars of course, use to make it available to those who were denied access. He argued that obsolescent intellectual property laws had transformed vast trove of knowledge, much of which had been gained on the basis of public investment into forms of private property to which many of us do not have access. Pursued relentlessly by the FBI. He committed suicide tragically. I just turned 26. My point, It's very hard to see how Swartz his acts could be described as violent. It's less difficult to see how the draconian state response, right, might have resulted in his self harm. What we might describe as Robin Buddhism. Also scenes potentially justifiable. For example, here's somebody I came across when the city of Detroit slash unemployment benefits and 832 hungry children responded by statute, food from grocery shelves. They're unemployed. Parents entered chain stores in order all the food they could possibly Terry, they walk out without paying. The local media had a sort of blackout on this because I don't want people copy carrying this. What we perhaps learn from this example and many others we can think about is that politically motivated property seizures may in fact sometimes be necessary to prevent avoidable losses of human life. Property damage can sometimes check. Violence to persons, of course, is complicates the conventional story. Now of course, other examples raise more difficult questions during recent anti-racism protests, even those who sympathized with the protests were alarmed by protests. It's stripping the shelves and retail shops owned by immigrants and racial minorities. Was this sort of critical response sensible? I think in many cases, yes. These businesses directly support human beings who rely on them for their livelihoods were protests is ransack them for their actions can have a disastrous X6 central patch. Even if those who engage in protests had no intention of harming any wonder acts, potentially become part of a complex your traceable chain of events that's going to generate economic distress. And it's all too familiar, tangible, bodily and psychological side effects. And again, too often I'll repeat this point is the small for small businesses, their families, the employees who pay the highest price, it's not. The CEO is two, operate the chain stores, let's say. So as with disruptive property damage, these acts should only represent a last resort. They have to be constrained, discriminated, and proportionally to any tangible threats to human might need to be reduced. And ideally, other protests, both legal and illegal, more conventional forms of civil disobedience perhaps should be favored. And yes, of course, when protesters engage in these sorts of Acts, they need to provide some sort of public justification for what they're doing, at least that they hope to convince anybody of the legitimacy of what they have done. All right, I'm almost out of time. One final step in the argument and then get rid of the image here. Okay. So, so far I've discussed property damage without any attention to the question of property rights. I have not paid any attention to questions concerning property is normative grounds or justifications. And that's an obvious problem with my arguments so far. And implicit presupposition of my argument is that what gets described in the literature as an instrumentalist view of property, property as it means or instruments towards the end that this is the way to go. Again, property does not have any sort of intrinsic significance or value. It's been an implicit in what I've been saying. King and whom I have worldwide as you have heard, presupposed such an instrumentalist account, he believe that property, as I was saying, had to serve a higher goal, human life. But what if you don't accept this sort of instrumentalists view of property? What if instead you embrace a view of property that attributes a higher normative status to you. What did you see? It is unavoidably connected to autonomy, freedom, human dignity, lots of different arguments. On some very influential accounts. Personhood and property are intimately linked. Human beings need private property to be autonomous and indeed to exercise proper moral agency. And this, of course, in a complicated story. But let me just mentioned when it's not happening, Libertarian, to accept that sort of notion of property. Many different people have done so. And this kind of non-instrumental its view of property poses some obvious challenges to everything that I had been saying. Even when property damage cannot be plausibly linked to tangible harm, persons on ListView, there still might be some good reasons to acknowledge the sanctity of property damage or steal it from a privately owned business could then be interpreted as an attack on the individual owners, autonomy or perhaps dignity. The distinctions that I have tried to draw this morning between violence against persons and property damage done only get blurred at times. I mean, that's what I've been talking about, how to make up for it. But they vanish potentially altogether. So I think I need to say something obviously about this sort of counter-argument when we try to just very tentatively respond to it. I think it's a very serious counterargument. As a legal philosopher, Jeremy Waldron has pointed out the idea that property owning is necessary for one's ethical development. So this is a very demanding, not instrumentalists, few properties essential to our ethical identity, to our freedom also, this implies, he points out correctly that private ownership should be universal. Everybody should participate meaningfully in ownership. Is non-instrumental, is new, is provide. Again, these are his words, Waldron's words, I quote, no justification for a society in which some people have lots of property and many have next to no proper next to none. In short, these non-instrumental was use the property, cry out for an egalitarian distribution of economic resources. The property is morally and politically so fundamental, everybody should have made a very simple point away. But of course that's crucial. We do not live in a society that looks like that. Thus, there still may be reasons to permit some cases of constrained, politically motivated coffee. Why? Well, under ideal material conditions of our world looked like these idealized theories of property that I was just alluding to. Property might indeed deserved a more privileged status. But those conditions have not been achieved and are terribly unequal society, certainly not in the United States. Given the harsh empirical realities of existing property ownership, It makes sense. It seems to me to continue to prioritize person's vis-a-vis property. And thus to demand of political and legal officials, including prosecutors, judges, and so on. We can talk more about this. That they treat some types of property damage as long as the ACS meet some of the conditions that I've tried to outline with a measure of linearity by argument. In other words, shouldn't have consequences for how state officials treat, I guess sometimes end up penalizing and punishing knowledge and protesters. Now to conclude, as I think Dr. King, I'll let him have the final word would rightly have reminded us. Damage or destruction the property. Often, indeed more often than not, generates counterproductive political consequences. It's typically a backlash. Kit was very worried about me. He says the white backlash that will occur when blacks engaged in property damage. It's not something you want to take, like strategic reasons will often, maybe typically militate against it. It can be done for misguided, as I was saying, very stupid reasons. There's no question about this whole history. It's stupid protests. Nonetheless, there may be circumstances that extreme injustice under which property damage is appropriate and less permissible. Fundamentally decent legal system in contrast to a not very decent legal assistant, my view should respond to these acts accordingly. So I thank you very much for your patience. I'm trying out some ideas. I'm sure it will be controversial. I look forward to your critical points. I look forward to our conversation. Thank You. See the OMS been, this has been a great talk, will be very informative and especially the typology you. Have given us, I believe it perfectly depict how we can perceive not only from a poetic point of view, but even as sociological and anthropological one. Although from the point of view of the law, we do not have these differences. For example, in the case of Mexico, we have typified a crime at damage to private property. And it depends on the type of property that is damaged too. Maybe this could be national, for example, monuments in Mexico City. Or in the case of a unum, our university would be a federal crime. But we don't have this distinction. So we join political, sociological, and anthropological point of view. And here I'd like to mention as something that has been very gruesome for ethical society. In Mexico, you killed just for being a woman. And on March 8th, every year, there is this feminist protest that two years ago turned out to be very violent. The argument is that there were groups that had different point of views. However, feminists of women manifests, carried out that type of damage to this monument. I believe it would be between disruptive and symbolic. Because as they marched, OPA failed a lot reformat. They not only damaged private property such as shops or banks, but also monuments that the Deanna, this money and fat and with monument of a woman was not touched, which is very symbolic. But the most symbolic monument was very hard. And this was very controversial because it happened in this current government of a lowpass or whatever and the Mexico City government. This created a very strong discourse, again, symbolic damaged as national monuments such as the uncle delaying, dip and base yet, which was created in B during portfolio BSS government, at which well, this protest normally, usually begins. You CAN pass fail the elaborate format. One of the main street in Mexico City and be in final stage is B, Before the precedence offices. And there was a discussion about contestation of private property because monument to Christopher Columbus was destroyed and women lays a monument, I believe was called B amendment, that purple colored monument, which symbolize the feminist problem. So here is this very interesting discussion where civil disobedience damages to this property. And in some ways, we as women. Well, I didn't participate in this protest, but I have been joining the causes. But I identify with the feel that you've had if in Mexico and women are murdered every day. Why would this protest before a big national monuments them cause such a strong reaction from the government towards women. That is, this was disproportionate and this generated a very wide discretion on this subject. And I believe what will happen internationally and at a national level. From my point of view, this faith is not addressing social demand because sometimes in some regions of Mexico, State is unable to work because it'd be drug dealers have taken charge of these areas. A few months ago. There was a failed the murder of 17 people in metro up and was film. Nothing happens that that does not create a scandal, but violence, according to Dr. King, definitions messages, I don't think there is a coherence problems lawful point of view because we don't have this classification that you mentioned. And I consider fascinating. So I believe it is important because today all so even though these protests with damage to a federal monuments, what happens every year is that they cover these monuments because women tend to be aggressive and grow to as a harm these monuments. Because as these murders have been punished, yellow, well, it's something important that I want to mention. Now. I'd like the microphone just still inspector to begin debate among new because we also have questions from the audience. But before I read them, I would like to exchange points of view with DR. celine. Difficultly. What would you like me to Reactome? Which Lucas told explicitly. Sweetie, Did you want me to? And so the questions that were asked in the chat or in the Q&A session. Just as with the last question, I want to thank you for being here. How can we interpret the fundamental distinction between social contrast items and anarchy, but rather between moderate and moderate government. To take this into account and the concept of moderation and my, well, I don't it's a fascinating question and from my point of view, and this goes back to 0. Professor, Sure, I'm a speech in a way, the question of moderation is an answer to the question of violence. Montesquieu considered violence is a new way. The fundamental political factor that needs to be concerned. And reality. He keeps the topology of regimes is the typical one from out-of-state who are platforms that he modifies its depraved by making despotism regime which we would consider a dictatorship. Islands, this rupees regime, this cuckoos the violence, etc, which causes muscles. For the people. Notice Q puts this volcanism as a philosopher called category per se, which is the first time because according to Aristotle, churning as a degenerate form of regime. And this was the first time that there was a type of regime. So the Republic, the monarchy, number 3, despotism. And according to make, a moderate type of government, publics and monarchies that are not. This is a category that allows you to show the importance of the fact that we need, End quote, the environment in politics, which was predicted, class pieces and his political philosophy or political philosophies and the number system or fear or institutional quality of tetrahedral plus the vessel up all political institutions must be created in order to fight crossing. And from this perspective, moderation is the way motifs here translates the political philosophy of Aristotle in the modern world and for either restart all. Unlike platform is that there is not one fair city, one fair, an ideal city, but there are different political whole goods and political forums that must match the situation, the circumstances. And in this way, he, Montesquieu follows Aristotle because he thinks that there shouldn't be a theory of a perfectly just society. But as I said in introduction, to try and have. A spirit of the laws to match the spirit of the people and moderation, which is the supreme virtue of any legislation. System. Moderation, which is the condition for political freedom, is a translation of this idea of several different political goods because the political form of a state must match the nature of the people. So this is the main point and I mentioned it constantly in my work by talking about the thesis from Catherine, which you probably know, there would be two types of regimes in the spirit of law. The first one, pantheism and monarchy. And the second one, moderated or non-motor Rachid government. For me, there are not two types. That's not my vision. But there is a Type in terms of type, gender, and one in terms of species. Moderation is a gender type, republic or a monarchy. Our types or a species of that compliment type. So Montesquieu opposes the universalism of hubs. As you said. Rightfully, the issue is not the political legitimacy of a state with a universal theory of sovereignty. Issue is how such type of regime of law matches such or such people. And how people can access the principle of moderation or of non-violence. So although there were great differences between our two presentations, I loved professor Sherman's presentation because there might be a connection form, Motifs. Your violence is the fundamental issue of politics. How to get away from it when it's everywhere. And even in European governments, because for multi-skilled this pantheism can clearly exist in Europe. It's not just for Asia, China, or Russia, or Japan. Because if you think about the Ottoman Empire, Montesquieu considers that despotism can complete the Apply and Europe. And he sees that in France with the increase of the monarchy centralization, this is an opportunity for me to talk to the second question, Umberto operator Salvador. Thank you for your excellent Interesting question about constitutionalism, modern constitutionalism and its interpretation of Montesquieu, which follows the first question. He uses the term constitution in the traditional sense. The Aristotle definition. Constitution is the distribution of powers, the main powers of the state or at the organization of the judges. It's not the modern sense when we talk about constitutionalism. It's not the same definition. So why is Montesquieu considered as one of the founders of modern constitutionalism? While because in his vision, especially of the English Constitution, he tried to impose the principle of political freedom, which can remedy violence. And out of those principles, the one you all know, one of the distribution of the powers of the state, executive, legislative, and judicial, and the principle of the independence of the judicial power that Dr. talked about. Criminal or civil law is such act criminalized or not? Motifs cute. Talked about this on the level 12 of the spirit of the laws. There is a theory on how to criminalize crimes against property and how to differentiate it from crimes against people. Although he doesn't specify it in detail. Personally, I think that Montesquieu is the constitutionalists thinker. The sense that he uses the theory of the state to consider district distribution of the powers of the state as a condition for freedom or power shouldn't be in one same body. But as you said yourself, Montesquieu is not just talking about this traditional constitutionalism. And for instance, he has an ambiguous relationship with Locke. He criticizes his theory, his inspired by it but also different from it. Same for Bolingbroke, another important author in England at the time on distribution of powers, we could get into detail the analysis. But what matters is that there are main principles that freedom and those principles are both universal for any states. But at the same time, they should be adapted to the spirit of the people's depending on their cultural characteristics. And that will be my conclusions. That means that you cannot export democracy. You cannot export democracy to Afghanistan or elsewhere. For Montesquieu, because for fundamental reasons you cannot have universal principles that apply in the same way everywhere in the world. Thank you. Thank you so much saline. You have given great answers to both questions. And you also talk about Dr. Bell's conference. Now we have a two questions directed to Dr. Bill from warp. One, you stop. The questions. Is, do you think logs definition of properties, empathy, look of property as a life, liberty and estate. Property, as we use as a term, is a second treaty. Section 87 may provide an integral ethical understanding of property. That is just fame, instrumental, or self development, but perhaps an integral part of social self. How might that influenced your argument for politically legitimate property damage? You have the microphone. So thank you very much, Anne and Gabriela, but also a lot of chances to respond to your really illuminating comments from a few moments ago. So quantity will, I'll just answer this quickly. We can continue talking about this in another juncture. I mean, as you know, Locke himself is a little unclear about this right. So property sometimes as life, liberty and estate, and then sometimes property seems to me, at least in my reading, and I think this is a conventional reading, a state or private property. So that I think is telling, I think this sort of ambiguity in terms of how broadly we should define property. It, it really is commonplace. I mean, if you go and you look at dictionary definitions, they often will talk about violence in terms of both damage to persons and things, you know. So I mean, the simple answer to me is we don't want to go with the Locke who says property as life, liberty, and estate. That is too broad. We need to sort of aggregate this, okay? So I don't think that's useful just conceptually for all kinds of reasons. Now, the point I take it of this book I mentioned from Jeremy Waldron in part is that there are a lot of different, sort of, if you will, bourgeois understandings of property, right? There clearly are. There isn't just one. Some of them can be instrumentalism, can be self-developmental. We could talk about where we would place, walk into this kind of story. I think there are arguments we can have about that. But, you know, what I thought was powerful about his argument is that even if you accept, I guess what you are calling some notion of property owning as essential to the bourgeois self, that potentially has very egalitarian sort of consequences, implications, right? It means everybody should get to be potentially. And that has to mean something a Bourgeois property on. That is not however, the world in which we find ourselves. So as I was saying at the very end of my talk, Given the disconnect between these theories, we can argue about the theories, but even if you set that sort of view that you're putting out there, there's still a disconnect vis-a-vis social reality. So there's still might be reasons why we don't accept to the existing property of water is fully living up to these theories. And that might mean in turn, right, that some of these forms of property damage or destruction are permissible, at least on some level. All right. So I mean, these are complicated questions. I'm just not I guess I'm not so sure lock gets us where we want to go, but I think we should continue that. I see there's a second question as well. Gabriella, should I just go on to get a Vaillant, the patellar? Yes, please. Go ahead, Bill. Yeah. This is another really interesting question. I mean, I I'm sure people who, by the way, we have other two questions from Matthew look ABE, and still says, thank you for your presentation. I'd like to solicit your thoughts on the possibility of political violence beyond a person or property. I'm thinking here of actions like rolling coal were politically motivated folks re-engineer their vehicles to maximize carbon pollution. This might fit much more closely to disruptive property damage with direct harm to people. But the property element would be absent unless we count climate as a collective property. Is there a place or a political violence against nature? And you're thinking, Yeah, that's a great question, Matthew, I did. I just said I have to think about that. So the tendency of the argument, as you heard, is to aggregate things that we tend to clump together. So that leads me to my instinctive reaction then is to say no, we have to be very careful about how we talk about acts against nature, right? To start describing them as. Necessarily violent just seems wrong to me. Another example of an overly broad notion of violence, which may pose some problems. But I think you're right. I mean, this is maybe the application and maybe I'm reading into it. I mean, there could be ax, destructive nature that clearly are going to be in very direct ways destructive about persons as well, right? So if we destroy, we can't breathe the air. That poses some health dangerous off initially, right? So but I think one has mean the argument I would make is we have to sort of make sure we're clear about the concepts. And then once we've done that, once we've not tried to hide the fact that we're actually making very controversial claims by means of a kind of conceptual hocus pocus. What do I mean by that? I mean say, well, these all of these things are violent, so therefore they're off limits. I just don't think that's very nuanced with this abrogate, the concept of violence. Think about what it really means, and now we can begin to start answering the kind of question you're posing, which requires, of course some real hard thinking about the relationships between, you know, the sorts of sorts of actions that people are taking and the possible consequences. Yeah, it's a great question. I really haven't I haven't thought about enough, even though it does it in the background. Actually, I mentioned some of the climate change protests and yeah, I mean, they, they will talk about violence against nature. Clearly. It's kind of a sidetrack that in my discussion, so thank you. And maybe Gabriela, if I may, I just I really found your comments very illuminating. There's another question. Yes. I'll be very quick. I will just say I'm not sure. I don't I don't think we disagree, but I'm not sure. It's a matter of having different wallets necessarily, but it seems to me you're the lawyer. I'm not. But my understanding any legal system is there's always going to be a measure of discretion in terms of how well has a reply. And so you see this very clearly in how civil disobedience is treated. So there are not, there's no law on the books that I know of, which basically says, here's a special category of law-breaking. We call it civil disobedience, right? I mean, maybe there is somewhere, but I don't think there isn't the United States. Certainly. But what happens then is prosecutors, judges, juries, you know, when you can make the case, that civil disobedience want to make that what they have done is not ordinary criminality. It's in the public interest, and here's why it's in the public interest. That has repercussions, right. In terms of how the prosecutor proceeds, penalties and so on and so on. I mean, you're seeing this now there's some really interesting cases of climate change activists who were using the idea of a climate emergency to say that they actually use a kind of necessity defense. It's fascinating to try to push back against those who want to sanction them severely. So I think that's probably the way to go versus I'm not sure. We'd maybe I misunderstood. Yeah. I don't think we want a law saying I don't how we would do that. A law saying allowing some statues to pin down versus others, that that would be very difficult, it seems to me. So it's more a matter of how the laws applied. I mean, some of them, I mean, this is a big lot. It has to be done at some of the people I was talking about in this debate would disagree with I think your assumption and my assumption that there should be some sort of legal sanctions. I mean, they're essentially anarchists who think if you have a right to be sorts of actions, That's the end of the story. I mean, I, I don't, I think we have to make some complicated distinctions here. Between, let's say, something which is normatively permissible, something which is legal, illegal, something which politically makes sense. And there's a lot of different levels on which we have to argue and we have to think about these things. But thank you so much for your, for all the comments so far. They've all been great. Lutetium and for us, Yes. Thank you so much failed for your answer. I believe we don't have an answer. This is very new to me. However, we can eat areas in the political discourse. But the law is sometimes have their hind social reality and it asks, able to adapt to social reality. Now, I will read the comments. Congratulations to both beakers for dealing with such current and future issues. In both cases, we question the ways in which the West as defined, rather restricted manner. Fortunately, it's a lynch CHO cell count. Since the 18th century, Montesquieu dissipates the important of legislating with certain geographical and cultural nuances and is a case of Williams presentation. We see that this new ancestor are also important when analyzing protest on local scale industry. Questions for both of you. In such a fast moving world, legislative bodies of countries have the capacity to keep up with the speed of change. Well, this has to do with just made Please go ahead saline. Bill. Posterior gammas. And I can start our, Can, the allegedly legislative bodies adapt to such a fast-changing world? Well, it's their destinies, what they're trying to do. But we must distinguish different types of evolution of the law. Multiscale use to defend a little less than that also. But the idea of certain stability of the law. It's not because society is changing and certain details that the law should do run after our society. But there are fundamental changes. For instance, family law. This was really strong recently authorization of medically assisted procreation. So everything around bioethics, for instance, have raised many questions. And the law is changing quite fast on those topics which can create issues. For instance, looking at a very controversial issue prohibiting the death penalty in France. This was past when the Minister of Justice downtown negotiated it. It was a time where the society was not in favor. It's not an evolution of the law to meet social expectation. This preceded a change in the public opinion on this issue. So my perception of this is that the law should not always reflect the majority opinion in society. And I want to insist on this because what Professor sugar mine told us, there must be controversies in the philosophy of the law on fundamental issues. Sometimes good decisions are taken. They did not necessarily reflect the majority of society, but these are quite fine questions on law, philosophy, and I'll just say establishment felt washed, be. Yeah, just very, very briefly. I mean, partly my response. Maybe these conversations they're wonderful to have, but they're also still difficult, right, with the technology yet. So I'm not quite sure I understood Gabriele and maybe I wasn't clear, but partly I think my answer or response to Gabrielle is really interesting comments. I think also speak to this question, right? So I don't think it's a good idea to legalize some of these things that protests you to killing. I just, I mean, there are reasons why we have property to the right. There are reasons why we don't allow certain acts of vandalism while we don't allow just statues to be torn down, good reasons, right? So I don't really think this is a question of the law on catching up in terms of legislation. Although yes, perhaps one could do better in terms of, let's say the criminal code, maybe Gabrielle is right about this, right. But one way we do know that the law does adjust is in the way that I was talking about, right? That you allow prosecutors, judges, juries a measure of discretion, guided discretion as a way of, you know, that's a way in which to go back to the question about Locke. Locke's idea of prerogative power was that there are moments in which the written rules are going to be out of date. They don't really deal with the particular crises at hand now. And that's, that's not quite what I'm talking about, but it's similar in the sense that if you do things, some of these rules that people are now protesting are out of date. One way to deal with this is to at least appreciate and to think about the kind of discretion that we'll have to operate in terms of the enforcement of the rules. This isn't a creative argument. I'm just repeating something a lot of smart people have been saying for a while, a fellow by the name of Ronald's work in a very famous legal philosopher who spent a lot of time thinking about how legal systems should respond to acts of civil disobedience. And this is essentially his answer. I mean, it really needs to deal with them differently without necessarily changing the law. There are good reasons why some of these things should remain illegal. So I don't think that's always the issue. Look, I agree, bill. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. But what I saw in this protest feminist approaches, is that there was very strong political the Oscars against the women who had damage public property, which a crime is considered a crime. And it changes whether it's a fake crime or a federal crime. But It is included in our code, in our legal codes, however, be political. This course criminalized women, even though I believe that's where this distinction between politics and legislation is important. And a Y at the end of the day. These type of protests, I've not worked against the level of impunity here in Mexico regarding base female murders. I believe this discussion could go on, but I believe it's important to include this differentiations in the political discourse. Because even in a pacifist, many patients are protests. We have different groups here in Mexico. There are pacifist groups and then other groups that have nothing to do with this pacifist. Whoops, I will continue with the next question to Professor shy woman. Thank you for your presentation. In France recently, there have been protests. A lot of properties damages people, and especially there have been already damaged. Again, symbols of wealth. Luxury stores, for example, beef property damages to express anger symbolize anger, but did not fight against an ID. For example, colonialism, white supremacy, et cetera, or damaged property that intentionally symbolized ideas. Do you think that the thought of property damage or legitimate and productive? So this is a great question for a lot of reasons because it allows me I may not answer it unfortunately, but it'll ask me to clarify one of the nuances which I think is really difficult to understand, right? So, and it's hard to communicate. So for example, let me just try to lay it out. If you go and look at theories of civil disobedience. Somebody like John Rawls, this very famous liberal philosopher. It's very complicated because what he's doing is he's laying out, on the one hand, some rather abstract conditions for what he would view as potentially legitimate acts of nonviolent civil disobedience within the context, he says that what he called the nearly just society, a liberal society. Okay? Um, and then at the end of this very famous chapter, he's, he very clearly says, well, you know, even if you've met these conditions, the act and I tried to say the same thing. They might not be very smart. You know, the cause could be wrong. It could, this could be something which is being done by somebody who and principles not committed to advancing a liberal political vision, right? White supremacist, let's say, who engages in nonviolent civil disobedience and says, look, we could do at Martin Luther King's doing and what's going on as you have kind of a level. And that's sort of the level at which I was also arguing. So here are some conditions that we should think about. So first of all, here's some conceptual features of violence. Here's why those conceptual features, if we get them right, should change the way we think about protests fundamentally, that's the first step. In the second step was to say, and here are some conditions we, we really should think about people having to meet. Okay? Now, I would say that for better or for worse, that has to be a pretty abstract argument, which is only going to get you so far in thinking about specific cases. So I think to answer the specific question about friends, one would have to have a sense of all kinds of complicated things that are happening in France right now. The history of these protests were protests. Interrupt you before I can weigh in and say, yeah, that's the right thing to do. What I could do as a political theorist is say, Okay, here are these conditions that I laid out. Have they been met? Right. Based on your example, I'm a little I would say suspicious, but I'm a little surprised and I'll tell you why. Because in the US, maybe this is just a kind of US-centric view the world we've had very similar protests. I mean So, but they were in the aftermath of Black Lives Matter, where protesters went into luxury neighborhoods outside of LA or New York City. And I did very similar things directed at luxury stores. And with the idea being, and some of them tried to communicate this, were criticizing the ways in which racism is tied to economic inequality and capitalists. And I mean, he's a radical approach, as you said, there was an attempt. To make a political statement, I mean, maybe it wasn't a very clear one, right? Are very effective one. So it sounds as if I'm reading this correctly, that political message was even more diffuse. I mean, I would say certainly, I don't think politically running out of time, but politically prompt. I've been talking about politically motivated property damage. The question of what's political itself is something that's going to be contested. Know, I might have one just goes and smashes a window and then three weeks later says, I'm angry about the world. I mean, I'm not sure we would classify that as well. We have to distinguish it from other two examples of politically motivated as a very clear political agenda which is being communicated to the public. So again, I think this is why I said I'm not going to answer your question pretty well. I think it depends on all that I've been able to do is really very cautious. Preliminary way begin to lay out a structure for people to think about these kinds of issues. And we'll get an e-mail if you agree about the structure, we're going to disagree. I suspect about, because we sit in different places in a pluralistic society. We sit in different places ideologically, right? So that's where it gets complicated. We're running out of time, but it's a great question. I thank you for that as well. Tms gracias. Thank you so much, Bill. Thank you so much for lean. We are it's ten o'clock right now. Mexico City. We appreciate all of you, your presidents. I believe this event, two hours with our expert is just the beginning because this invites us to read them, to reconsider what they have product about how contemporary topics arm, how we heat it. To analyze this from political supremacy and logical point of view, we need to read the classics. Rousseau, for example, who are very current, and then give us different perspectives and answers to current problems. And of course, the topic of doctor billed as thin profoundly. Cause. We must think about this, parallels these courses with which oftentimes generate a thought of division. Within societies. There's a lot of anger because there is a lot of inequality. There is a very interesting book about inequalities. The l can pull the elixir mu. It's a great book by a British sociologist. And we can practically see how society is angry. Because this inequality creates this anger and this protest. Or whether it's politically correct. I believe we need to continue studying these topics. I really appreciate University of Indiana, foreground university and our Center of Studies in Paris. And also everyone who collaborated here in unum Albert book I read. I don't want to be I don't want to avoid mentioning all of you that participated this morning with us this evening. For some of you, I don't want to be rude, but recordings will be available in all three languages. And so we can continue to think about these topics which are personal to all of us. I don't know if you have some final remarks. Bill and Selene. Thank you very much. Well, it atlas of states. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much, everyone for coming. Today was a great pleasure to meet you. Thanks. Bye-bye. Thank you. Gabriele very much enjoyed the comments. So yeah. My bias. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Thank you so much. Goodbye.

Description of the video:

Hey everyone. Welcome. Before we start, we would like you to know about the transition services available today. So if you are in your computer, click on this model that says interpretation. Then click on the non-Western your preference and the preference we have English and Spanish today. Many of us at the host does emphasize the misconception. Soda, no services. Anthropocene is plenty of instances then put that into your short in the skin injury or that HIEs found located you see depicted here. Then click I, II, III, and IV, magnesium iceberg. But it's yes, they are with animals as Hispanics, the vanitas. Good afternoon, everyone. It's my pleasure to welcome you to girl power. The final session of the series called Bad Girls. We intentionally named dead Bad Girls because we wanted to highlight the paradox of the lie that these young women live. One of the things that we know for sure is that they did commit a crime, but that crime is not the only thing that defines them. And so today, along with the Latin American celebration of the other Muertos, We are celebrating not the death itself, but the death of the life of crime. And we are celebrating the life that each of these young women has decided to create for themselves. Another thing that makes this a day special is that we are going to share some accomplishments that be a young women have provided for us. And I want to start with a poem written by a young woman that we've worked with in 2015. Please allow me to share their art. The title is call that after tomorrow. I could be Smiley today in crime. Tomorrow. The next day is the promise. So prepare for the sorrow. Why don't we let forever endeavor? Why do people die young when they could have with better? Is it my fault? Was either cause? People always say, I'm sorry for your loss. That is beauty. And beauty is pain. Losing someone makes life not the same. This can't be natural. We were created to live. Why did God let them die? That they receive what they get. Maybe I was from and it's all a Joe. If I open my eyes, they'll be right there at home eating pizza and getting our crazy. When I realized, no, there really dead. And I can't believe what they had told me. We've been more than trees. My eyes work the sea. I saw them yesterday. I just can't bully remorse at the funeral. And okay. The next day when someone brings up their names, you began to break break into pieces because you're still capillary bed crying to your mom. When you really mean Jesus. Dan, depth is to surprise. You never know who's next gonna die. So lift for the best and prepare for the worse. You never know who will be next in the dirt. So working where Incarcerated you, and particularly incarcerated women, makes my work a paradox because I mourn the loss of their freedom. And yet I rejoice in the promise that each of them looks forward to. I have the great fortune of being the director of the Hope mentoring program that allows us to how this young woman or this, you turn a page to a new leaf. And with me, I also have Dr. Weller, who is my I'm a partner in crime, also going to read clap the structures that are leading triggers. What about for power within girls? Thank you, Dr. Azra. So I want to welcome everybody to this session and give a brief recap of the work we've done up to this point. So working with the IU Global Gateway office in Mexico City and with their incredible support, we've offered a six month multinational media theories that examines the overlooked and marginalized experiences of girls involved with the criminal justice system from a global perspective. So our goal was to provide a series on the state of affairs for these girls within the juvenile justice system. And we identified six different themes that we talked about watching in June 2021. And I want to give you just a few minutes to talk about what each of these bars. So in June, we launched the series with panelists from the US, myself and Dr. Joi. And we talked about the scope of the problem and the theoretical framework that is associated with gross incarcerated. Specifically looking at the evil woman theory and the chivalry hypothesis. In July, our panelists came from Mexico, Costa Rica, and the United States. And they looked at issues facing an incarcerated girls in these three countries. Specifically, in August, our panelists are from Costa Rica, Costa Rica, and Colombia. And they discussed opportunities and challenges that we're facing. Adolescent mothers who are raising their children while incarcerated. In September, the panelists came from Mexico, Costa Rica, the United States. And the discussion was focused on mental health outcomes of incarcerated girls, with a specific focus on a case study from Mexico. In October, the session focused on the family supports for incarcerated girls. And the panelists are from Brazil, Costa Rica, and the United States. So you can see that we've spent a lot of time over the last six months discussing the lives and experiences of incarcerated girls from multiple perspectives. Which makes today's session very important because we have an opportunity to actually hear from a young woman who was incarcerated. So at this time, I would like to introduce Dr. Kate Aguilar. I've been helping us in her role as moderator for a number of these sessions. Dr. Aguilar is an assistant professor of African-American History at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota. She teaches a broad range of classes on different aspects of history with the intersection of race and ethnicity. And she has been moderating for us. I believe this is her fourth session that she has served as the moderator. And I'm very excited that she can be here with us for the grand finale. Welcome back to life. Thank you, Dr. Weller and welcome everyone. Today's theme, girl power is the culmination of the rich and insightful bad girl series that Dr. Weller wonderfully introduced. It's facilitated by the Global Institute of juvenile delinquency and Prevention in partnership, as she mentioned, with the Global Gateway network office. The series is focused on the experiences of incarcerated girls and today's conversation celebrates the work and dreams of those within the community. And I'm especially honored to introduce some RNA as a use panelists who will begin our conversation. And I'd like to welcome some RNA today into this as well as begin with having her tell her story. So some RNA, if you could begin by telling us a little bit about your life journey, what brought you to this moment and preparing you for today. Hello everybody. My name is Summer way in my life, journey in there. If those rough marginalize rough, you are times where at times when I want to give up, but when the whole team came in, I'm actually working with Dr. original. I'd like to work with lazy and all that. Then they started showing me right skills and stuff that you use outside of the program and things that will help me even being inside while I'm still incarcerated are things that will help me while I was outside. So working with film, my journey with delta a. How do I put this herb? I write this. I noticed I see myself, bro, after I got out, I notice my potential a lot and I see that I wasn't where I used to me before. And that helped me a lot when I got out because it set me in the past to work towards better things, do better things in. Now, see myself comp, accomplish a lot more, a lot of things actually, I don't want to be done when I was on inside. If it wasn't for hope, I wouldn't have been done. Thank you so much some RNA and we're so excited to have you today, to have your story, to have your creative work. As you mentioned, the whole mentoring program has been a really influential art of your life. And the whole mentoring program is a part of the larger Hope organization. So hope stands for helping offenders prosper through employment. And the mentors as a part of this program are really focusing on employment as suggested, but looking at all different aspects of that. So as the mRNA mentioned, not only preparing through mock interviews, creating what resumes are completing Java applications, but also building competence and soft skills like respect and goal setting. And really all of these things that are critical in the future workplace. And so we're really honored. An addition to invite each mRNA tab, Lizzie Chandler join us today and Lizzie is a, a mentor, somebody who mentor some RNA specifically. And who is here to really tell her story as a preschool teacher in the state of Washington, he teaches in multi-age head start classrooms. She volunteered with hope for over a year while she was an undergraduate student at Indiana University. She enjoys researching and presenting relevant information in a fun way to the mentee during regular expressions, which we'll talk more about today and carrying this relationship over. So Welcome Lizzy. We're excited to have you and we'd love to hear more about your story, mentoring some RNA, what you've gained from the whole mentoring program after getting some RNAs experience. Yeah. Thank you so much. So some RDA was my hope mentee. In our time together, most weeks we worked on employment based activities, but some weeks are quieter. We talked off topic and we're able to connect. Following her interests. I remember preparing materials for a Myers-Briggs quiz, which just reminds me of kind of the soft skills and other things we discuss the results. The results could mean or shape our understanding of ourselves and the work she may do. And one of our last sessions together, we did a mock interview. We took turns interviewing each other, both practicing interview skills and talking about how we make our answers. And we made a silly game a bit by interviewing for a variety of physicians to really think about how we structure our answers and what we wanted to get across. But what I remember most was how committed some idea was to understanding result but the world and how creative she is. And I appreciate her openness to working together. Yes, I do. Some RNA. Remember that you are a Scorpio. So I'm really excited to get to see the work that she has brought to share. And I'm so grateful to be here and for the relationships Marianne, I still have. Thank you so much Lizzy. I appreciate that and I know we're now going to actually move into some RNA sharing her drawings and their meaning and being able to really connect what hope mentoring is offered and that creative space as well. So smart and we'd love for you to share your art and talk with us about insignificant. And I'm going to have you unmute for me some RNA. Okay. My first argues is featured in the flyer. That's my DFS them what this girl and I drew the reason it was supposed to be a self-portrait at first. And then as more as I got into it and I started looking around at the girls that were around me. I wanted to give them a little bit more of an inspiration. And I wanted them to see some thing like this. People motivation when they can see a pretty girl in, they can look at her and be right. I want to be like her to argue that all the beautiful colors like that. So pretty. So while I was looking around at all the girls, as we reminded me, a lot of colorful people in here, they just didn't know. So I generally, what I was thinking is I'm very cold for it. I have to landmark colors show up, have to let people know why of its max is black and white, homage to fit its colors all around me on that. Absolutely. Everybody wants to understand your very colorful. It's more to you. Just suits the eye that everybody has. Layers upon layers upon layers upon their personalities and sometimes they're scared to let them know. Hey, I feel like as long as, you know someone is working towards being a better, just like how we weren't in there. That you can let your true colors show you the best person that you can be a reinvent yourself. You don't have to let anybody else tell you how to be. You can just be or stone. And that's pretty much like, well, my my patient stands for BYUI Colyer is Gs. Be yourself. Everything will work out. My second picture, the second drawing. Many of the flower at the Fed there. It stands for a peaceful journey. Flowers to me, they bring the piece. I don't know about anyone else. I don't know if they bring them peace either, but that's why I was thinking when I was on this picture shows is peaceful and then the for the feather of feathers is lightest area. And just like the feather, when you fall down, billing is done to carry back to where, wherever it's going. It's on a journey. Just like us people were on a journey. And sometimes we need people to pick us up when we're down. So the federal represents that person or even your own willpower That's then help you get back up on your feet to be everywhere, get to where you need to go on your journey. So that's what that represents. My final die. That was for my daughter. Soon as I've doghouse have my baby girl. I knew what I wanted to know where the named Peanut just stuck in my brain. And now that I look at my big girl, it is the perfect picture for because she just has such a big, big, big personality. She's really sweet. She's very lovable. She's my little peanut and I will now has drawn the picture. I wanted her to have something that she can end up in her room. And when she looks at it. So know that even if sometimes Mommy can always show you I love you or sometimes I might have a problem. Tell you I love you. Just look at this picture, know that mama loves you or anything in the world. And that's where I learned my big in that slide you, that picture is really beautiful. And if you don't mind, as long as you were talking, I was writing down words that came to mind as I was looking at your R, as I was listening to your story. And the three that really came to mind was this idea of growth, transformation, and inspiration. And it just seems to highlight all the three from the growth of your daughter to the, the growth and transformation of a flower to this idea of the wind. I mean, just really powerful imagery. And they'd love to hear more about how that whole experience and working with Lizzie and this really the moment after write the time when you're like, this is what I want to become. These are the next steps I want to take for the next chapter of my life. How did the whole program really shaped those, these pictures in the heart, that inspiration for you? Well, first, I'm not going to lie would know what the hook program I was one of those kids that that was a very social. So when it first came to a halt, when they put me together with Lizzie, I wasn't too keen on trying to get to know their duly first. But then as more as I got into the app where it Bob Hope, I started noticing that like, okay, these things are going to help me. And I started noticing that Dr. Ochoa, Lizzie, they're not bad people. So I decided to actually give hope and good Lizzie, about Gulch, I'll try it. I'm glad I did because actually helped me out in the long run. I've noticed like we're not die out because I was in there and they're young age. I was incarcerated at a very young age. So I missed a lot of like home skills it right. This people skills, things that you normally are learned throughout those years. I didn't get to pick up on any of that. So with the whole program did familiarity and I was working with Lizzie. She helped me catch up on some of those things that I should have been learning. It was still hard getting out because I didn't have all the skills that I still to this day, there's still things that I'm working on, but I can say that coming out of hope in working with Lizzie, adopt alcohol, are there so many skills that they have taught me that had survived to this day. I'm grateful. I'm very grateful because honestly, without those skills, I don't know where it will be. I will probably be in a really bad situation right now. And I'm just thankful that there actually is people out there that care like burped originally envisioned that this program is in place because if he can help me, I know it can help anybody else. I appreciate that so much that I want to bring Lizzie back in actually because thinking of your comments, Let's just talk and share our experiences looked at and growth and transformation. Did you personally experience from working with some RNA and from the program? Because I know it's just as powerful for your life that imagery that some RNA share students. Yeah. I found working with incarcerated youth. Sometimes. I was just in a situation that was new to me. And so it really challenged my arm. Bias says. And it just overall was a new experience. And I found myself as well trying to, like somebody said to you, I was nervous at first, you know, working with some RNA and we didn't know each other and, and being in such like a four-wall mentor-ship position. And so I also found myself working on my communication skills and trying to build a relationship with someone new and being open. So a yeah, really working on relationships and connections with somebody I felt that grows through our time together and in the program. I appreciate you saying that so much because I think that's very true, right? It's a reciprocal relationship. Everyone's nervous and learning and growing. And that's what I think is so powerful about some heart his art is it shows her self empowerment, but it also really speaks to how the environment grows around for as long, which is really beautiful. So now I'd like to actually invite you to share, we're going to share a short video from using close to Riga to also add to and enrich this conversation. Many of them and then they got him evils, me Sangre, be an, even able to do them and that they have this Agile or they haven't, isn't being done in theta and the rhythm them in thermoset in the BIM. But they mean the Niigata got the good income and they, are they doing the sodium? Solute them in. They got down the taming. Hello, schedule them. Forgive me, I don't dumb. In the Mentimeter rotundum and the most dangerous arrow. And now we'll have some RNA share a poem in addition to her artwork. Okay. The poem is called where we will go from here. Michael Jackson said, if you're black or white, it they'll manage. So don't fight your friends, fight for your life. Because all those racial slurs, hateful words will take you to that. Grabbed them, make you burn it. Just thinking now, no, not me. Keep walking on a path to us. You will see how hard it is to read like the past. Where do we go from here? Believe in love, live for today and find your dream like MLK Day, he had a dream that you and I will come together one day and night. My past is nothing but a shame. Great, sham bright, let the guy might say, because we're all the same. There's nothing there for a baby. Because we're all the same. There's not indifferent on past the past. I started with it. Get what I'm saying and I hope you listen. Let our children pick up from the Better ended. And I say, go ahead and start today. There's still amazed her at the sun shines. And just see where we will go through here. Yay. Okay, Wonderful. Yeah. The creative process that went into that poem. Tell us what, what inspired it from the stories you included to the singing. Obviously, I mean, there's some really beautiful imagery from the civil rights movement. So talk to us about what that poem, guns, how that came to you, how it ends. It all started. It was supposed to be a school project where I was incarcerated. Project or English teacher had us working on and I kind of stopped in the middle of it because we oh, I guess we didn't have time to do whatever we're doing. So League ended up doing some different by lid back the alcohol is asking me if I had any new forms or anything to present. The only thing I could think about was this because especially like for our topic, like how she was saying, you know, forget the past, like basically forgive we did our passes, the pads. And now we're living for now, half the width for now, you have to keep on moving. We can't just keep looking back and looking back on what we did wrong in keeping ourselves in the dark and being depressed about it. We have to keep ourselves motivated. We have to keep moving because those aren't. So we have to go on. It doesn't matter what other people say about us. As always, we shall bill, um, hey, it's cheaper, find me by my mistake. Then. That's clear-eyed that I'm doing now, committed to my colors. So you can throw that right on my rainbow. Yeah, there are no bearing on my learning, Margaret. Well, that'll let it go. Let it be colorful. I let everybody see that, hey, I'm somebody different and I will let you I'll let you take that firm will I will let you tell me that. I'm not the sum RNA that I know. I love that and I, before I open it up to everyone professions, it actually makes me think of a question that I have some RNA. I love, don't program, I write mode of thinking of that. Thinking of your life, sir, What is the biggest lesson that you now want to impart to your daughter from this experience and from the hope program. What's, what is your kind of big takeaway is that as you talk so much about the future, right, Moving forward, looking for it. And I know that she's a big vision of moving forward. And so what what would you like to tell her or what do you what do you hope to impart to her from this? I want you to know that no matter how light gets, no matter what those ADI life, no matter how bad things, mostly, there's always a silver lining. There's light, there's no reason to give up into that point where I just said I didn't want to go on. I don't want my guarded. And so like thou want her to know that there's life beyond, you know, the bad things that happen. There's times where you are going to make mistakes, but it's up to you to fix those mistakes. If you can't fix and it's up to you to change yourself around. So everybody knows, hey, that's me, I made a mistake and I don't want to talk to the family by that. I want everybody to see that this is who I am and that's not who I am. So I want her to know that no matter what you love. Yes, this then solid for herself because sometimes she have anybody else there might just be heard if she's going to have to fight through that. And I don't I wouldn't want her to just feel like she's a while, but there aren't going to be times where I'm not going to be able to come through or my mom or grandma, or maybe even her sister, her brother. But as long as you know, she's resiliently, she knows that she's strong. She'll bend spectrum. That's beautiful. Thank you so much. Thank you for sharing your story and thank you Lucy for sharing yours. And now I'm going to open it up to the audience for questions for smart, nay, for Lizzie, um, about the whole program. More broadly, we'd love to hear your thoughts. The question for you. If you could be a mentor, if you could go back and take on the role as a mentor in the facilities, what would you what would you bring to your mentee? What would you bring to your mentee? The way that the Z came in and helped you? I think we lost her. Two. Actually, I She's coming back. I was thinking to to your question, Nicky, having gone through that experience, Lizzie, what else would you break now that you've that you've been there and that you've experienced as a whole bunch mentor. And actually, I'm going to table that question. We'll let someone to answer Nikki is and then I'd love to hear kind of your follow-up as you've had time away and also really thought about the experience more in depth. So go ahead smartly, did you hear Dr. Eulers question? I'll now I deny. That's okay. I'll repeat it. So my question for you assigning was, if you could go into the facilities with the girls and be a mentor, what would you what lessons did you bring? What what type of mentoring and what would you say to the girls if you could be a mentor to a youth, what would you say? If I can be a mentor? I will let them know that. Okay. Yes, it tyre being here right now. And for the experience being in there with younger females, yet, they're going to be a little bit more hot-headed and hard-headed. But I'll just try to let them know. Hey, there, they're skills that you can learn in here that will help you out Saturday. And I'm probably going to come across a couple of people that's going to be just like hanging on. So I'm going to have to reinvent the way that I approach them. Like how lazy did with me. She noticed I like a lot of art stuff or a lot of stuff that involve music and poetry is so those are the type of things that I wouldn't cooperate with working with the girls or even just anybody can make it, you know, make them want to do a more, make it a little bit more fun, get them a little bit more motivated. Just so they know, just so they can have those skills to carry on outside. That's wonderful. Thank you. And Lizzy, I love to ask that question to you as well. I mean, going back in and having had the time away to think about and process the experience, is there anything that you would add to what you did or that you would necessarily change, but just stick to enrich the experience overall. I think that I kind of in the same vein of some RNA, I feel like leaning much more into the young women's interests and how to make our time together a little bit more engaging. And some time away now after I'm in education. And so learning a lot more about building relationships, I feel like I would bring that in as well to start off sessions to build some trust because it can be very strange like two people meeting for the first time, saving relationships and creativity. Thank you and smarter we have another question. What was the most difficult hurdle you had to jump when returning home and back into your community. For me, it was a lot more ADH socialism. Like when I got out every day, it was pretty much way different than it was before I went in and I noticed that I was alive, more nervous around people expression like older people might also a lot more nervous like just being around people in general because there were so many things that they do throughout those years and I was used to being around crowds and all that stuff. So one of my biggest hurdles was getting used to being back out in society again by Mike, okay. You know, there's no one that's going to tell me, Hey, it's time to come eat or Hey, it's time the bear, Hey, it's time to shower. There's no land is then cook for me. I had to cook for myself. Say thing like with housing and stuff like that. Our kids live here just weren't free. There's bills to pay now. So there are things like that. I had to think about it overall is a little bit stressful. But I ended up getting Amarna see it in myself and draw in all of that. So it was a it was a little audits of me feel might get the hang of it. But I would say that was one of my biggest things is trying to fit back into society after I got out. When drinking. Tracy, did you have a question? Did and I, before I ask the mRNA a question, I want to just thank some RNA for inspiring the hope program to, to grow with you. Some RNA has been with the program from its very, very bird. And we have been growing together some RNA. I, I personally want to tell you that the same way you say that Lizzie and I in the whole program helped you. You inspire us. You inspire us to do better each day. And one of the things I remember clearly from when you got out was that you were looking for jobs and you tended to underplay your success. So the can you please tell us how you started your first job and that big promotion that you got that you told me, see, Oh, it's no big deal, but we thought it was the biggest deal apparatus. Okay. So I am it was my very first job working at KFC and a little bit made you after maybe two or three months of me being there, the the manager came to me and he goes, Do you want to be a manager? Have you ever been a manager? And I was like no, he's like, Well, you catch on, so click in here. Just so good with the customers. Like We really want you to be a manager. So I was like, okay, you know, I believe that's more money in my pocket. So they started crazily and everything to become an editor. And I was really excited about it because it was somebody that was before me. I kind of felt bad. It was people in there to hide. It will be more experience than I will weigh more experience than I did. And I know one of the girls like Sheila shouldn't be Manager to it. They ended up asking me so she kind of felt like a little upset about it. But I was just like, I can't I can't help that I have learned click, catch on to everything way too fast. That's what my manager was noticing. It. Even a district manager herself at me. He asked me if I was a manager. The first time I met him, he asked me was I'm integer and that's what it was like all well, she needs to be one of our majors. You're going to train her. But that's how that looks. Let me excited. And I was like, wow, like I die on here and I've just learned all this, all this just so quick. And now I'm being asked to be a manager. They kind of blew my mind a little bit. Yeah, There gloom. I'm I right here. Actually, I just wanted to draw your attention some RNA. We just find an individual, right, and the chat, but it's truly awesome as you are. The reason I do and I do because your story is so inspiring and rejuvenating to say you can see the impact and effects. As Dr. Julia said, on a number of people write, your story really is inspiring. Kim. Thank you. Any questions? Any question? If I may use the time, I want to read another poem from the book that was published in 2015. And maybe this will generate some questions or some comments. And then I want to settle to read the word that is available in the Spanish language for someone like some RNA. So let me, let me read the poem. And this one is called breaking the cycle. That you really think it was okay for the drugs. More important than me. Like choosing a cigarette over your last breath. Was, I am a steak. You wanted to erase or was I but kid, you couldn't take that. He the burning across my face, like the hot tears that you put there. Why is this normal thing for me? The hunger that strikes me every day when I had a price to pay. The nausea that comes up when I'm so empty that I am for the hunger isn't anger. It, the hunger is an angry tiger CLI, at your stomach. Why do I have to feel this way? Why, why? Why couldn't I have stay and stayed in a place where I was cared for, love and not scared. I am not going to be like this. I am going to overcome your hurdles. I and mature. I am strong, I am independent, I am not like you. I am going to break the cycle you created for me. This was from a young woman who was incarcerated. Also. You can pick an open-loop, have the GDC. So the way in, in Spanish we call it she learned because he who is strong, which is Mark, please intelligent and who can do everything. And so we pretend this to ascend to a close family member. We don't say that to my boss or something. This is just a format. Yeah. So you're preaching or net N because I know Spanish and because we're celebrating girl power, I'm going to be a little more crass than Lazarro is because the direct translation porch and go Nah, us mRNA is bad ass. So somebody, I have another question. What's your what's your next steps? Where where's your path leading to what are your goals? Oh, well, right now, I just got back a little. I retake and I got my C number the other day. So on you are a registered for my classes and stuff. I am looking forward to try to get another job because I've been out of work due to my kids and I hadn't babysitter. So I'm going to try to get back working and are discharged, get the money that flaw in your house because you know, k is going to be taken care of. But my goal is to eventually get a new job, finished my spooling, it. Just make sure I my babies are okay right there. My biggest focus. So I just got made sure that my kids are going to be okay, that they're all say they can eat that. We're going to have a shelter over our head and everything. So yeah. Right now, I think I'm just gonna work is work on finishing school. They lack and get a degree or certificate or something. And that can help me get a better job. So I can bring in money for my kids and I, and we actually, and this goes great with the question about goal setting. Had another question come in. And it is, what is the moment you realized your life could be different and that you deserve to be a success story. So this person is really thinking through in their work with incarcerated US and other use. What was that moment for you and how can they help others find that moment? My mom it for me. Really when I had my first baby, honestly, my daughter. That's when everything hey, it like I have somites right now. It's not just me. It's me. Her and she's not going to be depending on anybody but me. Look up to me and expect me to have all the answers. So I was like, I have to do something in order to show her that, you know, mom is it just got to sit around and let anything bad happens to you. Mom isn't just that let life waste the way ahead to better myself for my child. Just so like I think about it in his day light will all three of my kids, I act. There's certain things. I'm still working on it every day, but I'm just trying to show them how to be weighed as they start growing, as they get older, teaching the people skills that I don't know. So yeah, that's what I hear. When I figure out the change. The things that I was doing it in, maybe a couple of kids later is still k like, Oh, I need to change this. I need to change that you're going to be figuring out your whole entire life. There's days that you're done, come across, where are you going to run into bumps in a row? You're going to be thinking, Oh, what can I do to get over there? So it's not just the what suitable me on what's in them, like, you know, thing. That's going to pop up in your life at all times where sometimes you do have to change route just to get on a better one. Cilia and it was when it really hit home, means my kids. 101 of their follow-up questions was how they can reach different youth populations. And I want you to answer that, but also to connect you and loses answer. It sounds like it really is getting to know what people's interests are and what their liberation is. And so for you, as you said with your children knowing what Dr. Somebody, um, and being able to tap into that. But I also want if there's any any other advice you can offer this individual who's working with us like yourself, going through tough situations and looking to create a better future. How can they reach those, those and inspire those? I would say, get created like, well what else? Created by benefits, you know, bring in a couple of crayons and markers, paper and send it down in front of me, like, Hey, URLs, draw me a picture or something that makes you happy. And then after they draw the picture, something that makes them happy. Tell them write a poem or write a story about why that makes them happening throughout. Like the creative, like to get creatively process, like working with them and stuff like that. That's how you're going to get to know them. A little bit more barely some kids, yes, it will be harder to talk to because of the things that they've been through. It. You just have to strategize a most of that comes with creatively music. Kids, everybody loves music. But it seems like, you know, when you're in a struggle, especially for kids, stuff like art and music are the things that we latched on to the most. Sometimes you just need a listening ear. So sometimes you know, you just come in and be like, Hey, stop bothering you. You want to talk about if you were to write it down or you try to figure out themes that, you know will help you get to know them better. Don't force it on him though. I'm trying to force something on somebody when they're not ready to move just yet is going to make them fall back. Tense that no further. So don't try to force it on. You got a That'll work little nest, how you get your progress. Thank you so much. And we actually just had another question come in about what are you going to school for? Once your L1? I want to do businessmen do. Wonderful. Where do you see yourself in a few years? Once when you envision it, what would you like to do with the degree? Our own Mao global business, but that's not the only business our own BY there's LET is it just the beauty business, cosmetic business necessity I want to do, I want to start Molly Cosmetics businesses in another quote and y, which allows you to tap into your creativity and all these. Did you did you have any question? I have a a shout out for grandma. When we asked some RNA what the moment was that turned her life around. One of the things that we have learned in working with youth, like some RNA, bad, they're not alone. They have a huge system. That's the family. And I think if we need to reach out to anyone in the community, it is mRNAs family because they're loving and on grandma fed last month when your child, when your grandchild IS incarcerated. So as the whole family EMI the same token or some RNA returned to the community and she finished serving her sentence and she was free, though was the family. And so the Sandra asked What we can do to how you and that is by reaching out and supporting in and celebrating all of the help that the family gets to that individual. I think we have the glory of this, our recovery or so. But it gave work in grandmother in grandpa cousins in the mass there, day in and day out. Yes. I totally agree with that. Right toe. Reach grandma's rock. Yeah. So I'm so I'm so proud of her right now. Would be so proud of her. Right. And I'm just so happy about the whole program because we're here right now because the whole program at my hardest Smiley, I'm so happy about that, that it's kind of the help and her saying that I am already grandma would like it, but that's okay. That's okay. She slowly making progress and the whole program is still helping her navigate. And I'm so thrilled about the whole program. And I just wish every girl could have the opportunity and a chance with the whole program. Like my girl, they could terrorism things around for their girls. Market is from my girl. Because when you turn things around for that person that you love, that's been incarcerated, you turn things around for the family. And that's what is the ultimate goal, is to let that person be a light to her family. That was in a dark place because in some stuff that happened because of her. So now it's her time to shine it in when she's shy, ask tonight. So thank you, Dr. Ochoa and the whole program. That's all. You are. Very welcome. Thank you. Well, thank you all for sharing your story. Thank you both. And thank you, Lizzie, and I know as we conclude today,