 Good morning and welcome to the second day of the 35th annual Norris and Marjorie Bendetsen Epic International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities. My name is Alejandra Micaiah and I am a third year undergraduate student and a member for the Institute for Global Leadership's 2020 Epic Colloquium, and it's a great pleasure to welcome everyone. The topic of today's panel is Genocide, Memory, and Survival. It is an honor to be sitting among these panelists today to discuss how memory and memorization impact the aftermath of genocide and mass atrocities, both in terms of healing and as well as putting in place preventive measures for the future. We chose this topic because we believe it is our duty as global citizens to listen to the experiences of survivors, learn from them, and work toward the prevention of future mass atrocities. During this topic last year in Epic, we learned that memory is an extraordinarily influential and powerful part of the human experience, especially in conjunction with mass atrocities and genocide. Memory provides both an individual and a collective narrative, a way of remembering that will affect the individual and larger society for a long time to come. Each individual and community experiences genocide and mass atrocity in a way that can never be completely articulated, but we are very thankful to the individuals on this panel for joining us this morning to speak about such intense and emotional experiences and subject matter. Thank you to our panelists, Dr. Bridget Connelly, Reverend Dr. Marcelo Uinezza, and Mr. Zia Gafich for taking this time to participate in the panel today. I do not think we could have had a better qualified group of people and diverse set of perspectives to address these issues. Before we begin, I would briefly like to describe the format of the panel. So first, I will introduce each panelist who will then have five minutes for opening remarks, and after which we will have some time for discussion among the panelists and questions from the audience. Now, it is my pleasure to introduce our three panelists. First, we will hear from Dr. Bridget Connelly. Dr. Connelly is the research director for the World Peace Foundation and associate research professor at the Fletcher School here at Tulsa University who studied memorization after mass atrocities in many different societies. She specializes in genocide and mass atrocities through memorization in museums. Previously, she has also served as research director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museums Committee on Conscience, where she helped establish the museum's program on contemporary genocide. Over the course of a decade at the museum, she led many of their signature projects on genocide, including case studies and issue analyses, educational programs, exhibitions, and its podcast series, Voices on Genocide Prevention. She's also editor of the How Mass Atrocities and Studies from Guatemala, Burundi, Indonesia, the Sudanese, but also in Herzegovina and Iraq. Dr. Connelly, thank you. You now have five minutes. Great. Thank you very much. I also want to thank my co-panelists, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say, and also to you, Allie, and the students who organize this conference, and my colleagues at IGL, Abby Williams and Heather. Thank you all for inviting me to join you. So if you will give me leave, I'd like to share my screen. I'm going to use a PowerPoint to try to help keep me on target and on time. Let me see. Okay. Is that sharing now? Yes, looks good. Okay. So this talk is going to be a little telegraphic, given how short the time is. And I hope we'll have a lot more time to talk in the Q&A. Mass atrocities inflict an incommensurable wound. At a group level, extreme violence is not produced by, but rather it produces chasms between people. Transforming with equal brutality, both cotidian and monumental questions about the diverse ways that people live together, work together, share power and wealth, into a single overwhelming identification, to which group do you belong? This violence is social corrosion seeping into every crevice so that one never knows where the metal has begun turning into dust. Memory works, and by this I mean various public forms of grappling with the history of mass atrocities. And this one is from the African American Museum in Washington, DC. Do not change this incommensurability. They attempt to change the loci for addressing it. So let's be clear. Studying the memory of mass atrocities is a study of attempts to change the subject. Memory is an open-ended process of transformation. And because of this, analysis of memory must always ask, by and for whom, in what form, through what process, and towards what aims is memory being leveraged. However, even these questions can mislead by seeming answerables matters that can be put to rest. They cannot. The challenge is to analyze these questions as they are set into motion at a particular junction in time. And I feel like these kinetic sculptures are sort of the best way to metaphorically express what I mean. Certain elements remain recognizably stable. But time changes what is perceived. Memory is a shapeshifter. It cannot be approached without changing what it is. It follows the uncertainty principle. To make the past relevant is to change it. Memory of atrocities is a project of making meaning about the past in and for a present moment. So in terms of public memory projects, this means that there is no pre-political status to memory. Politics do not tarnish memory projects. Politics is simply a trait that must be analyzed. And its value cannot be presumed. So here's my illustration, the red terror in Ethiopia and the place of human remains in memorial projects. The red terror in Ethiopia followed the revolution that overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974. As a committee of the army, which was called the Derg, consolidated power under Lieutenant Colonel Mengyistu Halimerium. They sought to eradicate the political opposition. The red terror, so named by Mengyistu, describes the period 1976 to 78, where violence was directed overwhelmingly against one political group, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party, whose strongholds were in the city, notably the capital, Addis Ababa. Political activists, many of them students, high school and college age, left their houses to join street protest or secret meetings and never returned. Sometimes bodies were found on the street, but often all that would follow a disappearance were whispers about where they were taken. Sometimes a loved one could be found. They're in this detention center, in that prison. Sometimes word got out when a group was taken to be executed en masse, often though the trail would just go cold. Thus was the first transformation. The child, husband, friend, or comrade would be gone. At the time, even mourning was outlawed. In 1991, the military regime was defeated by another group, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, the EPRDF. This ushered in a period of second transformation. The person become body was now bones. Now, however, families could search for the remains of missing loved ones. As human remains, many unearthed from mass graves, re-entered or sort of entered as remains, the public sphere, they again changed. So now they took shape as evidence against the DERG. Ethiopia conducted what was called at the time by Washington Post journalist, quote, the most comprehensive examination of human rights abuses since Nazi war criminals were put in the dock at Nuremberg. This was also the first time forensic anthropology and archeology was displayed in a local courtroom, according to the Argentine forensic anthropology team which conducted the exhumation. Transitional justice is a manner of applying rule of law. This quote, by the way, is from testimony from one of the anthropologists who worked on the exhumation. But transitional justice is also a political performance for internal and external audiences. It's an attempt to transform the evidential and judicial clarity into a political metaphor that separates the old from the new regime. For families of the dead, this was not enough. So they joined together to create a different context, what became the Red Terror Martyrs Memorial Museum. Among the artifacts that they display in a windowless room that angles down slightly, giving the subtle sense of a re-enterment, is a space that displays skeletal remains of victims. Some are identified like this man, but some are not. Visitors to the museum, however, transform the setting yet again because they bring with them their own ignorance, knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions. And I hope you all have screens that are big enough to see these are comments I took from the visitor comment books. And they display a wide range of views of how people see and interpret and make sense of what they encounter in the exhibition. Across the arc of years, the history of the Red Terror slipped into the margins of Ethiopian political life and historical relevance. Increasingly, although never entirely and nor for all, it became identified with the aims of the post-Minghi Studer government, a prop to distract attention from new human rights abuses. The dead encased in museum betrines became a distorting mirror that refused to reflect contemporary abuses. This story of the changing subject of memory is far from unique to Ethiopia. It plays out everywhere that memorials and forms of addressing the past are put into motion. Thank you. Thank you for sharing, Bridget. Our next panelist is Reverend Dr. Marcel Renehuah-Uwineza, a Rwandan Jesuit priest who holds a PhD in theology from Boston College, as well as degrees in philosophy, African studies, theology, and management from the University of Zimbabwe and the Catholic University of Eastern Africa and Kenya. Marcel's base main interests lie in the relationship between the church and human rights religion and international politics. He has worked with the African Jesuit AIDS Network in Nairobi with the Jesuit Refugee Service in 2010, or Haiti, and also at Regina Pakis Parish in Kigali, Rwanda. He has spoken at different universities, including Boston University, Tufts University, the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Boston College, and most recently at the United Nations General Assembly. Marcel is currently an assistant professor at Hakima University College in Nairobi. He has published around a dozen articles in scholarly journals and is also currently pursuing an MBA in leadership and management through York St. John University to equip himself with some leadership, theoretical knowledge, and to learn how to be a better leader now in the years ahead. Thank you, Dr. Reverend Renehuah-Uwineza. You now have the floor. Thank you very much. It's an honor to be part of this panel, and thank you very much for this invitation to Ali, who invited me, and to be part of this wonderful panel. Thank you, Brigitte, for this wonderful presentation that you gave us. I'm looking forward to Zia for his presentation. Thank you very much, Alejandra, for this wonderful presentation and all the moderators and all the organizers. Yeah, I would like to speak briefly the time allocated on the power of forgiveness and challenging assassins of memory. And speaking on the topic of genocide and mass atrocities, I don't speak from a neutral perspective because I did survive the genocide in Rwanda. So it is in my bones. The genocide in Rwanda, for those who may not recall, this was in 1994, the darkness of the genocide. 1994, I fell into the darkness of the genocide against the Tutsi and those who opposed it. So the moderate Hutus, who refused to be part of a killing regime. Dangerous memories of losing several members of my family, my father, my mother, my grandmother, uncles, aunties, brothers and sister and cousins, around 50 members of my family were killed in that genocide. And so you can imagine, I was 14 years old then. These were, so my childhood dreams were shattered. How can you live in a land of dry bones? If you visit Rwanda, you will see quite a number of places where people are buried in mass graves. So the aftermath of a genocide, not only in Rwanda, even for the Holocaust, for the Armenians, there are many psychological, physical and fractured lives, deep deprivations and the eviscerated cities and villages. Vulnerable and battered lives, seemingly beyond repair. It is very easy to rebuild infrastructure, but mending hearts and minds and offering hopes takes long. And following the presentation of Brigitte, it is even clear. So one can certainly go in depth into the consequences of a genocide, but to narrow it down, so how do you live after a genocide? How do you forge a future? On this side, you see the image of the tombs of my parents and my brothers. Here is my mother, my father, and then my two brothers and my sister, they are buried in the same grave. So when we formed them after the genocide, we couldn't identify who was who, especially the brothers and the sisters. So we buried them in the same grave. The atrocity of a genocide does, it actually makes you even lose your dignity, even in death. So 10 years after the genocide, I visited this site and as I was there, the man who killed my relatives appeared and when I saw him, I literally froze. I thought he was coming to kill me as well. But this man, he had been released from jail because he had accepted his crime and the government of Rwanda had said, whoever acknowledges their crimes, they will be released and do community service. Yes, he was released by the government, but he was still a prisoner in my heart. So when I thought, he made me here, I was praying here. We usually visit the tombs or mass graves, not because we like them, but it helps us to see the future clearly. And all of a sudden he missed me there and he knelt down. And then when I saw him, he was like a beast. But he looked at me in the eyes and I refused to sit here to look at him. And then by power that I didn't know how to describe, he looked at me and he said, Marcel, you know what I did? Do you see the graves here? Will you have the gut or the openness to forgive me? I was confused. I didn't know what to say. I was wondering whether he actually means it, whether I was safe, whether I even have the right to forgive on behalf of the dead, all sorts of questions. It sounded like a movie. But this is why I find forgiveness something transcendental. I don't know what power, what energy invaded me. After this moment of confusion, I asked him to rise. And when I finally, after a long time of silence and both of us were shedding tears, when I asked him to rise, we embraced one another. Then when I finally stood him, I forgive you. I felt free. Sets me on a new journey. Now a lot can be said on the experience, but now as I have grown and reflected, the quest for forgiveness really repairs broken trust and friendship. Forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting the wrongs. Heaven on earth, I cannot forget that I have grown without parents. But it is a decision to remember them differently. It is turning the anger and resentment into a purpose. But also he refused to be a prisoner of the past and kick a guard, he used to put it beautifully, that faith sees best in the dark. Forgiveness turns for my enemies and they can begin again to see horizons in a broader. You remember the beautiful book of Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness. And of course there is one who cannot forget the justice. Through forgiveness, both strange parties are empowered to be and to enter into a new relationship and to embrace a new identity. But it's not enough to talk about forgiveness. In the aftermath of the genocide, what often rises are actually the assassins of memory. Those who deny that something, this atrocity even ever happened and it's so disheartening. So we must go to the base of the social transformation of our society. If we want violence and deprivation to come to an end, Oscar Romero used to say, the Salvadorian scent. So what, how do we do with the so many genocide deniers that have come up? Again, with the limited time, genocide denial represents a double killing. The initial murder of the victim is obviously the first death, but then the physical killing comes as a murder of memory, says a advisor. So in just about 25 years after the genocide in Irwanda, there have been so many assassins of memory. There is a negation, definitely three of established facts. The sayings goes, the nazi, the extremists, the Hutus, the Turks, they did not intend to wipe out the Jews or the Tutsi or the Armenians. These killings were not preplanned or directed from above. It's just a collateral damage. So you actually deny the intent. Then there is a distortion of established facts. You minimize even statistics of people who died. And then there is an undermining of the credibility of eyewitnesses. You begin, even those who survived, they have to justify themselves. And genocide deniers form propagandas in order to rewrite history or to exculpate perpetrators. So how do we respond? Keep the memory of the victims. Or what Johann Baptiste Metz calls an amnestic solidarity. Memory keeps the reality of the lives of the victims alive and also you want to continue their unfinished agenda. But also memory has the capacity to remember, to reconnect, fighting against silence and indifference, which provides opening for the deniers. Advisor, my hero often said, the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. And the last, there are so many ways of responding but I only chose a few. The power of stories to transform lives. The stories of survivors. Maybe you will forget everything I've said but you may not forget my encounter with the killer of my family. And the power of forgiveness that arose. Maybe that's where we see Jesus and the power of stories parables. Standing for the truth, turning up for the truth. That may easily put you up for criticisms but there's no other way. And finally, the power of lamenting. There is no positive meaning in unjust radical suffering that destroys persons. And in a place where people are crucified, we have to lament. We can speak even of the black lives matter. So a lot could be said in this short time but I want to thank you very much. Forgiveness has a power to unbind you but also it's not the end. It's just the beginning to keep fighting for those who deny atrocities. I thank you for the privilege of your attention. Thank you, Marcel, for sharing your story with us. Our final panelist is Mr. Zia Gafich, an award-winning photojournalist and videographer based in Sarajevo who lived through the Bosnian War as an adolescent and now uses his experiences to inform his work. He is a member of the Seven Photo Agency and a TED Fellow who has covered many years of history in 50 countries focusing on societies locked in a perpetual cycle of violence in Muslim communities around the world. Zia's work has received many prestigious awards such as the World Press Photo, Grand Pre-Discovery of the Year, Hustle Bloodmasters Award, the City of Perpignan Award for Young Reporters, Photo District News, Getty Images Grant for Editorial Photography and a TED Fellowship. His work is also regularly published in leading international publications and he's authored several monographs including Troubled Islam, Short Stories from Troubled Societies, Quests for Identity and most recently, Heartland. Zia, we are pleased to welcome you. Thank you very much for amazing introduction. First I will have to apologize if my vocabulary is a little bit vernacular as I'm not really an academic. So I will speak from a perspective of a practitioner or a documentarian who by chance comes from a country which experienced mass summary executions and genocide twice in its most recent history. And I will play a slideshow just as an illustration because I think that's easier. So just give me a second please. Okay, I think I'm sharing. I hope everyone is seeing this. Anyway, so I come from a country that doesn't exist anymore. That's where I was born. The country was named Yugoslavia and memorialization in former Yugoslavia was a big thing. The words never again that are so often repeated even today were really institutionalized. Those were the words that were used that we grew up from age zero, so to speak. Those were the words that were repeated over and over throughout our education, upbringing, and so on. And I have to apologize because my kids are interrupting. I'm apologizing for this. So those words were really built into our firmware along with two other words which was on which my former country was built on, which is fraternity and brotherhood. Or brotherhood and fraternity. So I was brought up with those ideals and with very, very vivid description of what took place during the Second World War in Yugoslavia and in Bosnia. As many of you know, one of the worst concentration camps, Nazi concentration camps, was on in former Yugoslavia in Croatia. Anyway, I used to believe that this set of beliefs that we were brought up with was really indestructible. Unfortunately, literally 10 years after the leader, authoritarian leader of this Yugoslavia, Tito, Marshall Tito died, this whole country and this whole narrative of fraternity and brotherhood and never again and so on and so forth, so quickly descended into chaos, violence, ethnic violence that eventually culminated into genocide. And actually these pictures that you're seeing are pictures of personal belongings assumed from the mass graves in Srebrenica. And actually you used, for your program, you use one of the pictures from cemetery in Srebrenica. So this is a project that I'll be working on. So what you're looking are the personal belongings artifacts that people took with themselves on their way to execution. So literally 10 years after this person, the president died, the country descended spiraled into this violence and in such a short period of time as if we forgot everything that we've been taught and the war for independence and genocide in Bosnia happened, the war ended, the international criminal tribunal is trying to take care of those accused of war crimes as well as local courts and so on and so forth. What's happening now is now there is this new word and new event that is being institutionalized and that is genocide that happened in Eastern Bosnia where Serb forces committed act of genocide on Muslim population. So what I would like to bring up is more of a question rather than introduction and I hope we will have a chance to discuss that is I have a feeling as a practitioner who's covered similar events around the world including Rwanda, I have a feeling that we are facing two problems when it comes to memorialization. One is I'm afraid that we as a species are not capable of learning from our mistakes or from history, at least when it comes to act of mass atrocities and war crimes. And the other thing that is happening, I'm sure everywhere is I have a feeling that at some point, at least now I'm speaking about Bosnia and former Yugoslavia, very quickly the state, the system takes over of this process of memorialization which is really about the narrative, right? Among many other things. And I find that very dangerous because I don't think that memorialization can be institutionalized. I think it should be dealt with on individual level and that is something that I would like to hopefully discuss in the breakout session. Thank you. Thank you, Zia, and also to our other panelists for your opening remarks. So before we move on to the next part of the panel and the breakout rooms, I'd actually like to open up the floor to the three of you to see if you have any questions for one another. Can I? I have a question for Zia. Just give me a second, I just stopped sharing. Yes, please. Thank you very much, Zia. As you say in your presentation, you say that your proposal would rather be to individualize memorialization. But is there also some benefit in having a thematization, I should say, or a national memory so that actually this becomes a lesson for future generations? Because if it remains at an individual level, the danger of it being relativized or minimized or legitimized is probably higher than having it at a national level. I, well, there are several questions there. I think, I don't think that institutionalizing memory and commemoration is going to stop someone or groups of denying what happened because each group can institutionalize within its own group. It can institutionalize memory of certain events. I don't think institutionalizing it actually helps in preservation from that aspect. It can always be denied. We are living it literally every day and I'm sure it's similar in Rwanda as well. So I don't think we are doing it a great service with that. But I think the bigger danger is that once it becomes or there is an attempt to institutionalize such an important memory, it inevitably gets affected by the politics. And I don't think anything good can come out of it. No matter how benign or how good intentions are, I just think the memory has to be taken out of the context of politics daily or any kind of politics. And I don't think we can avoid that if you try to institutionalize it. Thank you very much. There are certainly various perspectives to this if we want to go from scripture, let's say as one perspective, we see Yahweh who actually invites the Israelites to always remember and they tell generations and generations after them of their liberation from Egypt and their journey to Israel. So to remember is actually to witness, to tell. Professor Connolly gave another wonderful definition there. So keep the witness. But at the same time, we can also speak of collective memory. So while there is individual memory, so if it is individualized, what do we make of a collective memory that the whole group has suffered? Let's say speak of the Armenians or speak of the Jews. So is there something we can call collective even without denying individual memory that a group has? So the idea, it's both an and I guess that we can also have collective memory as long as collective memory doesn't deny also some other subsets of memories of individuals or memories that have not spoken about. So collective memory, I certainly want to forget for it. It also helps to prevent, to warn So it's also doesn't become only the memory of the victors as history is always the history of the victors. So just an addition to what you just said. I think that I think as a species again, we are terrible at preventing atrocities. So I hope I'm not very hopeful that's going to change anytime soon. So and I guess that's why we are here, right? I think there's also a big question about what people are trying to prevent through memory. And one of the challenges that genocide, those who work on policy and genocide, must atrocities have always had is what exactly do you assume leads up produces mass atrocities and where do your interventions intersect along that timeline? And so if you believe, for instance, that propaganda or that emphasizing, the way Zia was describing the formula in Yugoslavia, emphasizing sort of different memory between different groups that's constructed in a way by the state in order to produce a certain political end. You know, if you think that that prevents genocide that's one track. If you think what prevents genocide is stronger and more robust and more open democratic political dispensation, that would lead you down a different track. And so I think the research on that front is not entirely clear, actually. So we actually have a question from one of our attendees for Zia. And the question is, any ideas for how Bosnian Herzegovina can break this cycle of institutional or politicized memory from leading down a troubling divisive road, which seems to be going on now in the region? I'm just reading it again. I have to think about it. I don't, I think we are past that. I think we, I don't think there's a way back. It's been 25 years since the genocide happened and war ended. Well, it didn't happen. It was committed. I'm sorry, I apologize. So the damage I think has been already done and comigated or pessimist, but I think when it comes to that particular question, I think we are beyond repair, but what we can still break and save, whatever can be saved, is by breaking the political structure that it's been in place since 1991, effectively in various, with small variations. So I think that's the chance we have, but that's rather political, correct? And but when it comes to damage that has been done through the way it's been memorialized by various groups, I think that's beyond repair, I'm afraid. And we have an additional question open to all. Mass atrocities and genocide depend on mass dehumanization in order to perpetuate. All those involved put labels on other groups in order to focus their hate. What are the key aspects necessary to rehumanize the thinking of those involved to allow for forgiveness and prevent dehumanization in the future? And that's open to whoever would like to. I think media and the word that I'm trying to do as a documentarian can play a major role. And I think it actually, in few cases, it did play a role, but I think media have a huge responsibility in reversing this trend of dehumanization because as well as in Rwanda and in Yugoslavia, media had a huge impact in the early days, but also during the war to dehumanize the opponent. So I think it's only logical that we try to reverse that trend through our work. And I think media can do a lot. That would be my perspective on that. And in addition to this, this is a very good question. I would say a clear and systematic study of history that often has led to the scapegoating, the humanization of people and really trying to seek to do a systematic study and as much as objectivity is possible to reach some objective truth of what really led to those atrocities and to those dehumanization. In the case of Rwanda, I think that is still a project to a good study objective that is not biased as much as objectivities can be achieved. So that would be one. Secondly, I think we cannot do away with the power and the narratives of survivors. They are the only books we have of what have happened. And we like it or not, they really, they are the ones who tell what happened. So in rehumanizing or repairing the broken relationships, the survivors remain pivotal. And then thirdly, and then I will shut up, the third one is justice and accountability and international level. Mass atrocities or genocide don't just happen. So pleased that there is a section on that on this conference. They happen, they are planned and oftentimes international community abandons. This was the case in Rwanda. So if we are to seek accountability, it's not only at the local level, it has also to go at an international level. And even apologies sometimes are wanting. So for there to be accountability and justice, it has to bring both local and international capability in rehumanizing broken communities. Sorry, I was accidentally bumped out. We actually have an additional question from someone in the audience and it's from a colleague of mine from the colloquium. How does the digital age, easy dissemination of information through the internet and social media affect the process of memorializing and remembering genocide? Can you come again? How does the digital age and the easy dissemination of information through the internet and social media affect the process of memorializing and remembering genocide? Yeah, I would say, at least for me, I think of it as more a question of pace rather than substance. And so what you see is greater accessibility, greater pacing, right? A faster pace of how memorial projects, memorial ideas and precedents, different examples from all around the world can be shared. But the challenge there is that obviously all those examples that can be shared are not only ones that aim to promote positive relations between people, but they also quicken the pace for other types of uses of the past as well. So to me, it's not necessarily that the digital age makes memorialization better or worse or makes the likelihood of memory being sort of channeled towards sort of more peaceful relations or more harmful as it quickens the pace of both. Thank you, Professor Connery. If I would add something, there is something beautiful with this digital age to begin with. We are now, we are able to communicate from the far ends of the world, partly because of this. So many people have been able to continue their jobs in this COVID era of crisis because, so there are some positive aspects of the media and the social media. And one can say more about that. But to go specifically to the question in a near of mass atrocities and genocide and in the rise of what I call assassins of memory or genocide deniers and liars, there has to be reached a point where one realizes that the easy access to media or the freedom of expression does not remove accountability for the truth. If there is one thing that is often put on the cross, speaking as a Christian, if there's one thing that is put on the cross in a near of digital media is often, not always, is often the truth. So that I can say anything I want should also go with the responsibility to speak with facts. And I think one doesn't need to go far to realize how much that is so true today. I will not mention countries. So that's one. So the truth in a near of digital media is often on the cross. So actually the first, if I may appeal to those who are listening to us internationally, let us actually remove the truth from the cross. As we speak, speak facts. Then secondly, in a digital media, also one of the challenges is actually the desire to excrubate perpetrators. So there is a sense of purity that comes with atrocities. So how do you excrubate yourself? Sometimes the digital age and controlled and checked has become a platform to speak whatever you want, to get away from your psychological guilt or what people have done. And so whilst I am all ready for what the media has done, let the danger is also so much and truth that one finds in the digital age. So for scholars, for academicians, for students listening, please, the truth matters. Perfect. In the interest of time, we might have to cut this discussion short and we can now break out into the breakout room sessions. On the chat function, you can see that there's three of them for each panelist and there's a Zoom link. So you can save, copy that link, leave this meeting and join. I'll leave this Zoom meeting open for the next five minutes in case anyone needs some time to decide and to join. But thank you so much for this very interesting conversation and I look forward to bouncing around the different breakout rooms to listen to you all. Thank you. Because there are some questions that I think are interesting for the breakout session. How do we get them to the breakout session? Do they stay here or you have to do that or we have to do that? I can send it to you. And then whoever said those questions can definitely join you in your breakout room and ask it herself or himself or whoever. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, leaving this and going to other group. Thank you. Thank you for the job. Thank you so much. Conley and...