 Thank you everyone for joining article 19 for this event on crackdowns on freedom of expression and their relationship with global democracy. This is being held in the context of the global democracy coalition forum as a site events can precursor to the US summit for democracy that's upcoming. So thank you all for being able to join us and for listening into the conversation today. We're really fortunate to have some amazing people to chat with. First Shahidul Alam is a Bangladeshi photojournalist teacher and social activists. He's been a photographer for more than 40 years and his photographs have been published in almost every major Western media outlet. In 2018, he was arrested and detained shortly after giving an interview to Al Jazeera and posting live videos on Facebook that criticized the government's violent response to the 2018 Bangladeshi road safety protests. He was named Time Magazine one of Time Magazine's persons of the year in 2018. We're also joined by Denise Dora, who is a director of article 19 in our Brazil and South America office with several publications on women's rights, human rights and civil society. She's a human rights activist and a lawyer committed to combating gender and socioeconomic inequalities in Brazil by increasing women's access to the justice system. Prior to article 19, she was a founding member of TEMIS, a gender justice and human rights organization. And finally, we have Dr. Safan Lindberg, who's a Swedish social scientist and the principal investigator and director of the Variety Democracy or VDM Institute at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, a publication that's been responsible for some incredibly interesting information over the past few years about the relationship of different elements of democracy to the overall decline or the rise in autocracy. So thank you all very much for being able to join us today. We'll start off with just some brief introductory remarks and then try and have a bit more of a dialogue and a conversation between us on this really important topic. So just to start with, you know, crackdowns and attacks on freedom of expression are often a precursor to authoritarianism. And yet this fundamental right underpins the very practices that define democracy. The ability of citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable and to express their political preferences, including by accessing information and forming opinions depends on protecting freedom of expression. Yet even as the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored just how important it is to have accurate and reliable information, it's also provided a cover for governments to restrict this right and punish those who use it. This decline we've seen is often regarded as a regrettable symptom of democratic erosion, instead of perhaps a precursor. And so interventions to stop the decline in democracy may actually be incorrectly focused. These are some of the issues that we're going to explore today. So just to start off as well, two out of every three people in the world right now, according to article 18's global expression report, are living in countries that are highly restricted or experiencing a freedom of expression crisis more than any time in the last decade. In fact, even in the past three years, we've seen the number of countries that are actively threatening freedom of expression increased from 19 to 32. The global environment continues to decline, it's at its lowest score in the past decade. And in the last year, we saw significant drops in the scores around protest and public participation, terms of our global index on expression. These are two key elements of freedom of expression and democracy is a whole that are under threat. Yet our report has revealed that rather than focusing on controlling the virus, public health and governments have focused on using the pandemic as an excuse to suppress critical information to implement states of emergency without proper limits, and to place unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on the media. In fact, two thirds of all countries imposing restrictions on the media during the pandemic. Sorry, two thirds of countries that did this impose restrictions on the media in relationship to the pandemic, in terms of controlling the overall information flow. Instead of focusing on health measures, they focused on suppressing critical reporting and political oppositions during this period, particularly around the election. Populous governments have continued to threaten democracy by attacking the free press. So that's what we have seen from article 18 view and our report, which is based I should say in part on the data that comes from the VDM index. So, so thank you very much stuff on for all the work that you and your team do on that. So I wanted to start off with this opening question for all of you. And maybe stuff and I'll start with you. What is this relationship that you see between freedom of expression and the rise of autocracy. Now, what does the data say, and what do our own experiences show. So stuff on if I could turn to you and speak a bit from your perspective as the principal investigator for VDM. Thank you very much, Quinn. And thanks for inviting me to be part of this important conversation. As we, the whole world, I would say is moving moving towards the Biden summit and what will follow and unfold in the in the coming year under that umbrella. Freedom of expression generally and freedom of the media in particular are integral to any understanding of democracy. There's one of the sort of conceptual innovations that Robert Dahl did already back in 1971 and saying and showing that you can really have, I mean, you can really speak of free and fair elections being democratic unless you also have alternative sources of information, as he called it. So it's it's unthinkable that we can have an informed public and that we can have accountability that works if the media is not free to report on what the government is actually doing. So that's just a very fundamental point. I think that's also the reason why we see that the country's undergoing auto-criticization now in the world and over the past 20 years, starting with Putin in Russia in 98 99. One of the first things they always do is attack the media, constrain the space for media to operate, defund or de-legalize outlets that are not being sensitive to what the government want them to say and not to say. Call them foreign agents. You can go down the line and you mentioned some of the measures they are taking. And we've seen this pattern clearly from Russia and then going on to the former Soviet republics and then countries like Hungary, Poland, Erdogan in Turkey, of course, already in 2006, 2007, Prime Minister Modi in India, Bolsonaro in Brazil attacking journalists increasingly and enforcing at least self-censorship. So it is a precursor, I would say, to more what should I say, auto-criticization that attacks the more core institutions like free and fairness of elections, election management bodies, judiciary and so on. That usually comes later. So media being a precursor to those sorts of attacks. But it's also sort of a symptom, because when the media is undermined and freedom of expression in general and especially of the media is constrained and undermined and compromised, then auto-criticization has already started. That's kind of an interesting point that you're that you're making there that the authorization process has already started. So what would you say is one of the lessons that we can take from looking at the sequencing that you've seen in terms of the data coming out of the kind of process in terms of what might be interventions made at what point that could feed into that response, an effective response to auto-criticization? Yeah, it's, I think it's a very difficult area because, well, first of all, we see this in in all the countries I mentioned, but I could add, as you as you said, another 32 or can add up to 32 countries where we've seen in the last 10 years, freedom of the media has been seriously compromised. And in our terms, there are statistically significant changes and substantially important. It's typically censorship efforts. It's typically attacks on journalists that write critically about the government. Putin went as far as killing journalists very early in the process in Russia. Other other countries are not as active on the killing front, but use other means. We have all these reports about Bolsonaro's agents in Brazil visiting journalists that write critically about the government and threaten them with we know where your kids go to school. Maybe they want to go to university someday. Maybe they can't. We know where your spouse work. Maybe your spouse wants to have work tomorrow as well. Maybe the spouse won't. That's sort of tactics. Now, all these sort of underhand hidden ways of attacking the media freedom makes it very difficult. They see bribery, of course, as well as another way to compromise editors and so on. And then the more, you know, so all these sort of behind the scenes type of actions are really hard to document and for other governments or international organizations to sort of do something about. And then you have the changing on media laws or as in Hungary creating a conglomerate of all the main news media and making them pro government. These foreign agent laws that also affect civil society. Of course, there you can you can protest and governments, other governments can protest. International organizations can protest. I don't see it having much of an effect on these countries. So I think it's really important that you and organizations like journalists about borders and amnesty and others as much as possible document what's what's happening. I use that for at least advocacy. But then in terms of sort of changing anything, I mean, if you're Hungary and Poland are part of the EU, so the EU could do more. I really would want you to do more and have acted much earlier on both Hungary and Poland. And now we see some pushback on that. But that's with the gross judicial system to uphold the rule of law. That's good. But they should have acted on the media. What can you do with with Modi in India? I'm not so sure. Not much. Right. It's a big powerful nation. Let's maybe turn a little bit to someone who has some experience had closer for talking about Modi and and also in Bangladesh. Shahidul, you I think you've seen the way that the government has used differing mechanisms, kind of control the press. So I wanted to see, first, if you had kind of a reflection based on the first question, you know, what what is the what do you see in terms of what's happening in Bangladesh and the relationship between kind of threats of democracy and threats on freedom of expression. You're on you're on mute. Sorry. Firstly, I think we need to dispel the notion that democracy is an aspiration for these governments. It never is. I think that's a fallacy. We need to get rid of because if you're going on the assumption that they're working towards democracy and failing to do so, we've made a fundamental error in in the motors up around it. Firstly, I think I'd like to mention that it's extremely rare to find a government anywhere in the world that does not espouse democracy and freedom and its rhetoric and actively work against it in his practice. That's the way they do it. And I, while I recognize what Stefan was talking about in terms of Putin doing what he did, I sitting where I am and horrified by what the US government, for instance, does and the EU does and I think we shouldn't forget that they they're very culpable in these situations as well. While we are trying to deal with an autocratic leader, we have France playing ball with her because they want to sell her weapons. These are international dynamics which need to be taken on board. In terms of what's happening now, it's a very interesting time that we are having this conversation. I was sitting on this chair on the fifth of August, 2018, when the students were protesting and I was documenting it and I got arrested in Georgia. Today, the students are back in the streets protesting because no change has taken place. Exactly the same things that were happening then. And this has to do with the fact that the minister himself is involved in the road transport. I mean, there is, there are so many contradictions, so many conflicts of interest, which is simply completely ignored by the system that we really have to look beyond merely changing people at the top. And there, I think what we have failed to recognize is that while our attention has been at dealing with autocrats, it has not been about dealing with systemic shifts. And I think if the system is flawed, it doesn't really matter which leader comes at the top of the regime, they will all be taken that way because that is what the system is designed to do. So I think we need much more fundamental shifts. And those fundamental shifts need to include not only what happens in the country, but what happens globally. And I'm appalled really by the example set by the United States and Europe in terms of their approach. We have over years looked at adventurism across the globe for very self-interest, exceptionism and things like that. And I think they have fueled what has happened in countries like mine. And the reality is, while all that rhetoric might go on, the leaders of these countries are much happier dealing with a blind dictator than with a messy democracy. It's better for business. And at the end of the day, it's the business model that needs to be questioned and challenged. And it's the business model that leads to the sort of practices that we end up with. In a country like mine, people come into politics not to serve the public, but because it is the biggest game in town. That is how we make the most money. And while that remains the case, I think people will always be secondary or tertiary perhaps to this equation. And unless the people who are governed have a say in the process of governance, we will never have a fundamental shift in this process. I mean, Stefan was talking earlier on about the principles of democracy. Now, one of the things we need to recognize is that elections in themselves are not a guarantee to democracy. And certainly flawed elections are no guarantee to anything. And we have a combination of that. We have a combination because we began on a slippery slope where we had a proper election that we had no reign, no control, no check and balance on the leaders. And then over a period of time, they developed a system whereby they no longer needed the people's votes. So now they're in an unassable situation where my voice simply does not matter. And the only reason they worry about freedom of expression is because they want to present a more acceptable view, perception of themselves. At the end of the day, what we say makes very little difference. And I think that is what needs to be shifted. I think what has happened is institutions have been demolished on a very structural basis. The police has gone, the judiciary has gone, the bureaucracy has gone. They have become vehicles of this repression used by the government. For me, what is even more concerning is the fact that a far bigger long-term damage has been done because the education system has been demolished. So we now have a system whereby teachers, people in this structure are selected people doing what they do are in a position of power making key decisions. And I think really a very big fundamental shift needs to take place. What are encouraging for me is that the people have not given up, that the average person in the street does believe in democracy and is prepared to sacrifice for that. What is important for me is the fact that the youth of this country have not yet sold out and they're prepared to take risks, sometimes very big risks to try and change the system. People like me are still speaking out despite the fact that we've been arrested and tortured and continue to be vilified. But that requires a sacrifice that not everyone is prepared to make. For us, what becomes difficult is while we are taking those risks, doing all that's necessary, the people who espouse democracy are being hypocritical themselves. It's been incredibly concerning from someone who's from the United States to see actually the way that the democratic systems and such have been so effectively eroded in such a short time. And the area that we had thought we had more certainty around had effectively was not there. Even aside from the greatest global hypocrisy around encouraging autocrats in different places and yet talking about democracy on another side. Denise, I wanted to perhaps turn to you where from the outside it seems like in Brazil there has been a pretty dramatic change under Bolsonaro compared to the Lula years and what we have now. But thinking about what Shahidul was saying about how it was the systems that fundamentally enables what's happening in Bangladesh and some other countries is the erosion of systems and the entrenchment of systems that reward kind of autocracy or government control. Were there any precursors or things that you had seen in Brazil that made it easier for Bolsonaro to take such control to shift the country so dramatically since he joined? Yeah, so thanks Queen. Pleasure to be here. I was wondering if we could go back some years before the Bolsonaro assumption in 2018 the victory in the presidential elections because it's really started in three, four years before when some economic forces started to organize themselves in the country, very conservative ones to first deal and build the fraudulent impeachment of President Dilma and based on something that really didn't happen with the support from some part of the Congress. And it was very much related to some structural things and first the interest for attacking natural resources in Brazil. It's not by accident that we see the high levels of deforestation in the last three years and the mining and illegal mining including so there is a combination of economic interest and in one hand and second a tradition in having authoritarian regimes. I was listening to Stefan thinking about Hungary, Poland, Russia, former Soviet Union and Turkey and also when we think about Brazil the long years of military dictatorships that were not really well solved without a good process of truth commissions and transitions for respecting the memory of what happened. So when you combine a tradition of authoritarianism with very intense economic interest in natural resources and something that happened in Brazil also a kind of a rate for equality from part of the country. You know the high levels of racism and sexism that are still in present in the Brazilian society. So you combine, you know, the this idea of authoritarianism, inequality and a very conservative and authoritarian political tradition. And then you have space for building a leader like Bolsonaro, who is exactly the representation of this rate to people and to the idea of building societies that are more democratic and equal. The problem is, I think for us when we discuss freedom of expression is that they this this forces they try to kidnap the meaning of freedom. And what we've seen in Bolsonaro's government since January 1, 2019 is the idea that we do whatever we do we say whatever we want, and this is our freedom. So we can attack journalists but it's my opinion I can say whatever I want about these are that journalists particularly women journalists. And when they for example tracks the ministers of the Supreme Court they say well that's my opinion I can do whatever I want. So they are trying to kidnap the meaning of freedom as something that there are no rules about, particularly no democratic rules about how we convive and we live in societies. This is a high risk for us, because the definition, the strong definition of freedom of expression is exactly allowing people to live and express themselves and have an access to information and do this in a, in a way to build much better and democratic societies, and they are doing the opposite. So we believe that we are in the kind of in the eye of the hurricane, in terms that disputing the idea, the very idea of freedom of expression and protection of media journalists are key issue And also, what we've seen during the COVID pandemic is that dispute around science and data and attacking on, for example, research institute say well well that's the data is their opinion our opinion is different. I can say whatever we went manipulation of data. So there was these two things around, you know how you build and provide information for people how you share the role of the community journalists in doing this. And, and these are, these are elements of good democracy or not, which is what we are experiencing at this moment. And I would say that part of the change is from inside and I fully agree with you that there are, there is a lot of hope and see how people are organizing themselves without fear, and, and a lot of courage and determination to defend principles of freedom equality and, but also, I think we need to, to build more global solidarity and understanding about what's going on in these countries, and that can happen in other countries as well. See this as a trend, and not only as something that is happening there because there is this crazy leader, there are crazy leaders in every place in the world so we have to pay attention to these aspects and I would end my, my response to you is saying that I think technology plays a big role here, and we need to, to elaborate more on that in one hand. If we think about the case of Brazil, for example, a very meaningful country, the access to social media has allowed with an entire new generation of community journalists bloggers. People who have a space using technology to express themselves. And who are these people, people who traditionally didn't have access to mass media. Women, young, African descent people, indigenous people living in the periphery of big cities in the Amazon region in rural areas. And so they start creating their space in, you know, which has allowed their voice to become much more strong. I think this movement that we've seen in the last 20 years is threatening the traditional leaders. My, my guess and something that we've discussed here is if this reaction that we see is not also against this space and this new voice that came to the public space. And then so this is something that we, we, we really have to discuss more. And on the other hand, we see technology also playing the role of blocking this voices, manipulating news, providing platform for fake news. Influencing elections, influencing political process truth algorithms and the way that they kind of deal with and control the source of the flux of information. So there are big challenges. And, but we believe we are in the right side of the history. Thanks very much, Denise. You know, listening to what you had just said about the way that's kind of the faith in science and institutions and various things have been eroded because of the government's response on the pandemic and the way that political aspirations have not been aligned with, with what the science might say. There was a cartoon I forget, maybe it was in the Wall Street Journal or something recently that reminded me how this problem of disinformation and erosion of faith is not anything new and it was basically a cartoon where one half of the cartoon were a bunch of kind of doctors and like epidemiologists and virologists saying, oh, you know, if we just give people clear concise information that they'll do the right thing. And the other side of the cartoon was like climate scientists like rolling on the floor laughing, you know, the United States spearheaded the movements to undercut and undermine like faith in science and faith in science like experts through the lens of trying to the oil companies and fossil fuel interests, trying to control the debate in the United States and so confusion. Right. Use it wasn't necessarily to say that this is right and the strong say well it's so confused so you can't really make any decisions because it's so confusing. And that's what we see I think perpetuated and a lot of the moves that are being made in different places. And so, and that, that predated the internet. You know that predated the idea of, you know the Russian troll farms or disinformation activities or governments trying to take over social media influence that was, as you're saying that was a concerted efforts by people in power particularly economic interests to so confusion in order to control politics but they have willing kind of compatriots in the media around that. So stuff I know we're talked about how a tax you talk about tax and the media are very much connected to this. I think maybe we need to be clear about what we are talking about we say by media because there are some avenues in the media that are perfectly happy to be captured. And so kind of be in the venue of governments viewpoints. And so looking at one of the areas that the VDM indices have kind of innovated recently is adding in more technology indicators, and looking more at the internet and use of internet and use of technologies and the relationship with the erosion of technology. Have there been anything that you've seen there in terms of the relationship between tech use and freedom of expression that you think are particularly concerning or reflective of some of the things that Shahidul and Sneezy have mentioned. Yeah, several things actually. And I think one very important point Shahidul brought up was that the extent to which also governments in the EU and the United States of course are complicit and culpable. It's clear that I mean we should never forget that democracy for most countries is most of the time a second order priority. Realpolitik comes first. Security policy, economic policy comes first typically. And there needs to be also in the democratic countries in the world a strong pressure from below, from people and media channeling that to really get these countries to take democracy into account. So that's a really important reminder I think in this context where we see autocratization accelerating in the world. But it's also clear, especially in countries, you spoke about the protests going on right now in Bangladesh, which is by our measures a very authoritarian country. And the people are have not given up on democracy, as you said, and we see that also in the popular opinion polls, the various barometers across the world, including the Afrobarometer, but also the laptop for Latin America and so on that majority of the population tend to want to have democracy and reject authorities. So that popular support for democracy in most countries and for most of the time is quite solid. And I really sort of, although it can create some chaos, but protest has historically been very, very effective in fighting authoritarianism and in bringing about more autocracy, democracy. But in this context, what you speak about both the needs and you follow up on the disinformation part and that parts of the media are willingly collaborating to further autocratize countries. Yeah, Hitler knew this. The propaganda is always part of any authoritarian system and any process of autocratization. So with regards to the new indicators we have, which are designed and part of a sort of a sister project or a little baby that Vietnam gave birth to called the digital society project. So they design and we collect the data and process the data and so on. But it's very, very clear that all the countries that autocratize and including Brazil, Denise, and you're right, also in our measures, the process started before Bolsonaro and he came to power as part of it. Starting to go down in 2016 and since then we've seen this very steep slope in Brazil. And with that, all these indicators of sort of government disinformation have worsened radically. And we also have indicators of then foreign countries trying to influence other countries. And that's also on a steep rise in many places of the world. Taiwan has scored the highest. Obviously we know that comes from China. But spread of this information in other countries is also part of this. And that's another part of the culpability perhaps but that's more among authoritarian countries trying to influence neighbors or so. I think we are facing in the area of freedom of expression, we are facing democracy's greatest or one of the greatest at least long term challenges with the rise of social media and all the conspiracy theories, the disinformation that suddenly can reach hundreds of thousands and millions of people in no time. And it's completely unregulated. Democracy dies with the lies. Democracy is predicated on a factual discussion where it's not, whether the earth or is round or flat is not a matter of opinion, it's round. And the accountability is predicated on that we actually know what governments have been doing and that elections can then be used to hold them accountable and throw the rascals out if we don't like them. So that sort of comes back to where I started. Autocrats and wannabe dictators, they know that. That's why they spread this information, they cultivate conspiracy theories, they support groups that work along those lines like Trump did in the U.S. Because it benefits their purpose. After World War II, the world faced the challenge of how to regulate and constrain freedom of association to avoid having Nazi fascist parties undermine and derail democracy. Now we're facing how to constrain and regulate freedom of expression in order to save it. Yeah, it's a really interesting way of framing it and I very much appreciate the emphatic way that you said democracy dies with the lies. That's a beautiful way, terrifying the beautiful way I think of summarizing that. Shahidul, I think in Brazil in Bangladesh, one of the things I think there's been a lot of international attention on has been related to this the information technology information communication act, and the way that is being used to kind of attack this people who have differing views of the effective government view that you have personal experience of this but are you seeing any, any kind of growing movement or measures within the country, kind of reform that or push back at it because it seems like it's an inclusive and pervasive tool for control that that we've seen and the way that the government can have used it indiscriminately to kind of round up journalists and others who post material that they're not in favor of. Well the digital security act is new, but the attempt to restrict our freedoms is not. It was brought about initially, we have the ICT act, then there was a special powers act, then there was the ICT act, and there was protests against it. What we were told is that it would be reformed, but rather than it being reformed it actually became more draconian, as it went along and now we have a system which is absolutely horrendous. We were told that this was not about journalists, this was about protecting the public, but in fact, none of the implementation has anything to do with protecting the public at all to protect the public is the most vulnerable as a result. You've got a situation where you've got a juvenile in jail because of sharing a Facebook post. You've got my fellow writer who died in jail last year. The artist cartoonist, these are all people who have faced horrendous pressure from the government and the government uses this method to create an environment of fear. So now when people like us get together, the first thing we do is put our mobile phones away. We talk in hushed tones. And one of the things that's the most insidious is the fact that over a period of time we've begun to inculcate a process of self-censorship, which really is perhaps the most damaging because once you've begun to censor yourself, the government has done his job. It no longer needs to be repressive in the same way because the system itself becomes that. We've also of course got a mechanism whereby we have the leaders surrounded by psychopaths who lead them to think that the people still love them. At least this is what they say. The fact that the entire nation is up in arms about what's happening is something that doesn't seem to go through. And what we need to do is find ways in terms of getting that message across. Now Anarchy is not an answer. Violence is not an answer. But we've got a system where people feel that that is the only way through which they can be heard. When setting buses on fire, where vandalism and other acts are the extreme positions that they take because they feel compelled to do so only to be heard. And that sets a very bad precedent because in the end that cycle of violence is something that is very, very damaging long run. But I'm worried about something else which we haven't talked about so far. There has been so much talked about the war on terror and all these other systems that have been made up, I think to a large extent to control us. But we really genuinely feel find a situation where the lack of democracy actually fuels extremism. And it creates an environment where extremist behavior flourishes and in some cases is seen as a way out. Because the people who are meant to protect our freedoms are failing to do so. And that I think has huge long term implications. And I said this earlier in terms of the complicity of the world to do nations. And while they go about as business as usual, working with client dictators, they forget that the scorpion's tail is going to turn around and sting them. And unless they genuinely believe in democracy, unless they generally take on partnerships which welcome the democratic process, it'll be that same old poem. Then they came for me and there was no one left. Thank you very much for that. And the reminder of the link between the lack of voice and the rise of extremism that's there. Denizzi in Brazil, do you think that was part of what led to the, you talked about some of the structural corruption related issues but do you think that that was also part of what led to kind of the change in the rise of Bolsonaro was these questions of inequality and deep seated equity that's that people felt that they were changing in different ways perhaps in terms of voting for someone completely different who hadn't necessarily addressed some of their challenges. Yeah, for sure. We, we've heard a lot so this democracy has not worked for me. Democracy doesn't give me education or health or housing. And we believe that the, the idea of social economic rights and cultural rights very much connected with the, the trust in democracy and democratic process. And that's why we believe that we see that Bolsonaro is attacking the very, very notion of a quality. So he is changing, for example, all affirmative action programs. He is trying to hear and his supporters move back the violence against women act and trying to reduce the access to reproductive rights of women to attack the demarcation of indigenous land. This is all connected with the idea of destroy a democratic rule of law. And this is made using this information attacks against journalists and the erosion and destruction of the data systems, even the annual demographic census was postponed. Because it's, you know, it avoids to have a real picture about what's going on in the country. The ambiguous part of it is exactly the people who has been attacked like indigenous people. Black communities in the big cities, who are black lands and women, women journalists, they are the forces and the fears of a reaction. And this we also see in Brazil, Bolsonaro now has less than 20% of support in all pools. And Lula is against in the, in the election process, but it's not about the polarization of two right parties or political ideas but the idea that even under Bolsonaro government the Brazilian society has organized themselves to react. Based on the idea that yes they want to continue affirmative action programs women want to have access to reproductive health. They want to be protected against domestic violence and young people wants to go to university and they want to have a job. And so that's very much what you are saying about Bangladesh. There is a kind of an endogenous process you know that comes from within that well, although we are manipulated by all this information process there is some level of conscience and but also need to have the democratic rule of law where people know that they have access to some rights and this is and that this democracy could work for them as well. But we need freedom of expression to to have this process going on we need access to information we need the protection of journalists and particularly community journalists who are very vulnerable. We need also we think about the business model of the digital sphere and see how this is can be different and somehow regulated at some level to to allow people not only to talk but also to protect themselves to be manipulated to attack it block it in a mass mass way. So that's easy. Yeah, so I like hearing there's there's a lot of challenger but I like that you keep you and Shahid will keep turning to there's some hope, kind of in the system and that's a lot of the youth energy is really kind of giving you hope and the organization that's happening. We need to I think look to wrap up our session a little bit but I wanted to start with you what would be given that what you've seen what will be that recommendation from your side, but what would you. All these global powers are getting together to talk about democracy and the promotion of democracy, what will be that recommendation that you would give them in terms of promoting and protecting freedom of expression. I think we need to be very alert and resist against changes in legislation and following what the Congress in every country are doing in terms of changing legislation on access to information on access to protection of journalists and also on digital rights in general because if you change the frame framework, it will be much harder to make change in a long so this is part of the resistance. Second, I think we, we've been working a lot in Brazil in connection with the community journalists and it just has been amazing in cove times, for example, we have worked with 63 community journalists groups in all the country and some of them only a good part of what they did was to translate information about coven and prevention against the virus to native language, for example, there are more than 150 native language in Brazil and people with living in the Amazon they don't have any access to information so people are translated and talking with each other, and this is very powerful because you create links so I believe in a in a new wave of media, who is this idea of community and popular journalists and third, I think we need to build more international coalitions and solidarity so part of what we believe in Brazil that it's necessary to do is to report what's documented report, say to others, go to the UN, to the Human Rights Council, to the Inter-American system. And every other month we try a hearing at Inter-American system say well this is happening in Brazil so in December 14 we would have a hearing on attacks against artists and cultural rights, which is with the major artists in Brazil participate in saying well there is censorship, artists, most of the time are the vision of the future, we believe in future, we want to protect them. So that's the combination of, you know, documenting and reporting resistance and rebuilding civil society from the ground. Thank you, Denizia. Also, I just really like also that you were bringing up the role of community and the community networks and the community journalists in this and getting back to the idea that, you know, the people who are on the ground and facing these challenges are the ones that have to be driving this stuff on mentions how democracy is still very popular and these are ways of trying to express that. Shahidul, what would be your one recommendation that you would want to give? Sorry, you're on mute. One short sentence, practice what you preach. Excellent. And I will emphasize that with things like while you talk about democracy, not tolerating dissidents close to home like Juliana Sarge, sends all the wrong signals to media professionals across the globe. And also to genuinely build those partnerships. People like us on the ground do believe in democracy, are fighting for democracy, are literally risking our lives for democracy, yet we have people out there making participating rhetoric, whereas we feel they're not being genuine, not merely because of what they do with Assange, but also the fact that they actively help aid collaborate with dictators on the ground at our end. And we feel at the receiving end of their adventures. Thank you very much for that powerful indictment. Stefan, recommendation from you. Regulate freedom of association in order to save it. My fellow Swede Greta Thunberg have been trying to shake up the world in terms of the climate crisis. Freedom of expression in the social media sphere is an ecosystem that has already collapsed. The degrees have already risen by hundreds. And it's becoming the biggest threat to freedom of expression on the earth. And democracy dies with those lies. And there's some interesting contradictions between what that and Denise's point, which I really wish we had time to get into, but maybe we can have a follow up discussion on that but I want to end by thanking all of you stuff on Denise's schedule. Interesting perspectives obviously coming from different angles at this. Thank you so much for all of your work and all of your passion and all that all of you have done to protect freedom of expression around the world and to keep the flame of democracy going. So thank you, hopefully we'll have another chance to have another conversation to kind of continue off of this. Thank you. Nice to meet you all.