 Gweithio yma, mae'n gweithio yma ar y blynedd ar y 3. Mae'r 3 oedd gennych i gyfrifion ym mhyr yng Nghyrchu. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'n amser yn ei gael ar y bydd y bydd erbyn o'r ffordd. Felly, felly rydyn ni'n gwneud, felly rydyn ni'n ddim yn Dr Gina Hithgar, yw mewn ysgrifennu yn Ysgrifennu'r Gendysglu, yw eu rhaglenu. Felly, am ydych chi'n gweithio'r rhaglenu, ac mae'n cael y gallwch i gael y cyfnod mwyaf o'r llwyddiad Both yw cofenn yng Nghymru, Iwi'n meddwl, fyddwn i fyfnid yma'n gweithio'r reinventau. Mae'r hyn mynd i fwy ar y cyfnod ar yr enw ar gwazio. I tirgyngfa yng Nghymru fel fyddwn gwahanol, Mae'n bwysigio llawer am gfroeddau hynny. Yn yn gweithio gyd yna, mae'n rhai gynnig eich bwysig i amlwg, Yn y gallw'n gwybod i'w gwneud am ddweud yma, y'r ddweud y chweithio cyntaf ar gyfer Llywodraeth. Mae'r Llywodraeth yn Gweithio IEL wedi diota. Mae'r ddechrau'n gyrdd, ddim bynnag. Dwi'n 2014? Dwi'n 13 yma. Mae'n ddechrau'n dweud yr oedig. Mae'n ddechrau'n ddechrau'n ddechrau'n ddechrau. Mae'n dweud bod yna'r ddweud yn cael ei wneud a'i gweithio gwybod. Mae'n ddechrau'n ddweud. Mae lais ai diwedd o'ch cyfliadau. Mae allwyr wasbwyd yn cair werthbu erbyn iawn. Mae'r fel ychydig â'r catalwy yma yma yn ymgyrchu lliwrThreadsaeth Llywodraeth, ac ond am ychydig â'r Llywodraeth i gael â'r ddigau. Rydyn ni'n dweud yna. Mae'r angen fel hyn ymlaen drafodd wedi'i gweld yn y cyflawn ar y mynedd yma, ac yn ymen gwybod yw yma hefyd yn y corffau cyfun yr ydych chi'n ystybadu, ymweld yn yma ei ddiwedd yn cyrfaith Cymru, has been something that I'm, you know personally very proud of and something that I hope that will continue to grow as part of the centre's work. And then last year, was it last through the year before I was getting pretty old, I'm not really sure. But it's a fantastic second event where we invited Professor Alex Sharp to come speak on her work on gender fraud and gender identity. It's a fantastic seminar as well. So, this is the third in a kind of long-ranging seminar series of discussions. ac mae enw i'r unrhyw edrych o hyn o ddechrau Lleodraeth Cymru ar y Cyflau'r Llywodraeth Cymru, ac yn ystod yn gweithio ar y gyrdd, ac mae yna'n mynd i wneud bod ei ddyswnod ddyswnod i'r felw, rhai cyngor o'r rhywbeth sy'n mynd o'r pwysig oedd ymddangos i mi rwy'n trefwyr ac yna'n gallu rwy'n meddwl i'r cyflogol. Y ddawn ni, ger rywghaf, yn ychaf i gyllid yn cyfrannu cŵrwy yn unig yn ysgolwyr fel yma. A'r unig wedi'i rhaglaethu ei rai unig wedi unig. Rhyddon ni'n rhywbeth yr unig wedi gwial gael am yr unig, wedi unig hwnnw yma yn y pethau i Fan Alhansic, mae'r unig yr ysgolwyr, yn y sgolwyr? I forgot. He is a law school partner here, Cateriona here. I'm happy that, as Gina said, we started and then did the second one, where Alex and I presented on Gender Message Nation, now the third one. Gina said actually, the three of us, we found ourselves in the same panel in Melbourne. They said, actually, it's kind of funny that these three of us present together in the panel at the Belt and discovered our papers really need to connect and we should present it in Seoul whether that is just down under, and here we are. My paper is looks at what I called data governance which is really in a way kind of a response to the continuation of oedd wedi gweld ar gyfer y llun o'r ffordd, ffordd o'r byd ar gyfer y ffordd i'r adigio yng Nghaerthig, i'r Lashambeer, i'r Prawer Cwtys Ohran, i'r Rhagyn Rhagyn Rhaibwshe, ddim yn ymddangos, y llun o'r ideaeth i'r feministiaeth, i'n ddod o'r unrhyw o'r ffordd, i'n ddod o'r ffordd a'r ffordd, a'i ddim yn ymddangos, a'u ddod i'n ddod o'r bapio yw ddod, Ça ddau dweud eich bod, ddim i fan gyda ni ddechrau iawn, felly na ddim yn ôl o'r rhaglen. Dwi'n ff живu o ble, byddwch i chi i chi'n iawn ar unig o'r rhaglen o'r rhaglen a'i ddau'u gynhyrch o'r rhaglen ni, fel am yw y ddweud yn drafod hwnnw. Dyma'r rhaglen am y gallu, ac yn yr aelodau mewn gwneud o'r dyfodol, ond dyfodol wedi'i ddweud yn gweithio hefyd. Dwi'n ffrindio yna yn iawn gweld ddannig, But t unemployed quite a lot in some kind, change happening in some country that we have to emphasise of course only in some countries from a depiction of homosexual as a threat to the nation which was very much manifest for example in the debates happening in many countries about what's called again the military question so right, is it a threat to the security of the nation, so from this depiction of homosexual as a threat to the nation to a notion of homosexual as a bit of the nation a mewn ffordd a fy modd a'r bydd i'r ddodb yn unedig i gael'r tyfwn, arddangos a'i cyfrannol a'r dym소. A'r bwrs stylo yw ddig donít o bobl i'r newid yn ei dod â'ch siaradau a'r gweithasig sydd yn ym 15 o. Cymru sefydlu ar ysbytio a'u croes o'i wneud o'i wneud o'r fysgrifio yng Nghymru i Lywodraith Asghen. Dw i'n bwysig yng Nghargrwm Gwylodau Eisteddfidio a Gwylodau Eisteddfidio, gofiadau amlinell, a mawr i'r uniond yng Nghargrwm Gwylodau Eisteddfidio, mewn gwirio ar gyfer unrhyw ffordd cyfnodol â'r uniond, a'u gweithio i gyda'r leiddiad i'r debygau iawn o pych, sy'n eu cyfu'r ddaid i'r armaheg, ac fyddwch ofnwn sy'n gwneud i'r Ysræld, It's not exclusive to Israel. Let's talk about the use of LGBT rights for public diplomacy and Pogata purposes, and this has to do with a way in which a homosexuality serves as a mark of liberalism of democracy or at least is a temp, the temps made to have it play its role. So what I want to do now is to talk about, to continue this debate by talking about gay governance i'w gwelwch ar y llif yn y llif yng Ngôr, mewn Calwn, a'r Glogo. Yn y gweithio a'r Llywodraeth ond o'r Llywodraeth honno, yn Llywodraeth honno, yn Llywodraeth honno, ayn ychydig ar gael y cyfnod o'n mynd i ddweud, i'n ddigwydd i gwellwch y Llywodraeth, i'n ddigwydd i'n ddweud, a'n ddigwydd i gyffinodraeth. Rwy'n gobeithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n ddweud i'n ddweud, ac mae'n dweud y mod i'r cwmhlu, rwy'n stymlu cymhwlu, ac mae'r wneud hyn yn dweud gynllunio'n gyflwyffiannol a'r cyllidiau cyllidiau yn gyllidiau a'r cyflwffiannol a'r llythdoedd cyllidiau ar y cwrdd o Israel, ac mae'n dweud bod y postr ar gyfer P.I. A'r postr ar gyfer dyma o'i cwrdd, ond mae'n cymryd yn gweithio'r cwrdd o'r cyllidiau rhai, ymddai'r ddweud o'r cyllidiau cyllidiau, Felly, mae'r cymdeithas yw'r cyd-dweud yn oed i'r rhan o'n cyfrifio arddangos, yng Nghymru a'r Sgolfyniaeth, y gyrfa'u cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r Cyfrifio'r Cyfrifio Llywodraeth, ac mae'n dechrau arall yn y prif, yn y llan o'r cynllun, dwi'n meddwl am y cyfrifio'r cyfrifio a'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio. felly mae'n gweithio'r cymdeithas o'r cymdeithas cymdeithas cymdeithas yng Nghymru a here it's used to write rallyas to support Israel because the fact that gay people can serve openly in the army means it's a democracy. So I think a lot of them talked, this topic was discussed quite a lot and of course we can bring many examples to that. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, almost every speech gives a general assembly, talks about gay rights, especially when he wants to, for example, attack Iran, and he said he runs a handgaze in Israel. So this is the proof that you should support us and after the Gaza flotilla incident where Israel's army intercepted the boats aiming to break the Gaza siege, killing nine people, Netanyahu says, why do human rights activists come to us, go to the place where they oppress women, go to the place where they hang homosexuals in town squares, go to the place where they know freedom of expression. So again this use of gay rights and other issues like women's rights and support of liberalism and he says any one of the human rights that are truly important needs to support liberal democratic Israel. Now we can talk about the appropriation of developments in LGBT rights that occurred within Israel by the state. I have another paper which has been published, you can already, specifically about this process and about also what is the role of the LGBT community, what conflict it causes within the LGBT community, so I'm not going to go into this debate in detail. So I want to move a little bit more from the national level to the local level to this homo municipalism. This was a hang in the city hall in Tel Aviv just before gay pride in 2012. Outside the city hall this is a big poster for gay pride. I mean there were a few posters to be honest with more diverse images but this was the main one. And of course again it shows the homo normativity. This is a little play with the flags because you can't see it here but it's a little slogan that refers to a famous song about flags which is sung in Israeli Independence Day. So again you see the normativity, you know, of the homo normativity of the gays having this kind of nuclear family structure and nationalism etc. But here it's already plays more like a domestic role and here we see that the city plays a big role in it by for example in Tel Aviv the city for quite a few years now is the main producer of gay pride. It becomes an event which the city produces and this is also the LGBT community center in Tel Aviv which was actually funded by the city. Actually it's run, belongs to the city so most LGBT community right groups are there but actually belongs to the city. So this is a picture that I actually took in the gay beach in Tel Aviv and around gay pride the city puts up music of the beach and you see this flag once again if you want images for homo nationalism. You see the nice rainbow flag with the Israeli flag combined etc. Now all those development cause a lot of questions and especially so you ask what happens when for example this gay beach is the reason it's a gay beach because it's under the park that used to be the central cruising area for gay people in Israel in the past. And then a few years back as I did also for innovations in this park and some people said that those innovations are destroying what was a major cruising area where gay people live for sex. And then they approached a member of Tel Aviv council of the city who is gay and is also the mayor of Lejeune for gay rights. And they asked him you should do something about it and he said no we shouldn't that's a matter of the past when gay people live in the closet and we don't have to support those parks which are a great cruising area etc. So you see also the question about this gay governance and what happens when it is appropriated or allows itself to be appropriated into a very homo normative understanding of sexuality. Which here goes together with the homo nationalism and there are a lot of the whole gay beach saying you know the city investing it is also part of a gay tourism campaign which some people argue is part of the pink washing to bring tourists to Israel to see how it is great to gay rights. So all of those things are happening and we have a lot of questions. We can also ask about what exactly does homo normativity mean here because on one hand you know the park maybe doesn't fulfill its historical role but the people who come here to the beach and then go to the clubs which take place on gay pride. You know it's some maybe tension between different understanding of what exactly is a normativity because on one hand you know I mean I can tell is a pretty good party which can go all night. You know due private not only due private a little bit and you know if you go to them and maybe have sex in the club or have drunk or whatever you know you can't exactly wake up in time to go to the army or raise those children. So what exactly is homo normativity here because I haven't talked about homo normativity as being domesticity and consumption but those don't always go together right. There is domesticity and there is some kind of consumption which won't go together. Now so that's the municipal level connected to the national level and it brings up a lot of questions because by the way you know I don't think it's a bad thing that you know the city pays for the LGBT rights center and that allows today the clinic where people can get free HIV tests and find social workers which work with gay teams so I'm very you know I'm very careful very active discourse. Oh the city runs it so it's all like you know just this bad thing you know it's much more complex than that right because you know we want those money this money a lot of good things is done with it. But then on the other hand you know then there can be argument about programming some officials which gets us out of the city can affect programming. Not that there has been a lot of you know serious censorship but some people have complained about certain things. Okay so now let's move to another national level and this is another example which is hate crime law. This was especially discussed in the US but in other countries too. So this is a famous law called the Maty Shepardach which Maty Shepard and Jane Spirit hate crime prevention act which held in the US that you know hate crime based on sexual orientation would, would be considered a federal hate crime. And a lot of people get out of the great right to undertake their support of this and found it's like the big victory but some people have decided. So this is from the group called the Nesquad where they say queer people demand a war without prisons. So while some gay groups supported it, other groups say that actually hate crime legislation is a rather drastic system of violence. It actually, it aims to put more people in prison. A colleague from Berwick-Bexile Land will call it queer invested in punishment. So do we want to support from a queer perspective putting more people in jail for longer term even if they do horrible things. And especially given who are the people most likely to find themselves in prison, usually poor people, people of colour. So we see here this is I think hate crime law is a great example of the gay cabinet succeeding the law is legislated to support the gay rights cause. But the question that as you see I want to ask all the time, what are the prices and who pays them. So now let's move to the UK. So David Cameron said a few years ago I don't support gay marriages by being conservative, I support gay marriage because I am conservative. Now we can talk a lot about sex marriage and its own role in gay governance and its effect on whether it reinforces the prioritisation of certain kinds of relations against a nuclear family. Of course on the other hand it does generate a quality for people, on the other hand for who and for who not. That's a very big question and again I put it aside for a moment because the debate about sex marriage could be an interesting paper where it's on. But after sex marriage was legislated Cameron said that you want to export gay marriage to the entire world as part of the global race where the UK should export more and sell more. I had to check five times it really said. So it becomes a commodity that the UK have to sell in the global race. And then this idea that we take our gay rights when we finally achieve them and we want to mark them globally and this is done in a few ways. How am I doing with the time? Ok I'll take it off for two hours. I have two, next time to the topic so I apologize but I'll explain in the background to it. So that actually Cameron also came up with this idea and he said that countries that ban homosexuality may lose age pain and lack of reform because we want to attach more to British age. So I think you would call it gay conditionality first as far as I know. I think we will talk about it too I think. This gay conditionality, this idea of the two issues of condition A based on whether you support gay rights or not. And this produced this horrible homophobic caricature in I forgot now which country but I had it written. Now but I'm showing this because there has been a lot of arguments and there has been a lot of backlash to that. And especially with sex marriage and with some African countries saying ok so now because the UK has sex marriage we all have to do sex marriage. And then when gay people fighting it for very basic rights like not to be imprisoned because of sex sex sex. Suddenly I faced the fact that the UK came and said we're going to export gay marriage. And when the UK talks about conditionality they say ok is that going to deny our funding if we don't support gay marriage or the backlash against gay people in those countries. Some people argue we've become bigger and that has been causing a lot of controversy and we'll talk about that soon. And the gay conditionality took the real form. If you case it once, the famous one is that in 2014 when the World Bank announced that because of the anti-gay law it would indefinitely delay 90 million US dollars health carried on to Uganda. Now the main question was e-marked for the struggle against maternal mortality which rate in Uganda is very high. Giving the prevalence of HIV in Uganda could be daunting. And it doesn't have to do specifically with the conditionality. It's just general saying to remind us about maternal mortality in Uganda. So here we say in the name of gay rights we take out money which is supposed to protect women's rights and right of health. So we see the prices and the question is why should they have to pay the price? But we see the gay governance against the price. So the gay rights idea becoming part of government and now in the global level because it's not on any more the national level of sex marriage in the UK. We want export sex marriage, the institutional institutions also adopt the idea of gay rights. Write the word back and they say we're going to cut money to Uganda. Now some people say by the way that the fact that after the Uganda court struck down the law that Raul can talk more about it, he knows more about it than me. But it struck down the law, I mean there is already a law, but there is a newer or more extreme law. It struck it down on procedural grounds and some people think that Uganda government is not going to move to be legislated because of international pressure. Maybe it succeeded, but then it was priced and in either another way to do it. Again I thought I had many questions, I don't really have all the answers today. Now they have been noted for position from human rights group including LGBT activists in Uganda against this. As I said, you should be doing those things. For example, I said the position of Donald's sanctions may be one way of thinking to improve the human rights situation in a country, but does not in itself result in the improved protection of the rights of LGBT people. Donald's sanctions are by the nature coercive and reinforce the disproportionate power dynamics between Donald's countries and recipients. They are often based on assumptions about African sexualities and the needs of African and LGBTI people. They disregard the agency of African civil society movement and political leadership. They also tend to exaggerate the environment of intolerance in which political leadership scapegoed LGBTI people for Donald's sanctions in attempt to return and reinforce national state sovereignty. Now after the camera said, I can't see it from here. After the camera said what it said, US State Department under Hillary Clinton, maybe the next president of the US, came out with its own statement about how gay rights are going to be part of US policy. So in 2011 Hillary Clinton addressed these for global consensus on the recognition of human rights of LGBT people and she said the Obama administration has been one being Secretary of State. She said the Obama administration defending human rights of LGBT people is part of her comprehensive human rights policy and is a priority for foreign policy and the US diplomats will raise issues about the LGBT rights globally etc. Now we can maybe distinguish because the US did not talk about conditionality as such although there was at least one case of US aid cut to Gandalf suspended related to that topic. I don't have the time to do it but some people have written comparing the discourse of Cameroon and Hillary Clinton and showing that maybe the American discourse was less imperialist in this case, less offensive etc. But the question about whether she comes up, this is not related but the gay rights of human rights was before Hillary Clinton direct to National Israeli 21 gender singer posted from 1999, so I just see gay rights of human rights as a poster so I have to show it to you. But then following that the US appointed a special representative by the State Department for LGBT rights is Mr Randy Berry, likes the picture in the beach, that's also a picture I took because he is happy to be invited to a reception with him with the US Embassy in New York and here is his vision and it's very interesting, we can talk more about what he told me later if you want to. But basically his appointment, some people said it's great, it's great that America is now helping us and some people said this is great, more backlash. And for example people are asking why single out gay rights, so are they making them what are always being accused of special rights and the US State Department has a special representative for them where it may not have for other issues. The question of backlash has been addressed recently, this is December, December 2015, New York Times was a big story, US a port of gay rights in Africa made that more hard than good and so actually made it to the mainstream press, this question of the backlash etc. So to conclude, does any of those of you who collect gay movement in the state pointed out the fact that homosexual claims are increasingly institutionalized as administrators and ministers in charge of LGBT equality are spreading in different parts of the world and that lesbian and gay demands are also being articulated in international and supernatural areas, I did talk about the gay rights in the Netherlands, that's another story. But at the same time as many of the backlash, more tentatively hostile reactions could be emerging which would also confirm the increased silence of these issues. The example I discussed are but a few of many examples that could be discussed and brought to the complex further points of the shift in the status of homosexuality from a social phenomenon suffering persecution or at least marginalization by the state to one which is part of the state, the municipality or global governance. When gay activists support the dissolution that may lead to greater imprisonment, support the gentrification of cruising or participate in actions that states may use as propaganda. When sex marriage becomes an export commodity that could increase the persecution of people who practice sex-sex relationship in the global south and when gay conditionality emerges, we may talk about gay governance. Arguably, any demand for rights engages the state and is thus open to the appropriation discussed here. Thus, in assessing the processes described here, a careful analysis is needed. Gay governance, we have to admit, sometimes maybe we could do good with these parties empowering people, reducing persecution, increasing equality and freedom but it comes at the cost and may do harm if it prioritizes gay rights over other rights. If promoting gay rights comes at the expense of Palestinian rights or of health rights in Uganda or causes more imprisonment in the way that depends on the oppression of racial minorities and poor people. I hope I've shown that gay governance occurs not only at the state level but also at the municipal level of one hand and at the global level of the other hand both in the context of the UN human rights mechanism which I did address and that of international financial institutions. I have to say, in the UN, it's very good humanitarian, it's got a lot of backlash, it hasn't been a huge success yet. Now, a great critique of gay governance shifts the discussion from the protection of a certain identity to the question of opposing hierarchies and structure of power around sexuality as well as other access, may consider who benefits and who loses from gay governance and consider how gay governance and the struggles of gay rights may be part of the solution but also part of the problem, may be leading us to rethink, you know, what rules should the struggle for agility take. OK, thank you. That's always one happy opportunity that it's hard to miss. OK, so my next speaker is Dr Vania Hantig who is a lecturer here at SAWAS in Lawies. His legal, anthropological and historical research primarily revolves around human subjectivity information and insurrectionary vernacular. He likes to use big words. He is particularly interested in various Islamic legal traditions and their intersections with gender diversity as well as Marxist social political and economic thought and legal theory as well. Vania's author books have just come out in the last few months including sexual and gender diversity in the Muslim world history, law and vernacular knowledge and also in 2010 control and sexuality the revival of Zina laws in Muslim contexts. The title of this talk is International Law as Violence and Leasing Absences of the Other. Thank you very much for introducing me yet again and thank you for coming. My special thank you of course is the original Zina entry and the two centers that they so wonderfully lead for bringing us all together here. It is my utmost pleasure to be with this great group of people and to discuss something that I found very difficult and I find many ways problematic to discuss and I hope that the discussion that can take various turns is released. What I'll be talking about primarily is the relationship between law and violence and indeed of law as violence and what can be gained if law is no longer constituted as part of this conflict of law and violence but rather as violence itself. I will revert to a bit old fashioned reading of my papers so I'm sorry for that. I won't read all of it but I believe both of it and I hope that we can then engage in more dynamic look afterwards. So law and violence are an old couple in a political quarry as you all know in fairs that produce the wealth of disparate diagnosis most of which however agree that they with this relationship is unhealthy but necessary fact of life as with children in abusive families we are cautioned that any alternative to enduring this relationship in our lives would be catastrophic and that we better shape up for a long journey ahead and indeed better understand the song says that all this is for our own good. For instance in law's violence Austin Sarratt and Thomas Keynes conclude that violence is a fact and a metaphor is integral to the constitution of modern law and that law is a creature of both literal violence and of imaginings and threats of force, disorder and pain. Without either literal or abstract violence we are told there can be no law but law is or rather ought to be because it also holds a promise that it can contain and control the violence it deems brute and excessive the very violence of the world outside law. The perfection imminent to law's violence taming of extra legal violence is law's driving force and anomaly built into the system to ensure its preservation. For Sarratt and Keynes violence stands as the limit of law as a reminder of what law is continuing necessity and its ever-present failing. Without violence law is unnecessary yet in its presence law may be impossible. The complex of law in violence is thus forever entangled in a double bind a distressing existential drama that both threatens and makes this relationship possible. But although apparently interdependent law and violence are not in an equal relationship whether it is described as a product of social and economic relations or more alarmingly as some studies say is biologically predetermined as almost inherent heritage. In humans and other animals violence is thought to predate law and exist both within and without law's life worlds. In contrast law is constituted by violence because violence provides the occasion and method for founding legal orders it gives law as the regulator of force and coercion a reason for being and it provides a means through which the law acts. This etiological connection is however typically denied by law and contrasted with law's seemingly nobler originative myths such as those of justice, peace and security which are also projected as law's ultimate ends. It is non-violence then in which law claims in here and in which it wants to exist except that as ever law's claims are deceptive. Samira Esmir famously has demonstrated in her analysis of the recent wars in Iraq how laws operations of global peace, security and non-violence are themselves productive of their own violence and how wars can be carried out for the law. Thus the violence of non-violence mediated through law reaffirms law's subordinate relationship with violence a relationship in which violence is not only laws as on that but it's magistra vitae too. The ultimate heuristic device for contemplating laws past, present and future. International law is particularly notorious for its continuous evolution towards ever more diverse forms of juridical violence from the falsehood of imperial pacifism that characterized the early 20th century efforts to juridical war through the perils of the multiple turns to pragmatism and quasi-proportionality with regards to the legal sanctions uses of force the infinitude of contemporary warfare international law's spectacles of violence seem to proliferate at an unprecedented pace is it then too preposterous class what insights could be obtained if international law is positive no longer as a discipline and practice intrinsically committed to regulation of violence but as violence itself. If it is presumed that all law is violence then the time when the analytical diet of law and violence no longer makes sense. Law's violence becomes the very essence of law and law's violence against both literal and abstract forms of extra-legal violence can be seen as law's intrinsic survival strategy something law does in order to be in order to distinguish itself from an otherwise indistinguishable multitude of violent acts. Law's difference from such acts is then merely circumstantial and contingent owned to particular societal conditions for it rather than vice versa thus exposing the fallacy of the lower law. Such law is not exceptional not worth preserving at any cost it can and perhaps should as many Marxist analyses have said wither away. If all law is violence then international law is perfectly suited for global violent pursuits. It is well entrenched and institutionalised and it provides multiple fora of engagement. Each violent in its own right and respect to a specific set of conditions that govern will purport to govern human lives and relations. This intervention considers one such form the United Nations Security Council which has evolved over time into perhaps the most thought and simple of legally sanctioned state violence in international relations not least because of its botched attempts to curb warps and punish war crimes. The Council is also as an auto-averse deep seat of power of the world superpowers whose permanent members are also the world's largest arms dealers. Initially envisaged as pursuing military actions in its own right instead of merely advising states on such matters and even having armed forces continuously available to it the Council has gradually moved towards a radical rather than literal forms of violence. Those are epitomising the establishment of the ad hoc war crimes tribunals which followed Yugoslav and Rwandan conflicts in the 1990s and subsequently in its resolutions on counter-terrorism. The oxymoronic formulae that the Council has relied on in these operations such as its insistence on international legal enforcement of global peace, justice and security reveal all too plainly the violent nature of such reportedly non-violent acts or as De Rida suggests the word enforceability reminds us that there is no such thing as law that doesn't imply in itself a priori the possibility of being enforced applied by force. The Council's repeated vows to kill insecurity for security and to defeat violence for peace should therefore be understood literally as acts of juridical aggression as international laws on war on war. The discussion on the intrinsic violence of the Council's dealings in international law which in turn reveals the intrinsic violence of international law is framed in this intervention of mind in relation to a singular recent event the first so-called ever security council meeting on the persecution of what I call the LGBT Syrians and Iraqis by the so-called Islamic State of Horizon which took place on the 24th of August 2015. I argued that while dealing with but also perpetrating and perpetrating multiple forms of violence this event at the same time is some productive points especially with regard to the dominant framing of the subjectivities and subjects of the international legal discourse and intervention. Such words I propose allow for theorizing the absence of international law and in turn the absence of the subject of juridical violence. So in this intervention I revisit first a certain loci classical critical theories discussions on violence so as to assess their relevance for my premise that all law is violence and then I inquire in particular whether the diverse categories of violence as they wise by critical theorists make sense in international law's life worlds and if not what is to be done. I turn them to international law's intrinsic violence as part of the security council's engagement with ISIS that newly begotten hosties who man again in this as well as with ISIS's potential perfect alterity in the image of LGBT Syrians and Iraqis. I conclude that this conceptual meeting of two unlikely actants or personalities of international law one deemed quintessentially evil and the other just as good is not an ordinary event rather it probes the very foundations of laws violence and signals and existential crisis amid the global abrasions of international law thus revealing an illegal space for critique and contemplation or simply for a life imagined beyond law. Out of an array of critical re-engagements on the left with violence as a social phenomenon two analytical encounters are almost proverbial nowadays for the in-depth and the number of productive responses that they were able to elicit. The first is you all probably know Walter Benjamin's notoriously dense critique of violence published in 1921. Second is Jean-Paul Sartre's controversial preface to the 1961 edition of France's Penals to the Wretched of the Year. Both texts have proven difficult to render into English not least because the words erect en toi in German and French respectively denote both law and rights and a tata treat as you know that is shared across many Germanic, Romanesque and Slavic languages while the German word give out means not only violence but also as the Ida carefully notes legitimate power or authority of force the failures and misfortunes of translation taken as a linguistic, philosophical and cultural label thus before in particular Benjamin's text. At the same time Benjamin's text has been described as at once mystical and hypocritical a text which in certain respects can be read as neo-Mystianic Jewish mysticism grafted on the post-saurarian neo-Marxism that's what Derridaugh's claim is taking this text. It might be this Benjaminian mystical critique that propelled Slavoj Zizek to compose a 2008 book on violence out of six sideways glances rather than confronting violence directly. In so doing Zizek is careful not to succumb to the mystique of violence itself. My underlying premise he writes is that there is something inherently mystifying in a direct confrontation with violence the overpowering horror of violent acts and an empathy with the victims inexorably functioned as a lure which prevents us from thinking. The same perhaps could be said for the lure of law with the now lure echoing uncannily the world rule in its messianic mode the law that solemnly results in justice being done Benjamin's approach to the lure of both law and violence is to bring these terms of art that is law as a vest and violence as a gift out into a symbiotic relationship in which their interdependence becomes the key for their dialectical difference as well as their metaphysical unity. This symbiosis is achieved through a series of distinctions for example between law making violence and law preserving violence to account for two different ways in which violence is memorialised and built into the legal system and crucially to move beyond the impasse contained in the distinction between natural and positive law. Among all the forms of violence permitted by both natural and positive law Benjamin suggests there is not one that is free of the gravely problematic nature of all legal violence. To explain this nature he erects yet another pair of oppositions that of mythic violence, of mystic check-out and divine violence of goethe check-out. The format denoting the very lure of law its mystifying powers to keep us forever in track in its vicious circle while the latter suggests a path to liberation from that circle. Divine violence in that sense is quite vitually a delsex machina, a type of violence such as the proletarian general strike that sets itself the sole task of destroying state power which will ultimately open again all the internal forms that he claims. So Benjamin's divine violence is thus revolutionary in that it serves no means other than that of liberating us from the intrinsic injustice of law. It reminds us of the possibility of a life outside law and juridical violence. While a lawless life for Benjamin is a possibility it is not a life without violence of course where a divine violence is conceived of temporary occurrence or indeed erodes to a new form of sovereignty it can only set a spree from one pervasive form of violence that of law as such. Absent of revolution even that is but a distant dream. So what's to be done? Sartre's answer in his preface to finance the ratchet of the earth seemed to be to embrace even celebrate the insurgent violence of the oppressed since such violence like actually spear can heal the wounds it has inflicted as he famously writes such as cold to arms then as it were where primary was primarily intense to wake the Europeans to third world decolonial struggle. Still there would be self soothing properties of violence in his reference to actually spear elicited a barrage of criticism. For instance in her essay on violence Hannah Adam dismisses this reference as utter nonsense. If this were true she writes revenge would be the cure for most of our elves. Against these zero sum exchange with Judith Butler's analysis centres on the specific context in which Sartre wrote this text and she writes Sartre's portrayal of insurgent violence is meant to provide insight into the person who lives under colonial oppression. As such it serves as a reconstruction of an induced psychological state. It also reads as a full instrumental rationalization of violence and normatical. Indeed the violent acts by which decolonization is achieved are also those by which man recreates himself. Sartre is describing a psychopolitical reality but he is also offering we might say a new humanism to confound the old one that requires under these social conditions violence to materialism. So Butler's analysis situates Sartre within his own existential drama especially with regards to his self about his existential humanism and its normative limits. In this struggle Sartre's affirmation of the violence of the colonizes at the same time an affirmation of as she says the masculine as the presumptive norm of humanization. It is this gender biased humanist normativity bent on violence that Butler primarily objects and proposes and said that we seek a touch and form of yielding that establishes a relationship to yield. That is to a pronoun that is open ended precisely on the question of gender. For Butler then this will be a search for an insurrectionary human beyond the constraints of humanism and indeed an emancipatory quest beyond violence as she writes. If there is a relationship between this you who might seek to know whose gender cannot be determined, whose nationality cannot be presumed and who compels me to relinquish violence then this mode of address particularly is a wish not just for a non-violent future for the human but for a new conception of the human where some manner of touch other than violence is the precondition of the breaking. So that was present to you and is a you still attained by law gender roles and other forms of violence. The you who's ways of being in the world invite me to explore the act of touch and the notion of infinite possibilities. The life-worlds about the issues that are in opposition to law's life-worlds the former inter-mosexual and effective journeys into the human beyond violence. The latter are the worlds of radical violence that in living still ultimately defeats the human. For violence cannot be cured by law. Law can only be get more violence. As such law cannot be other than violence. But how can non-violence other than violence and other than legal ways to approach conflict and suffering ever be convincing in a world such as ours? Even if it is presumed that global peace justice and security are all concepts steeped in violence, literal symbolic, systemic can their compositional pairs that is global war, injustice and insecurity ever be contained by anything other than sheer force including the force of law? Writing from Paris the day after the 13th November 2015 terrorist attacks on Judith Butler again the strange metrics of revability that renders some human lives infinitely more revable than others. And warned that this, the Paris attacks will take some time to think through. This echoes digits earlier discussed concern with the lure of violence law with its compulsive urge to intervene to be drawn in and in doing so to succumb to a hypocritical sentiment of moral outrage. The response on the reinforced the presumed inability of violence law instead of going first and thinking later is there a time to do the opposite? If so, the key question should be what is it that law of violence does to contain and eradicate those most direct and most appalling forms of violence being extra legal? When on 24th August 2015 the Security Council convened its idea formula meeting on ISIS and its persecution of Algeria and Syrians in Iraqis to make history. This will be a historic meeting Brooklyn, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. It will be the first Security Council meeting on LGBT rights. While LGBT rights are no stranger to the international legal system they have been indeed absent from the council agenda not pleased because at least one of its permanent members the Russian Federation opposed their existence to coup. Meanwhile the council's dealings with other comparable issues most notably its agenda on women peace and security have been less than impressive the agenda that was hold by some families involved in its original drafting to play an important role in instructing the gender assumptions of collective security response principally by representing women as vital participants in conflict resolution and peace building quickly proved to be the very opposite. Four of the six follow up council resolutions focused solely on women as victims of sexual violence. So what exactly if anything was historic about the secretive and informal council's area formula meeting on ISIS and LGBT rights. First some facts. The meeting was organized by the United States and Chile whose ambassadors delivered prepared marks along with UN Deputy Secretary Jenner, John Kelly as an international gift by the Human Rights Commission which was later made out by the National Executive Director Jessica Stern. Of the 15 Security Council members 30 were present and nine delivered remarks too although in attendance representatives from China, Russia, Nigeria and Malaysia predictably did not speak. The meeting was addressed by a representative of one Muslim majority country who and I quote report delivered through generally supportive marks a representative of one Muslim human rights organization and I quote reaffirming the need to address the abuses committed against all marginalized persons impacted by the conflict including LGBT persons and anonymous and I quote again Iraqi gay man who spoke to the council via telephone. Finally to the council heard a gay man from the Syrian city of Idlib who received refugee status that now lives in San Francisco. He spoke during the briefing on the call of the organization for refuge, asylum and migration. I have witnessed with my own eyes the annihilation of civility and humanity as I knew then that has told the council for millions of Syrians both in and outside the country, time is running out for my compatriots who do not conform to gender and sexual norms the 11th hour has already passed they need your help now. U.S. Ambassador Power Stern and Nahas breathed the press later in the day Stern told reporters that ISIS has executed at least 13 men charged with suddenly the obligation of international community to take action she concluded. Nahas told the press that he would support his national military intervention in order to stop ISIS and end the war in Syria. That centered the historic area. It's flingsy recognition of LGBTI's Syrians and Iraqis as victims of ISIS's rule of terror coincided with a new way of public executions of those accused of committing the deeds of lots of people. The ISIS perpetrated and duly reported in social media. The area formula meeting took place within the context of other such informal and secretive conversations that the consul has recently organized on other atrocious acts committed by ISIS that are seemingly deemed condemnable but sensitive such as the sexual enslavement of women and girls and ISIS's targeted killing of Christian, Yazidi, Turkic and Turkish groups. While the consul's resolutions have already affirmed the need to combat terrorism in this case by all means in the corners of international law it's attempt to raise awareness on crimes that ISIS has committed against particular groups based on their ethnic or indeed sexual and gender difference are tricky business. On the one hand is evidenced by the silence and one rather lukewarm response of certain state representatives at the area formula meeting on 24 August 2015 recognizing some of these groups very existence might be a problem for some of the consul's members let alone condemning such crimes publicly. Such recognition might give those groups a title presence indeed of personality in international law and politics that could later be invoked to condemn violence both ritual and juridical that many member states happily commit or condone against those or other comparable groups. On the other hand, emphasizing the plights of particular groups such as these is seemingly necessary for building a case for the referral of ISIS because it is crimes to the international criminal court. But how could ISIS's violence be effectively singled out and juridified that is criminalized without involving other sides to the wars in Syria and Iraq? The international criminal court's jurisdiction over ISIS is as problematic as ISIS's stand in international law in general as an international terrorist organization with an ominous claim to statehood that is both territorial currently primarily in Iraq and Syria its most evident physical strongholds and extractor territorial with its claim to global both real and ritual caliphates. Couple with most extreme forms of violence ISIS's personality in international law is perhaps closest to that of the past fiscal mining endless otherwise reserved for pirates in certain role states such as Nazi Germany during the World War II. ISIS's crimes in Syria and Iraq cannot be referred to the international criminal court by those states as they have not verified the role of the statutes. But the Security Council could vote a referral of both of these states rather than ISIS specifically as an unstate actor to the international criminal court as it did with Libya in 2011. However, the likelihood of that happening is slim since the Rome Statute is designed to prevent one side referrals. The referral would often open the Syrian regime to prosecution possibly along with all Syrian rebel forces. This would hardly be welcomed by Russia and China two of the Council's permanent members of their support to the Assad regime. As for Iraq, its government and their its paramilitary formations would also find themselves projectable something the remaining three permanent member states in the Security Council could find troublesome. With the deadlock in the Council yet again resembling the old Cold War fault lines what little remains other than the literal violence of war is to resort to the equally deja vu rhetoric of compassion and peace building in international relations and law. It is in this role that the Security Council has most it is this role that the Security Council has most widely embraced even if it involves at times sensitive issues such as that of human sexual and gender diversity in most of the majority of states. There is however nothing historic in its earlier formal meeting on ISIS and the LGBT Syrians in Iraqis. The meeting conferred by the contextial victim-based recognition upon such individuals violating at the same time their right to belong to or device for themselves any other categories of personhood. In doing so it made the life of LGBT Syrians in Iraqis temporally grievable albeit only in as much as this designation could serve a higher legal and moral purpose the putative robust protection of civility and humanity as we know i. as they have known and protected international law and as they are to be recognized and protected in the global war on ISIS that a world war law could be protected by a world war against a world enemy is of course not a coincidence it is the very nature of international law as violence. The very nature of consensus building involved in the difficult task of embedding ISIS into the politically polarized system of international crimes and punishments since the juridification of ISIS cannot be achieved without unraveling the threats of international power games the games in which international law as violence remains deeply invested the violence of ISIS as opposed to the violence of states or other non-state combatants has to be made special it has to be recognized as not just malum prohibitum but malum in set as with the other hostess in Manidian to generous ISIS as evil incarnate invites international law to intervene with extreme violence to kill in order to let live this is the law as morality as violence the law of the parameter in norm or indeed a commandment that there is something divine or perhaps natural as an existential imperative in exterminating the enemy but constructing the personality of an archetypal evil requires that an equal example we could be summoned too it is only in the opposite of these legal and moral actants party synons that violence as law rather than law as violence or perhaps violence as the law could ever hope to be cleansed or just adjusted the councils beckoning to what LGBT Syrians in Iraqis and other personalities such as women and girls, Christians and Yazidis, Kurds and Turkmens was no doubt an effort to conjure out the good from across the political divide in order to make the evil of ISIS more palatable, more personal more punishable the good are summoned so that evil can be eradicated so that the violence of such eradication can be done in the name of the good the LGBT organizations and individuals involved in this purification literal international law should be aware of the circumstances in which their temporary contingent and informal recognition before the security council have become possible I have argued elsewhere for our legality as an exploratory site of other than life legal life worlds through which the ideological diet of legal illegal could be effectively challenged it is perhaps in the same fashion that the problem of law as violence could be productively approached the events such as the security council a formula meeting on 24 of August 2015 are not ordinary in as much as they signal the increasing need on part of international law to justify its operations in absolute terms as the battle between good and evil as ever the language of the apocalypse is the language of crisis and the crisis currently to fall in international law might be quite existential in nature it is the crisis of violence feeling everywhere of violence that no longer seems containable even by most violent acts of law in it it is becoming abundantly clear to laws various subjects that law is just violence too could such realisation lead to space for critique and contemplation amidst the warring world could such a space survive as Rizek and Butler had hoped the mindless accusations of being seemingly inert, cowardly and dispassionate in a time of global crisis each more ominous than the last if law is abandoned even if one is theoretically as deep repository of people's identities and hopes that in turn constitute those subjects it should be possible to imagine and be in touch with the self and the you in the human who do not confirm conform to the dominant subjectivities and subjects of international law and legal co-military interventions the constraints of the LGBT and the left-lefted in my matrix being here of course a case in point so such illegal selves corresponding to illegal others thus living in the void of law could lead to noble experiences of the absence of those violence this would require an inverse logic in our approach to the problem of violence a logic that no longer someone's laws violence could tame excessive forms of violence in the world but seeks instead to abandon laws violence and with it the law as such first and foremost in our search for a less violent future our next speaker is a welcome to the university press which I'm sure we will it's very much looking forward to and the 2001 book published around the law on the use of force of feminist analysis it's a bit of a big task sit for me three amazing papers thank you all of you and for the privilege of seeing them in advance as well I'm sure everyone here still sort of digesting the work of the law so have a couple of general comments and then maybe some specific ones but I'm really keen to open up to everyone else before we lose the room so I want to speak about what I was really thinking about I mean there are some obvious themes that link the papers but also more broadly what gives the papers for me was a spanning of disruptions of a series of disruptions from legal jurisdictions to temporal disruptions subjectivities violence and violence paper but also disruptions of a series of theories around law I think always the law and violence critique always does that because it speaks to so back to so many other theories around law and I wondered if you would speak to the method in that way because that's we need the disruptions whether sort of engaging the temporality engaging across different legal spaces in the way that I owned us the international, the local the municipal, the national to speak to all of those spaces at once or in values of speaking back to a series of theorisations of what law is and what law could be for me there's queerness in that and I wonder if you would speak to that just to build on behalf of my students when we talk about what is queer and what are queer methods and we'd really love you to learn about that I'm keen for that sort of aspect but for me they're a really welcome contribution of all the papers the kind of disruptions they do to what we expect to paper to do and maybe that's a bit of reasoning as well the second comment is about effective registers which isn't in your paper roll but you're supposed to because I was like how are you going to hear it if you call me and it was very eloquent your discussion of the book atonement and the role of the effective and I wonder if you might go back to some of Diolto's work and I'm sure she spoke to this in Melbourne as well and perhaps the role of queer effective registers and what they play both in the queer community but then also the effective register of LGBT rights and I think the role of kind of being a part of the moments where there's an effective response and where it is really important and what the state what role the state is in playing in that and I'll talk to her a little bit more in a second and then the third comment about subjectivities which subjects and this came up in my big bang this paper the victim subject of feminism appears again in the representations before the security council but also Cleverness work thinks about the production of a series of elite actors through interventions in the words of how we walk in the halls of power and this walk in the halls of power so it's not just the production of a victim subject but also an empowered subject and whether that plays out again here so there might be more general points I might stop with those because I might go on for a moment and I can give one to each speaker I'll come to you Can we talk of gay governance as comparable to governance feminism in the sense as is it something in the process of being produced if you think about the extent of governance feminism and its interventions across states and jurisdictions whereas we can see pockets of gay governance in the global order and it's materialising but I wonder if it's at the same point and should we expect it to progress like governance feminism where gender agendas are being imposed on all of the other states or at least the service states and I'm not talking about more violence so I can't keep it short so I write on the gendering of violence in the law so I wonder if you want to talk about the heteronormativity of violence or violence as law and what that adds or where that is in your paper I think because I guess it takes us back then to subjectivity and think about how subjects are constructed through law and for me the relationship between law and violence and thinking about the gendering of violence in the law and I guess for me the gap in the law and violence scholarship is it often doesn't talk about power and power structures that are also reproduced through the relationship between law and violence so I've looked at the gendering of violence in the law and connected to that with the gendering but also in your paper is the heteronormativity of violence in the law so what does this work do that the Security Council is doing does it really enforce the heteronormativity and I guess that takes you to talk about civilisation troops as well perhaps and then Rahul at the end of your paper we're going to talk about moving memory and shame and humiliation I wonder if you could pick up some of that work and again it seems to resonate with gender politics that also think about how we shift shame I guess in stories of atonement and it brought me back again to dialogue at work and the politics of listening and the work that you did through people's tribunals and made in a way at least value these kind of questions about how we have law without violence or non-violent law to kind of what you're kind of searching for you know what's beyond atonement what is an effective kind of space here and I wonder if the model of people's tribunals which sits in the space of you may speak and we will hear or we will listen and have personal politics that diarots into that is that we're going at the end or is that something to be opened up so that was my specific question I also wondered if you've got this kind of apology to the indigenous people it's effective resonance it's very different to what the British government has involved and I wasn't there and I was ready to be very critical but it might make someone ask here it was illustrated when the apology was issued but it was seen as an amazing mobilising moment that really transformed relationships between different groups but maybe other people were there in different ways but so many people asked what they would do saw as a very honest and open apology that people really gathered around them and it was quite different to simply an apology and that was what was so effective to the seven check the ribs it was a good idea but yeah if you want to open up yeah great so I think what we'll do is take a few more questions for all of you and then I get your response if you just have some time to respond sometime anyone I have loads of questions thank you thank you very much thank you very much thank you very much thank you very much I wanted to try to put to our room and Vanjo's remarks and the conversation I am not being your opponent I am not being your opponent but there seems to be some one of the suggestive connections so if you look at anti-sodding laws here and now here and there now and then or there now here then anti-sodding laws effectively use instrumentalized law to expose homosexuality and to subject it to laws on violence on now we think of the chief function of the law in protecting rather than exposing same-sex relations from potential violence so the law has shifted from homosexuality exposing homosexuality protecting in its function and if you think about this further if you look at the remarks directed to ISIS ISIS has its own anti-sodding statute effectively since it's prescribed same-sex relations so the involvement of law or the legal element of the legal dimension in the execution of gay men is obvious but has been neglected in the discourse and now we have this scenario whereby the homosexuality protection protecting function of law then serves as the justification for the threat of violence both effectively both with respect to cases like Uganda where there's conditionality with helping of aid etc and with respect to ISIS where there's a threat of military intervention so so so so so I was really intrigued by this new constant new order I'm very I'm not sure if I can pronounce it how many years it is how many years it is but so you talk about the city of Tel Aviv sponsored by it for example now in the UK in London sponsored by Tesla so I'm interested in as I'm interested in the economic my question is how does that work and how can you work that into your argument for many also I have a huge question where is the economic in your argument but you don't have to answer it in two minutes and for how would the argument work if there was to be a reparation for slavery of some sort because we do know that the British government paid out 20 million pounds not so long ago to the two 5,000 Kenyns who were victims of the Malamaw massacre so and in other countries like in the Netherlands the campaigns get reparations is still very much going as it has been in Germany so I was thinking as a lawyer and I agree completely with Banya that law is violence and I also think immediately out of lawyer that with those other 50 the person who's still alive will also main benefit from a main wanted pardon in the way it's going so of course they can choose to pardon to also get that or to somehow to have a decision that something must be pardoned that was actually a crime at the time that made it a witness something that goes against what is very normal to make your own message so anyone else who has a question space it's normal to not see people here and I apologise but I was shocked by the presence of Walter Turing in your paper who I guess is often critical to talk about the British national identity in this way and I just wondered what you thought so I'll agree on that a little bit I suppose atonement is obviously set then but also based on another novel that was published by in 1948 but for immediately after Walter Turing I guess it was then the fact that the apology from Gordon Brown refers to Turing's protections us to live freely and the theory that's what they used to be on the surface that's about his role in World War II but actually it seems to be much more about the freedom it's another kind of an activism in which his homosexuality is an argument in itself of freedom it becomes a symbol of freedom that can be kind of an academicity but what you thought the relationship was between atonement which I think you really brilliantly thought has been this very complex kind of multi-layered thing and Presbytoch Llywodraeth Codio which is another of these terms that we often see is to describe the complex set of aspects in the kind of British national imaginary but I wondered if you thought there was a relationship a productive relationship to be drawn between those two kind of effective structures It was a very quick round about reparations and broadening of the apology I've been on Turing Is there an officer of point about the continuing sex offenders register and in fact there's some people still alive who don't know on that register since it's not just reparations it's the continuing impact of that Excellent Okay, so I think we'll start with the arm So okay to answer your question Who wrote about homo-capitalism so when it comes to sponge in the test you'll have to refer to because that's all homo-capitalism but it's very interesting I want to say something that I thought about it because last year I went to Pride in Brighton and we had to pay for everything and it was mighty annoying but then I read and they weren't convinced because I wrote on the website that they actually asked you to pay and all the money goes back to Pride because I don't bother to commercial sponsorship but also because there were some times that some more folk people came into the place where it happened and there was some awful environment so this way it prevented people to come so I don't know so it's very complicated so you know it started with convincing maybe instead of bringing test going but taking money from I don't know if you know that it excludes people but then because it's still like 10 pounds so very complicated about the economy so so I don't know if I answered your question but I think it's it's very interesting because you know it comes a little bit into the debate about the video ads and all the questions of the money people say I will work with you to find out the government and also actually that's why should that be considered actually so you're from privatisation so it will come to a private event held in Israel but not one has to be public university because that's government money so all the questions of public and private money I think has to be prioritised more because and so that's all I can say about it I mean I think you know you know the LGBT centre in Tel Aviv as I said it's run by the government but rather than that kind of happiness I mean it's run by the city so on the one hand it's money on the other hand it's nice that the city use money to you know healthcare for LGBT people and some will say this centre is an example of the neoliberalisation not exactly because actually there's public money involved so it's much complicated and you know where do we take the money to find those activities because as they say money doesn't grow on trees so do we take it from Tesco do we take it from the government do we take it from each of one base to our own pocket do we take it from our own pocket but based on how much we can pay which is on taxation because actually taking from the government might be the best because taxation is at least progressive so you know maybe it's better it goes to gay pride than to go to more weapons but then people say we don't want to go to gay pride because it's funded by the government so it's pinkwashing so complicated and to answer a different question I don't think it exists to the same extent as as governance feminism as I said for example as I said I do have time to go into this one thing and I use it to talk about security council but you can see for example you know obviously for example there is no prohibition discrimination of sexual orientation in democracy unlike sex discrimination and any attempt to bring it to your resolution in the past is unsuccessful recently it became a little bit more successful especially I think after the change of administration in the US that was a turning point but it still gets a lot of backlash and I think that obviously there is backlash to sex equality but I don't know that today and I think that it's not the same extent of backlash and it's still you know no one could today say deny that equality sex discrimination is not related to it in the international law for example but sexual orientation it's a question right it's not eating already the attention but then also the backlash and actually very interesting thing is in the ICC statute because they entered a persecution based on gender in one of categories but then the gender would only mean here men and women or something like that so I think it's a backlash and the homophobia is still more legitimate than let's say the discrimination of women of course it exists but it's still more legitimate so I think it's much more in talk it's partly because of that I thought it's interesting that Hillary Clinton said that the image of the Beijing conference with Hillary Clinton there in her pink jacket and then you used Hillary Clinton as a kind of key kind of global voice speaking out so it's a little bit of a scary kind of similar progression going on there for your time a blue jacket for gay rights and a pink jacket for women's rights real estate big stakes thank you for the wonderful question it's impossible to meet once for this limited time but I will try to very much gloss over some of the main themes here Gina thank you for that week I think well I think that I've been thinking about not exactly only in this particular context but throughout I think my work and one of them is always a question of you know what is it that is a paragon to something else that's something else in my work is always you know capital which we will get later but heteronormativity produces other forms of normativity the forms of normativity that are created to oppose it eventually become exactly the same like that there's a normativity and hence those kinds of critique and so on so it seems to do with normativity in the modes of law the modes in which law operates always produce a similar very similar kind of violence and that has to do with the subjectivities that are produced along as well which is why I'm quite keen on really mentioning in the context of the UN debate of the UN Security Council debate the names given to people maybe these they wrote maybe because that's how they call themselves and not necessarily always the name that people call themselves but of course they will simplify always this you know game until we get exactly the same effect it is the effect that here is the heteronormativity it is the very product of it that all the normativity that are erected against it as well eventually succumb to the same modes of pirandi similarly with the matter in my last book that is being published I call it interruption but I guess it's exactly the same one of the things that of course comes out rather beautifully is that time has to be time has to be disrupted time has to be interrupted so if you are talking about this and I tried in my other words to talk about various histories of Muslim subjectivities that are sexual and generally different that you will have to intervene into this linear time that always goes towards this contemporary progression where everything now seems to be directed towards certain global identities and this is my problem not just with the LGBTQ but also with the question of to what extent queer critique has its own has acknowledged that but that's another story regarding non violence okay yes two sentences I can only answer one question this is not a paper about who deserves reparation and how much and etc it's more a paper about what does it say about public culture when some apologies are so easily given without marching around and if other apologies are half-hearted or have to be extracted from the process such as the amount on which it is or are not given as well thank you