These two pictures were taken in South Sudan in 2002 and 2003 during the second civil war.
In my work as a field delegate gate, I encountered very many challenging situations and it will certainly experience that shaped my life.
Upon my arrival in Europe, I read this paragraph in a book and it said groups such as the South Sudanese
suffer systematic discrimination that might well meet the definition of apartheid.
This was the beginning of a long,
long assault process and finally ended in an application for PLDT Research Fellowship at the University of Oslo with the title.
The Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid under special consideration of the conflict in South Sudan.
That was the project I was hired for.
And when I started researching, which was for me, a new topic, of course, one encounters South Africa's apartheid regime.
So this is what most people understood by the term of apartheid.
And also it originates the term itself in the South African apartheid regime.
Apartheid is also used in a modern legal way of describing discriminatory practises like fear, for example, sexual apartheid.
The case system as India's apartheid or education apartheid.
A bit more of a legal take to the to apartheid as a as a lead, as a legal motion.
Is this UN Special Rapporteur report on North Korea that was published in 2014,
where the rapporteur in a public speech mentions that North Korea was, in fact, an apartheid regime.
However, in the published report, it was not mentioned. The word does not appear.
And, of course, the more common, most common case is this one here.
Richard Falck, the then special rapporteur of the occupied territories.
In his report of 2014, performed illegal on an analysis of the situation in the occupied territories and
concluded that's the crime against humanity of apartheid was committed there.
This was also the conclusion of a recently published report in 2000 here in mid-January by a human rights group.
So off the current situations in the world, probably apartheid is the one term that is used most frequently with regards to Israel.
But then in my research, I was trying to figure out what apartheid really is in legal terms.
And it was not very easy to find out because so far there has never been a prosecution for the crime, not in South Africa nor anywhere else.
So how can I define a crime if it there's never, ever been a judgement rendered?
It did also not figure in any of the previous statutes of the ad hoc criminal tribunals.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the ICC.
Why? Or the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
The ICC are the term or the crime of apartheid was introduced into the Rome Statute
only in a last minute compromise during the Rome conference in nineteen ninety eight.
This is widely considered a diplomatic or political compromise in order to honour the victims of the apartheid regime.
Remember, that's the first democratic elections in South Africa were held in nineteen ninety four at the Rome diplomatic conference,
took place only four years later. So it was still relatively fresh and this was a very appropriate way of honouring the victims.
The legal definition of the crime poses numerous challenges, and I will not bother you with all of them.
The crime itself is defined as a committed in that institutionalised regime of
systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.
There are any number of challenges with the author terms.
But when I started looking at the racial group, the elements of crimes were not able to help me because they do,
in fact, not further discuss what racial groups are in the term of this crime.
So I turned to scholarship, legal scholarship on the crime against humanity of apartheid is very,
very scarce and it was even more so at the time when I started researching for this PFG project.
Some scholars suggested turning to the genocide convention because that also contains the term racial group.
Yet others said turned to human rights law because their racial discrimination, which is not quite the same.
But racial discrimination, is more broadly defined as any discrimination based upon race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin.
So it's a much broader concept of race.
Yet also, scholars said, well, race, that's just the old fashioned way of calling something that or what is nowadays called ethnicity.
Yes, Ulcer's said. Take an anthropological perspective.
And yet others look at biology. So I was left with a number of very confusing suggestions on how to interpret this term.
In looking down into the genocide, into the law of genocide.
That's when I started digging deeper and deeper and deeper into the term of racial.
And the term of race is contained in three provisions in the Rome Statute and the Deep Red Dog.
The more I realised I'm not really researching what I was employed to do,
but I was actually researching the concept of race in international criminal law.
So I changed the focus of my thesis have to unfortunately submit a new project proposal because I suddenly had narrowed the focus dramatically.
And my thesis was then published in a revised and shortened version in 2000.
Nineteen. But then again, what this race.
I'll provide you with a short historical backdrop. The white race is superior to the Oscars and is found in Europe and America.
This picture comes from a children's book,
and the concept of race is undoubtedly connected to colonialism because it was white people discovering uncharted territories with new author people,
other people that they had to classify as of a lesser value in order then to justify the subjugation and their exploitation.
This was the time when the creation of the so-called five five groups of five races of mankind happened.
As you can see in this picture here, the European man elegantly dressed,
sophisticated places himself in the middle of the picture and around him, the answer for indigenous races of mankind.
And that Eurocentric picture remains very strong in the racialized on the standing of people.
It also influenced science in a very a very large extent.
We are entering the time of social Darwinism here, a picture from Norway, the man standing,
measuring with a special tool, the head size of a woman is a Norwegian anthropologist called Alfred Mune.
The people's standing and sitting around the table are the saw me indigenous people.
He performed head measurements of the saw me here also with an also tool say man talking with Asami.
The idea is that Darvin created in order to classify the animal kingdom or biology, were then transformed to people.
And the mission. That's the Norwegian, the anthropologist here.
He created these placards with Ed with comparisons of.
Measurements between this lap, which was the name at the time for the saw me and the Norwegians.
So he compares here, for example, the size of the head.
The eye colours. Body size and hair colour.
And the problem is not that the measurements were performed. The problem is the comparison.
And by comparing, they created hierarchy's in this particular case.
Of course, in the eyes of this mirror and the majority Norwegian population,
the Norwegians were the superior people that saw me were considered inferior based upon anthropological measurements.
We are entering the age of race hygene. This is a publication of nineteen twenty one.
Better babies, race, infant welfare and race.
Progress published in nineteen twenty one, and as shocking as this might seem for us today.
This was come please. The ordinary and recognised scholarship at the time very widely disseminated and very widely embraced.
Another publication in 1921 by a professor who says, I deem it probable that crossing between widely differing races leads to degeneration.
We have also examples of this in the vegetable kingdom.
So so understand what is happening here.
They're taking knowledge from biology plants and transforming it onto people, and they're creating racial hierarchies in doing so.
You probably understand where this is heading. This is heading to the science of eugenics.
This is, again, a placard by Mune and his laboratory of so-called harmonic race crossing's.
So what the scientists and those are in a primarily physical anthropologists
conclude is that races should not not mix because it will lead to D generation.
And it also led to a new science where one was encouraged to keep the so-called races as clean as possible.
And you can see a similar figure of salt in, for example, the the Jim Crow legislation,
where it was about one drop of blood or apartheid, where it is as soon as you mix bloods.
That's when when the races are seen as on harmonic are crossed.
And of course, the consequences, especially of ideas like this, are extremely grave.
The mass sterilisation, for example, of the Roma originated directly from Sing's.
Think, think or thought processes like this here at eugenics and race crossing scholarship.
And also, we know where it ended. It ended in publications like, for example, this one here published in the German Reich.
As you can see, the text is not very well visible, but it's on the my left side.
It says about the Jews. They are the leader of the sub humans, whereas the Germans in uniform are presented as the fighter for the noble and the good.
So what you do is not only you create races,
you also give them certain stereotypes and create prejudices according to which group a person belongs to.
This salts, these kind of thoughts were also transformed into children publication.
This is a children's book that was published prior to the SEC and WorldWar Jews are here on a wanted.
It says on the picture and also look at the way the people are drawn.
It is the two little blonde or many also little blonde Aryan children playing.
And then the Jews, their noses are drawn in a much profiled white way.
It is about creating stereotype types of people.
This publication here juxtaposes German youth versus Jewish you use and it bears the title.
Ask them, Gazi. Sure. These a'la that lossa.
From the soul and from the face speaks the soul of the race.
So you might look like a person, but actually you're not.
That's what the idea was. Here in the Jewish understanding of it.
Sorry. My apologies in the area and on the standing of Jews that they belong to another race.
So let's still talk about the elephant in the room. But why should we why should we talk about the elephant?
Why it is a lot easier to ignore and focus on as a group categories rather than
having to deal with a very contested and very difficult concept such as race?
Race has been tainted by history, as we have seen from the pictures.
So wouldn't it just be easier if we could ignore the elephant?
I argue that because of the principle of effectiveness,
which is one of the core principles of treaty interpretation, we have to deal with every prince, with every term.
It compels us to deal with race. So the word of race is in and in a number of treaties amongst ourselves.
The genocide convention, the apartheid convention, the Rome Statute to talk at tribunals, statutes.
The term is contained and it is not supposed to be interpreted as lacking a meaning or a purpose.
Rather, we should import interpret them in order to giving it a meaning to an attribute, meaning to the racial group.
Because, for example, if you imagined the crime against humanity of apartheid,
if you do not and cannot interpret the word of racial group, there is no Özer group to revert to.
It's the only one that the law provides. Let us for now focus on the law of genocide.
This is the standard definition which is also reflected in the ICC statute.
And I'll talk tribunals, a most actually also national legislations on the crime of genocide.
And as you can see, it protects four groups, only the national, ethnic or racial and religious group.
And the group, it seems, is contained in the men today are which is the so-called special intent.
It's the intent to destroy a group, but also in the OCTA states.
So it's the killing of the group or causing harm to members of the group.
And I will return to the group element later, because it is very important for the definition of the crime.
So if one turns to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties and tries to figure out,
well, what then is the ordinary meaning of race or racial group,
it becomes nearly impossible because no matter which discipline you turn to, you will get 10 different definition.
And topology uses a different one than the social sciences, like sociology or social psychology, biology that uses another one.
Maybe law has yet to. One more. So it was impossible to really find the core of the meaning of race or racial group.
So it is probably a wise step to go back to the prep preparatory works, because if you define race as in the original way it was used,
when in times of colonialism with the so-called five groups of mankind,
five races of mankind, I think it would lead to an absolutely manifestly absurd result.
You cannot classify people into coherent groups of races.
There is no biological DNA or there's no DNA for race.
So if you look at how the draughting process occurred, of course,
genocide and the crime of genocide was heavily influenced by the writing of Rafael Lemkin,
who later took part in the in the committee for the Genocide Convention on behalf of the United States.
He termed the word genocide as a combination of, again, those which is an ancient word for ancient Greek,
for race or tribe and see there, which is the suffix of Khadra, the old Latin word for killing.
So the term of race is already included into the word of genocide.
It is the killing of a race or the killing of a tribe.
And in the time when he wrote his book, which which was the foundation for the creation of the crime,
he understood and people around him, there are many examples.
Race is a combination of both an understanding of people belonging to a nation state, but also being subgroups of people, for example.
He talks about the Polish race or the Jewish race.
This was uncontested. This was the way one refer it to groups belonging to different countries and.
In the case of the Jews, many different countries. But maybe what we would term ethnicity nowadays.
But there was also in Baik notion of hereditary biological understanding of races.
When the genocide convention was draughted and adopted in nineteen forty eight race,
and for the matter of sake, none of the three also categories was defined.
And there are some indications from the from the press prior to works that this was done purposely and since it was done purposely.
One can argue that an evolutis development has occurred.
So it leaves the term open to develop in the course of time in order to adjust to an understanding that might have changed from 1948 to today.
I argue that race evolved to a pure perception based concept.
And I will lead you through this understanding.
So recall, the convention was adopted in 1948. And it took 50 years until the first ever judgement on the crime of genocide was rendered.
We had to wait for 50 years until a court was forced to interpret the law of genocide.
One hundred days of killing in Rwanda led to the astep establishment of the ICC TR
and the court was given the very difficult task of classifying the primarily Hutu,
the Tutsi beke Tutsi victims. My apologies as one of four groups.
And it defined the national group as a collection of people based on common citizenships citizens.
So it juxtaposes citizenship with nationality, ethnic group.
Our people share a common language or culture. Religious groups share the same religion.
So it's somewhat of a circular definition then nomination or mode of worship.
And finally, the race group, hereditary physical traits often identified with a geographical region.
The court did not provide any sources for these four definitions except for the national group, where it refers to the ICJ Noteboom judgement.
What it tried to do here is create a legal on this or excuse me, an objective category for the different groups,
an objective definition where it would be easy to place the different victims into different groups.
However, it already ran into trouble because of the Tutsis, because the Tutsis and the Hutus did share their citizenship.
They had the same language and culture. They more or less shared the same religions.
So what would they then be? Race.
Well, there are some authors that argued that they have spin a racialized understanding of the Tutsi group prior to the genocide.
But we do not have to enter that pass now.
So by creating this objective approach to the groups, Kasuke started a larger process because it led also its sister tribunal that I see
T.Y. only one year later to conclude that the defining groups using objective and
scientifically irreproachable criteria would be a perilous exercise whose result would
not necessarily cause correspond response to the perception of the persons concerned.
So your message clearly moves to the perception of a person's group membership.
This sentence does not show who the person is.
It is the perpetrator. Is it the victim? Is it a third party?
But it then is a bit more precise and says, well,
it is in fact more appropriate to evaluate the status of the group from the point of view of those persons who wish to single that group out.
So they clearly moved the focus to the perpetrator and they.
Right.
Rightfully recognised that it is the stigmatisation which allows to be to determine whether a group is a group in the eyes of the alleged perpetrator.
This was a very progressive interpretation, especially considering, though, the KSU judgement only one year earlier.
And it seems the ICR was influence. But what what about what was happening in the ICP?
Why? Because four years later in Khajeh, allegedly it held well, yes, of course,
membership of a group is a subjective rather than an objective concept where the victim
is perceived by the perpetrator as belonging to a group slated for destruction.
However, it also demand that some kind of objective criteria and it never made clear what those criteria are.
If we move on to the quasi judicial view and look at what's the international commission of enquiry on Darfor in the report.
Right. The report has notably no legal force, but it was led at the commission was led by Antonio Casesa,
one of the fawzia's of modern international criminal law, and did perform a legal analysis.
So there is a legal value to their analysis. And also the report was used by the ICC in the indictment of all Bashir.
Later on. It said that the approach has evolved to taking into account that collective identities are, by their very nature,
social constructs, so they're imagined identities entirely dependent on perceptions and what is what is very nice.
Here it is. The commission takes inspiration from the very famous book of Benedict Anderson on imagined communities and transforms it into law.
It then also says. That the process of formation of this perception can harden.
So from being initially subjective on what doesn't quite know where it's going.
It becomes hardened and it crystallises into a real factual opposition.
And then the two opposing groups become visible.
So if we try to look at the different approaches that the that exist or that could exist,
I tried to create an overview here and I tried to place the different judgements.
Surprisingly, not one single judgement ever took a victim based approach.
So where the victim perceives him or herself as a member of a certain group and the majority of the cases are perpetrator based.
So it's the middle part. However, they demand some kind of objective elements that unfortunately usually remain on defined.
I argue that all of those cases should be moved over into the pure subjective approach where it's only the perpetrators perception that counts.
Why is that a problem or why has it not be done? Well, because subjectivity sits at odds with legal predictability.
So remember, even if the perpetrator has an idea of what the groups are like,
they still have to be coherent to the groups that the law puts at our disposition.
We only have four to choose from.
So in any case, we will have to classify the groups as one of the four protected groups in order to both prosecute as they see there,
but also to provide protection to victims.
And since the group in our case, the racial group appears to be in the OCTA suit is,
one could wonder whether it also demands an objective determination.
But then how can you objectively determine a group if it only is created in the fantasy of a person's mind?
Or shall we turn it around and say, well, does the group at all have to be objectively definable?
Perception and I argue not only perception, but any mental element is, of course, a challenge to international criminal jurisprudence.
And why is that so foremost? Because of the principle of legality.
The law has to be foreseeable and specific enough.
And also because of the procedural rights of the accused. He or she has to know what he's accused of.
So you cannot just suddenly create some groups that nobody has ever heard often that originate in the fantasy of a person.
The courts have to be able to render verifiable judgements that show some kind of
coherence in the way they're applied to different cases and not least how do you prove?
Perception. I will now bring you from the law into the social sciences.
And why do I do that?
Because I believe the social science is understanding of genocide is highly relevant for the legal interpretation of the crime interconnected.
Also the understanding of racial groups or racial racialized discrimination.
Genocide is an identity based crime where there are two or several competing groups.
So the group notion, again, is very important to understand the crime as whole.
The individual is attacked not for being who he is in his own right, but for being a member of a group that also makes the individual replaceable.
Because you are just one of many. You're just being targeted because you belong to a group or a presumed group.
This is based on what social scientists often called the authoring, it's the creation of negative identities.
It's us.
Our group, the ingroup and them, it's the outgroup that is visible in any genocide or also pre genocide where those group categories are created.
And that is also what the Darfor commission, for example, noted. Social psychology and more specifically,
the social identity theory has found out that just the perception does not belong to different groups without actually belonging to them,
is sufficient to trigger intergroup discrimination where you favour your own group.
It's as we we have to go first because we count more.
We are more valuable.
And you see, it's, again, this hierarchical thinking that we are on that different level or on a better level, a more valuable than the others.
The competition is very important because it creates the groups and it then escalates to group.
So you you create a process that can hardly be stopped because the more you identify as is,
the more you will see the answers as incompatible with your own group.
And it's not only the groups, but you you give the group certain characteristics, whether they're real or not,
it doesn't matter because you assign them values and prejudice and they're seen as of lesser value.
And by being of a lesser value, of course, they become much more susceptible to attacks.
They're just people of a lesser value. So they they don't really matter as much as our valuable group.
So did the other group is seen is perceived.
As containing some immutable characteristics, those characters,
this cannot be changed because they belong to your personality, to your group personality.
And since they cannot be changed, the members cannot really be assimilated to your own group because it's something that is innate,
at least in the understanding of the perpetrators. So that.
Innate characteristic that cannot be changed constitutes a threat in the eyes of the perpetrator.
And therefore often is is pre-emptively goes into a defence mode where the other group is attacked.
And in the case of genocide, also with the intent to be destroyed.
So there is an understanding of the other group as a fretful and that is created based on stigma and.
As we have seen in the picture in India in the earlier pictures off the Jews,
the victim group is seen as maybe they look like people, but what they really are, they're subhuman here.
In the case of a publication where the Jews are seen as gift fail things.
So it's a poisonous mushroom or here as rats.
But also, for example, in the case of Rwanda, in a publication several years before the genocide,
where in the writing at the bottom, the Tutsis are compared to in the NZD and Tutsi.
So it is the cockroach Tutsis. And you can clearly see the picture of Marchette, the.
Or here, where a patient is lying on at the doctor's office and says, I'm sick doctor, and the doctor says, well, what's your sickness?
The Tutsi. The Tutsi. The Tutsi. So what is it?
The the the group. The group of others.
The outgroup. The victim group is perceived as something that does not.
That is a sickness. It's not real. It's subhuman.
And you see it commonly in the way language is used when victim groups are mentioned in publications or elsewhere.
In the case of Armenia, for example, a doctor who was involved in the killings of the Armenians and he was asked why he as a doctor could murder.
He answered the Armenians had become hazardous microbes in the body of his country.
Well, isn't it a doctor's duty to kill microbes?
And by presenting the Armenians in this case as something scary, dangerous.
That's a threat to your country. It's a lot easier to justify attacking them.
They're not people anyway. They're microbe starer there. Did they have to be eradicated?
There's been a lot of research on how those genocidal processes occur and a contested one, I admit, but nonetheless,
useful tool is the eight stages of genocide by Gregory Stanton, where there are some early warning signs.
And then in all of those different stages do occur, although not linearly, but they do occur at one point or another prior or during genocide.
So, for example, classification, we have here a picture from a 17 20.
So it's a very old one where the different people of Europe are compared.
And then what is my left side is, is the Spaniards, and they are seen as male.
And why is it then on the opposite side, you have the Turks and the Greeks.
And I have to move away the picture here where it says they are tender but also lazy.
This is a classification of people. This is trying to create some objective framework into which you place people.
And it's certainly not meant in a evil way.
But it is very dangerous. This was a classification in the case of Iran, though.
Where are you in the identity cards? See the ethnicity of the person which makes it much more easy to single them out.
So and roadblocks in Rwanda. They would cheque the I.D. cards and then just took out whoever had the Tutsi marked in their I.D. card.
symbolisation, the symbols are very strong way of singling out people here in the case of the German Reich, that the J.
The Red J for Jew or of course, the yellow star of David.
And again, dehumanisation here from Poland, where Jews in a in a poster were described as lice.
So it is creating this sub human understanding of the victims.
But we don't have to look at genocides only. I can show you two very recent publications.
Welcome to Europe, it's us and the Muslims crossing the European borders are portrayed as rats.
They're crossing the borders. And you also see there's a picture of one man carrying an AK 47.
So not only are they subhuman, they're rats, but they're also a threat.
They're carrying weapons into Europe. The next one is disturbing, but this is a very recent one.
I don't think I will have to comment it any further.
The important part about this is that it is the perpetrator who controls the identity creation of the victims,
the victims is has no influence on how the perpetrator perceives him or herself.
So it is inherently perpetrator driven and therefore subjective in many cases,
or I would say in most cases, the victim is reduced to one identity marker in the case of the Jews.
It was a racial understanding. It was not a religious understanding, but it was race.
And one can also see that in Orser Genocide's.
The stigmatisation of the perpetrator then will reveal the way he perceives the victims and talking in legal terms,
that would then be the intent to destroy a group.
So it's the special the special intent TORDJMAN Serail.
And how we'll be figuring out what the perception is.
Well, by looking at the behaviour of the perpetrator, the perception will be revealed in the way the perpetrator speaks, what he publishes.
For example, comments and utterances can actions as well.
Of course. And that behaviour then will make the group at objectively identifiable in terms of law.
So for a court of law, that's where you should start looking.
If if we try to show this as a process where we have the perpetrator with his definitional power over the victim stubbled
be his special intent because he creates the victims and then his creation will be shown in the way he behaves,
in the stigmatisation, in the dehumanisation. The way he labels.
What kind of prejudice as he has towards the group. And then, of course, that behaviour makes the group objectively definable.
Whether the group exists or not is another question. So is it at the end only an issue of proof?
I will revert to what Yellow Sage said. In the eyes of the perpetrator, and I believe what comes closest to a feasible solution is what movie MOLLE,
not the isotropic judgement of two thousand five,
said the prosecution has the burden of proving eser that the group that the victim belong to the targeted group,
or that the perpetrator believed that the victim belonged to the group for the case of race.
I do not believe one is able to prove that someone belongs to a racial group because there is no such thing as an objective racial group.
They are no races of mankind. But if the perpetrator believed that his victims has a different racial being,
then it would be possible to classify the victims as belonging to a racial group.
So if the perpetrator perceives his victims as members of a group with a different race.
In my view, they do acquire protection under the genocide convention, irrespective of their actual group membership.
And irrespective of so-called objective elements that the courts have demanded.
But we do we can we can transform this kind of logic if we want to, other crimes.
Well, and I'm now pulling you a bit out of the international criminal law side into other areas of law.
So if we have the pyramid of hope at the apex is genocide. The same logic can also be applied, be applied to acts of discrimination, for example.
And I will show you two very recent cases at a judgement that was rendered by the Danish Supreme Court last week.
Now, it's probably more than a week ago now that.
Health, that's an understanding of the perpetrators of the victims as non Western migrants, asylum seekers and refugees was not racism.
So they acquitted the perpetrators because they said the group of non Western migrants,
refugees and asylum seekers could not be classified objectively as belonging to the same group.
And of course, in my view, that is a very narrow reading of race or racial group or racial discrimination,
because in the view of those of those perpetrators who who were distributing so-called asylum spray in the streets of a Danish city,
the victims very much belongs to a coherent group. They knew exactly who they are talking about.
And let's face it, they were talking about the Muslim immigrants to Denmark who they considered as a threat.
And also in their political pamphlets, for example, said that they were a threat or a danger to the Danish women.
So you have, again, this understanding of the Osas as being dangerous threat.
And you give them a stigma as being rapists, for example, in this particular case.
So I think in this very case here, the Danish Supreme Court did, too, in our reading of the law.
Here, a case from Norway, a man wrote this comment on a public Facebook page.
Hello? They do. They belong on the video, not here with their ridiculous clown costumes.
They're marching around in. If you smell lighter fluid, Asami is not far away with his one metre Sarti on his smell of fire.
The perpetrator's understanding he was convicted. I must say his understanding is heavily influenced by the and informed also by the
racialise science from the early 20th century that I have showed it to you earlier.
This is the understanding that the saw me indigenous group or at the LOP, as they were called at that time,
or ah, a back word development of mankind, that they are inferior, that their childish.
This is that thinking that on the standing of a whole group that lingers and is very visible in those hateful comments that are published online.
So if he returned to this case, according to the perpetrator, and this is parts of the judgement,
the Saami do not belong to the civilised parts of Norway and actually not to the rest of the world easer.
He asked them to go to [INAUDIBLE] and then a lot of other lovely words.
And luckily,
the Supreme Court of Norway did recognise that these comments are just yet an extension of our understanding of the Salmi as being of a lesser value,
of being inferior, of being not as valuable as the majority Norwegian population.
So they they concluded that it was a gross denigration of the saw me as an ethnic minority.
The racialized thinking was not highlighted in this judgement, which in my opinion is wrong,
too, because the Norwegian domestic law does not protect racial groups,
but only hate speech based on skin colour, which is a very, very narrow way of looking at things.
And we must also know that in most cases, the victims, both in this cases, but also the answer once earlier presented,
belong to minority groups that already experience increased discrimination here.
In the case of the saw me in a in a what I hope is a very developed and progressive country such as Norway,
a ten fold discrimination compared to the majority population.
This is a huge problem that lingers and has also to do with the racialized understanding.
The Human Rights Committee concluded the same.
There is a persistence of hate crimes in Norway. And it is concerned about the under reporting of crimes.
But Norway is by no means alone because Euge EU survey found that one in four from
minority and immigrant groups have been a victim of racially motivated crimes.
This these are huge numbers.
If you look at the European Union as a whole and another problem that is connected is that the perpetrators bias is not reported and the bias is,
is stigmatisation. This perception, this understanding of hierarchies of lesser value, of why they are supposed to be so different.
And according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, overlooking that bias,
motivation amounts to the violation of the right to protection from discrimination.
Some now bringing you into the human rights side of this problem. It is important that racially motivated crimes are understood as such.
They're based on a perception of inferiority, hierarchical thinking and based on.
Perceived or real characteristics. And I will end with a picture.
Do you see a little man playing a saxophone? Or do you see a woman's face?
Because we don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Thank you for your attention.