1 00:00:03,870 --> 00:00:07,320 Welcome, good afternoon and welcome everybody. 2 00:00:07,320 --> 00:00:15,900 I'm honoured and delighted and an all out joy to present to you, Speaker today, Professor Mr. Ekurhuleni, 3 00:00:15,900 --> 00:00:22,380 who is the Bruce Wayne Professor of international law at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 4 00:00:22,380 --> 00:00:31,920 Professor Ghanians research interests are in private international law and inter-religious law, multiculturalism and civil procedure. 5 00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:38,580 Amongst his publications are the book Conflict in Conflict A Conflict of Law Case Study 6 00:00:38,580 --> 00:00:45,000 of Israel in the Palestinian Territories came out with Oxford University Press in 2014, 7 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:53,460 and the book that is the centre of the Talk Today a multicultural entrapment religion and state amongst the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, 8 00:00:53,460 --> 00:00:56,370 came out with Cambridge University Press last year. 9 00:00:56,370 --> 00:01:04,620 Professor Galloway only received his LLB from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is S.J. D from the University of Pennsylvania. 10 00:01:04,620 --> 00:01:09,060 Thank you for coming. Well, thank you for having me. 11 00:01:09,060 --> 00:01:21,660 And it's a delight to be here. And and so the topic is, is about religion and state in Israel, but it's about religion and state in Israel, 12 00:01:21,660 --> 00:01:27,450 from a different angle, from the angle that we have been used to. 13 00:01:27,450 --> 00:01:38,250 So far, it looks at. The conflict from the prism of multiculturalism. 14 00:01:38,250 --> 00:01:43,920 You have different religious communities that are recognised. 15 00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:55,860 Each of these religious communities would have a court system that would be applying a religious law to the members. 16 00:01:55,860 --> 00:02:08,800 It's a continuation of the Ottoman military system that existed in the Middle East for centuries, and it still exists in the Middle East today. 17 00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:14,320 But something happened with the millet system as it evolved throughout the years. 18 00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:29,140 It's been sustained in different countries and at different times for different reasons, even though it's it's actually basically the same system. 19 00:02:29,140 --> 00:02:32,620 I wouldn't be saying it's exactly the same system, 20 00:02:32,620 --> 00:02:44,830 but the concept of having your religious law govern your marriage and divorce and sometimes other matters of personal status. 21 00:02:44,830 --> 00:02:55,360 Right. This this concept is something that that originated in the Ottoman millet system and actually also existed before that. 22 00:02:55,360 --> 00:03:10,150 But I won't go into history. And when I look at this system and what I did in the book is is to look at it from the perspective of multiculturalism 23 00:03:10,150 --> 00:03:22,450 that has evolved and political theory since the early 1990s and has become a major normative theory in political science, 24 00:03:22,450 --> 00:03:28,660 but also in our legal real and in multiculturalism. 25 00:03:28,660 --> 00:03:36,850 There is one basic dilemma and this is what I connect to the existing military system, at least in Israel, with multiculturalism. 26 00:03:36,850 --> 00:03:50,080 And the dilemma is is, is this you come from a perspective of liberalism and democracy and you want to accommodate minorities in a certain polity. 27 00:03:50,080 --> 00:04:01,030 And that minority happened to be subordinated in given the Hagee money of the majority and the state structure. 28 00:04:01,030 --> 00:04:11,980 And that minority would perceive its culture, its identity as vital for individuals that are within that minority itself. 29 00:04:11,980 --> 00:04:23,470 And if you want to protect these individuals, the conception is you should be protecting the culture, the minority, the group as well and welcome, 30 00:04:23,470 --> 00:04:34,750 who also went to this to this university would be arguing my individual autonomy is is something that is determined by my cultural identity, 31 00:04:34,750 --> 00:04:45,940 by my holistic cultural identity and my options of making choices is something that would be governed by my culture. 32 00:04:45,940 --> 00:04:55,900 So if you want to protect my individual autonomy, you should be protecting my group identity. 33 00:04:55,900 --> 00:05:06,490 Otherwise, that group identity would be lost, and if that would happen, then I, as an individual would be losing my own autonomy. 34 00:05:06,490 --> 00:05:19,930 That's that's the conception generally. But once this idea has developed, a problem came up and the problem was, well, you're accommodating. 35 00:05:19,930 --> 00:05:28,630 It grew up from liberalism and democracy, but that group, 36 00:05:28,630 --> 00:05:43,690 in its internal handling and its internal norms happened to be illiberal would be subjecting individuals that happened to belong to illiberal mobs. 37 00:05:43,690 --> 00:05:50,740 And the two groups that were singled out in the discussion generally happen to be women and children. 38 00:05:50,740 --> 00:05:59,410 And that is especially true when it comes to the recognition of religion as being the subject of accommodation. 39 00:05:59,410 --> 00:06:10,480 So if we assume and we can go into details, but generally if if religion is as patriarchal and you would be protecting that religion, 40 00:06:10,480 --> 00:06:21,190 then it would be inevitable that that group would be discriminating against women that happened to be members of that group since religious norms, 41 00:06:21,190 --> 00:06:28,360 when they are applied to two two individuals. They're not applied equally to men and women. 42 00:06:28,360 --> 00:06:35,020 Religion, would it treat differently woman from from men? 43 00:06:35,020 --> 00:06:47,690 And it can go also against what we perceive as the best interest of child, of the child when when we regard what this religious practise would entail. 44 00:06:47,690 --> 00:06:56,300 So corporal punishment is something that a religious norm would consider to be OK. 45 00:06:56,300 --> 00:07:04,930 OK, but according to our modern conception of liberalism, we say that's that's not OK in terms of liberalism. 46 00:07:04,930 --> 00:07:08,380 Children should go to school until a certain age and. 47 00:07:08,380 --> 00:07:10,720 We mandate education. 48 00:07:10,720 --> 00:07:17,350 But then the Supreme Court of the US would come out saying that the Amish can't take their children out of school at the age of 14. 49 00:07:17,350 --> 00:07:22,180 It's a very famous American case. It's called Yoda, about about the Amish. 50 00:07:22,180 --> 00:07:31,540 So you want to accommodate that group, but then you're undermining some of the rights that we conceive as being essential in 51 00:07:31,540 --> 00:07:38,470 terms of liberalism and the best interests of children or the equal treatment of a woman. 52 00:07:38,470 --> 00:07:47,260 So religion can be very discriminatory against women, and that goes across all religions. 53 00:07:47,260 --> 00:07:56,740 And when you have a jurisdictional authority that is mandated by law and it happens to be in matters of marriage and divorce, 54 00:07:56,740 --> 00:08:01,600 exclusive meaning that you don't have a civil option, 55 00:08:01,600 --> 00:08:09,040 you can't really exit and then you can see the predicament that you're accommodating this religious group. 56 00:08:09,040 --> 00:08:17,590 On the one hand, because of that, preserving the status and autonomy of that group as such, 57 00:08:17,590 --> 00:08:22,750 but that group would be undermining the rights of certain members. 58 00:08:22,750 --> 00:08:27,980 Now this this dilemma is it's very well noticed and discussed. 59 00:08:27,980 --> 00:08:38,950 There's tons of articles and books about what is conceived as being the minority within the minority problem or the internal minority problem. 60 00:08:38,950 --> 00:08:42,730 Leslie Green, who was a professor of jurisprudence until lately, 61 00:08:42,730 --> 00:08:49,900 has written a very well known article on the topic of the minority within the minority. 62 00:08:49,900 --> 00:08:56,350 And Joseph Rass has also written on it. It's very well known. 63 00:08:56,350 --> 00:09:08,740 But what I tried to do in the book and in some of my work is let's look at this jurisdictional authority as it exists, especially in Israel, 64 00:09:08,740 --> 00:09:18,490 and see how this predicament this minority within the minority works out and in the context of a state that is a nation state, 65 00:09:18,490 --> 00:09:23,380 a state in which I would be arguing. And as I did in the book, 66 00:09:23,380 --> 00:09:40,300 as an official state religion that is a recognised statutorily and by different fundings and standing like no other religion and in Israel itself, 67 00:09:40,300 --> 00:09:55,780 and that it has no majority religions that that happened to compose about 20 percent of the population. 68 00:09:55,780 --> 00:10:05,440 And this non-Jewish religious minority have individuals that happen to be subject 69 00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:12,220 to the internal handling and norms of their respective religious community. 70 00:10:12,220 --> 00:10:22,210 What happens that when we we look at this situation, the circumstance through the prism of multiculturalism, 71 00:10:22,210 --> 00:10:34,450 what is exactly the predicament of of these individuals when they exist in a context which is not that western democratic context in which this 72 00:10:34,450 --> 00:10:44,250 predicament this in terms of minority or minority within the minority problem has been discussed bog by the different political theorists. 73 00:10:44,250 --> 00:10:52,450 So I took my case in Israel as being my case study, 74 00:10:52,450 --> 00:10:58,660 and I will be arguing that the predicament in Israel itself for the Palestinian Arab 75 00:10:58,660 --> 00:11:06,580 minority that is subject to its own religious norms happens to be acute in nature. 76 00:11:06,580 --> 00:11:13,720 It's much more severe than it exists in western democratic cultures. 77 00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:23,080 That's one. And second, I would be trying to argue that it might look multicultural, but actually, 78 00:11:23,080 --> 00:11:34,330 it is not multicultural because it doesn't serve the justifications of multiculturalism as we usually perceive them as such. 79 00:11:34,330 --> 00:11:41,830 And to make a long story short, if we think of multiculturalism as protecting the minority from the Hagee of the 80 00:11:41,830 --> 00:11:48,580 majority because otherwise the minority culture would vanish in the State of Israel. 81 00:11:48,580 --> 00:11:55,450 My argument is when it comes to the religion, the state itself is interested in maintaining the religious divides. 82 00:11:55,450 --> 00:12:04,390 It's not threatening the identity of the non-Jewish religious minorities when it comes to their religious identity. 83 00:12:04,390 --> 00:12:08,320 It might be threatening when it comes to the national identity of the. 84 00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:14,620 Syrian Arabs, but when it comes to the religious identity to preserve the Jewish character of the state, 85 00:12:14,620 --> 00:12:21,160 there is an interest in preserving the other religious characters that also exist. 86 00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:29,770 So if you ask Anaesthesiologist in Israel when it comes to the identity and the formation of identity in the State of Israel, 87 00:12:29,770 --> 00:12:33,240 it's a mum, a stimulative state. 88 00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:47,280 Nobody is is is trying to assimilate me as a Palestinian to become Jewish and Judaism is is not a proselytising religion anyway to become Jewish. 89 00:12:47,280 --> 00:12:51,210 It can be extremely hard, according to the Orthodox ritual. 90 00:12:51,210 --> 00:13:03,270 Nobody is threatening religious identities and national identity of the Palestinian is flattered, but not the religious identity. 91 00:13:03,270 --> 00:13:07,230 So why are you protecting my religious identity? It's not out of multiculturalism. 92 00:13:07,230 --> 00:13:10,150 It's out of something cuffs. 93 00:13:10,150 --> 00:13:21,420 But then so this is this is this is the argument just to give you a kind of a road map where I will be taking you in my discussion. 94 00:13:21,420 --> 00:13:25,530 So let's start with religion and state in Israel. 95 00:13:25,530 --> 00:13:34,380 OK. When you when you look at the major treaties on constitutional law and this is very representative, 96 00:13:34,380 --> 00:13:42,260 as is all of the discussion on religion and state in Israel, it's Jewish centred. 97 00:13:42,260 --> 00:13:46,380 It does not deal with the non-Jewish religious minorities. 98 00:13:46,380 --> 00:13:56,310 It is. It is. It is centred on issues that happen to deal with the conflict generally between the recognition 99 00:13:56,310 --> 00:14:02,880 of the Jewish religious norms and institutions on the one hand and democratic liberal ideals, 100 00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:13,860 on the other hand. So if you look at Barak Medina and Iona Rubinstein is at the subject index at the end, 101 00:14:13,860 --> 00:14:19,800 you would see this country, religion and state see Jewish state, and that's very puzzling. 102 00:14:19,800 --> 00:14:30,330 But it's it's it's no exception when you and I think for the book, I've read almost every article on religion and state in the country, 103 00:14:30,330 --> 00:14:39,330 and you look at the different pieces on the religion and state, just notice the title. 104 00:14:39,330 --> 00:14:43,500 It happens to be egalitarian, general religion and state. 105 00:14:43,500 --> 00:14:45,900 The case for interaction. 106 00:14:45,900 --> 00:14:58,210 You look at the at the substance of the article, it's it's Jewish centre and there is no reference at all to the issue of the minorities. 107 00:14:58,210 --> 00:15:02,070 You look state and religion, you'd find the same thing. 108 00:15:02,070 --> 00:15:12,340 You look at religion and politics like Charles Libman, and there is a donia of they've written extensively on politics and religion. 109 00:15:12,340 --> 00:15:16,650 You look into their writings, it's it's Jewish, centred as well. 110 00:15:16,650 --> 00:15:28,170 And some people would call it outright that synagogue and state. Actually, this is the discussion on the lines of of a church and state. 111 00:15:28,170 --> 00:15:32,440 Now I'm not saying that there is no discussion of religious minorities in Israel. 112 00:15:32,440 --> 00:15:36,480 There is there's a lot of books and articles on the Muslims. 113 00:15:36,480 --> 00:15:45,580 And in Israel there's a lot of work on the issue of Christians in Israel and the Druze. 114 00:15:45,580 --> 00:15:56,400 Several wrote a book or other on the Christians, the cross on the star of David, you would call it, and the Muslims. 115 00:15:56,400 --> 00:16:04,770 There are a number of books, but all of this discussion is on the specific religious group, 116 00:16:04,770 --> 00:16:10,350 but not within the general discussion on religion and state. 117 00:16:10,350 --> 00:16:15,610 And there is a discussion about the Arab minority and its status in the State of Israel. 118 00:16:15,610 --> 00:16:21,780 But then it takes up mostly the issue of that minority as one national group that 119 00:16:21,780 --> 00:16:28,110 has some religious identity and even more today than it was than it had in the past, 120 00:16:28,110 --> 00:16:34,480 but anyway, not within the general discussion on religion and state. 121 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:44,280 But you look at the discussion on religion and state in the U.S. you'd find it very much attuned to issues of minorities, 122 00:16:44,280 --> 00:16:59,790 whether the issue of the Amish, the Mormons and polygamy, Seventh Day Adventists and the Sabbath, or chewing peyote in a Native American church. 123 00:16:59,790 --> 00:17:05,550 You look at Europe, you'd find minority religions very much present, right? 124 00:17:05,550 --> 00:17:12,960 Whether the veil in France, whether the burqa, whether the sector born here in the UK, 125 00:17:12,960 --> 00:17:19,650 can you be excused from having wearing the helmet if you're riding a motorcycle and you happen to be Sikh, right? 126 00:17:19,650 --> 00:17:24,810 A kosher and halal slaughter of animals all throughout Europe? 127 00:17:24,810 --> 00:17:32,670 I mean, this is definitive of much of the religion and state discussion in many other places. 128 00:17:32,670 --> 00:17:40,890 Well, it's not in the Israeli case, not only it, it's not, but it's it's totally excluded. 129 00:17:40,890 --> 00:17:45,360 So that got me going thinking what might be the explanation? 130 00:17:45,360 --> 00:17:58,680 OK, so we Berenson, who was a Supreme Court justice and wrote a piece in which he kind of explained it. 131 00:17:58,680 --> 00:18:05,410 And this is an explanation that I get. OK. 132 00:18:05,410 --> 00:18:11,780 That's v Berenson talking to us here, the screen, so he would be saying that. 133 00:18:11,780 --> 00:18:18,400 Well, it's not present because you're not challenging the religious jurisdiction of your 134 00:18:18,400 --> 00:18:25,750 courts as much as the Jewish members in Israel are challenging rabbinical jurisdiction. 135 00:18:25,750 --> 00:18:34,970 You're very quiet. You're acquiescing to you're not generating these dilemmas that you would find within the Jewish community. 136 00:18:34,970 --> 00:18:41,470 So it's not picked up in the discussion because there is no activity. 137 00:18:41,470 --> 00:18:46,300 And if there is no activity, the radar would not be picking up anything. 138 00:18:46,300 --> 00:18:53,200 So that that that that is one explanation. With all due respect, I don't accept the explanation. 139 00:18:53,200 --> 00:19:01,870 Once acquiescence is not something that is a qualification for regarding the issue of 140 00:19:01,870 --> 00:19:06,370 polygamy amongst the Mormons to be part of the American religion and state discussion. 141 00:19:06,370 --> 00:19:13,750 And I think if you go back 100 years ago or more when the Reynolds decision was discussed and you would ask the Mormons, 142 00:19:13,750 --> 00:19:19,540 Are they for the activity of polygamy or not? I guess most of them would say, yes. 143 00:19:19,540 --> 00:19:24,670 I mean, it's it's not a matter of I accept it or not. 144 00:19:24,670 --> 00:19:29,890 Or if you would ask the Amish, are they for homeschooling of children? 145 00:19:29,890 --> 00:19:37,900 I guess most of them would say yes, and they would challenge unless if they are prosecuted, they would be challenging, 146 00:19:37,900 --> 00:19:44,240 not the internal restriction, but they would be challenging actually the prosecution itself. 147 00:19:44,240 --> 00:19:53,020 So acquiescence and we can go into this in detail haven't been a qualification for including or not. 148 00:19:53,020 --> 00:20:00,010 OK, if you ask most Jewish observant Europeans, are they for male circumcision or not? 149 00:20:00,010 --> 00:20:10,390 I guess most of them would say yes, but this would not disqualify the issue of not being a matter of religion and state in Germany. 150 00:20:10,390 --> 00:20:17,020 OK. So but the most interesting cases that I surveyed, 151 00:20:17,020 --> 00:20:24,670 all of the Supreme Court decisions in Israel that happened to deal with religion and state issues and empirically, it is not true. 152 00:20:24,670 --> 00:20:30,430 There has been a lot of challenges and discussion and controversies and dilemmas that ended up before the 153 00:20:30,430 --> 00:20:42,250 Israeli Supreme Court that did deal with issues of minority religions and mayhem is one of the first cases. 154 00:20:42,250 --> 00:20:49,030 Polygamy was criminalised in the law enacted in 1951, the woman's equal rights law. 155 00:20:49,030 --> 00:20:58,480 Until that law, polygamy was excused from criminal prosecution if it is allowed, according to the personal law of the people involved. 156 00:20:58,480 --> 00:21:12,850 So under the mandate, a penal code, it was exempted if you happen to be Muslim, but in the equal woman's right, this exception was abolished. 157 00:21:12,850 --> 00:21:22,090 So it became a crime. And a Muslim man came before the Israeli Supreme Court are arguing it's an infringement on my freedom to practise my religion. 158 00:21:22,090 --> 00:21:31,330 And the Supreme Court of Israel denied the petition, and a religious Jewish justice actually wrote the decision. 159 00:21:31,330 --> 00:21:36,790 Moshe Zilber. He would be saying Islam does not instruct you to take more than one wife. 160 00:21:36,790 --> 00:21:43,510 It gives you the option. So if I'm limiting an option, it's not like I'm denying you the practise of your religion. 161 00:21:43,510 --> 00:21:49,010 That's at least the explanation, but that's that did happen. 162 00:21:49,010 --> 00:21:55,090 Shady's is a case that happened to deal with the multiple Catholic community. 163 00:21:55,090 --> 00:22:02,080 It has a court structure in which the appellate court would be sitting in Beirut in Lebanon, 164 00:22:02,080 --> 00:22:09,370 and there was a litigation between two Malka Catholics inside of Israel, and the husband wanted to appeal that decision. 165 00:22:09,370 --> 00:22:16,450 But then he found out he needs to go to Beirut to appeal. And he came before the Israeli Supreme Court saying, How can I go to Beirut? 166 00:22:16,450 --> 00:22:20,810 I mean, there is no crossing of the border. There is no diplomatic relations. 167 00:22:20,810 --> 00:22:26,260 How do you expect me to go and litigate my appeal and in Beirut? 168 00:22:26,260 --> 00:22:37,270 So should Israel recognise the jurisdiction of a court that is sitting in Lebanon over its own subjects, its own citizens? 169 00:22:37,270 --> 00:22:46,780 And it did. The petition was rejected. We respect the autonomy of the community and therefore this is part of its hierarchy. 170 00:22:46,780 --> 00:22:53,050 And so this is what you have to do. And hello, this is the third case. 171 00:22:53,050 --> 00:23:02,860 Excuse me. It was a conflict between a Christian who opened a bar in Austria. 172 00:23:02,860 --> 00:23:08,560 It's a mixed Christian Druze village that sits up on Mount Carmel, 173 00:23:08,560 --> 00:23:17,590 and his licence of operating the bar was revoked because he was serving alcohol and playing what was deemed to be Western music. 174 00:23:17,590 --> 00:23:26,350 And this was regarded as offensive to the Druze religious members of Syria. 175 00:23:26,350 --> 00:23:33,250 And he went to the Supreme Court arguing this denial or revocation of my licences is an infringement on my right, 176 00:23:33,250 --> 00:23:41,410 and it can't be allowed by Israeli administrative law. 177 00:23:41,410 --> 00:23:49,240 Sultan versus Sultan, it's it's an amazing decision. Sultan and Sultan were a couple from Humble Farm. 178 00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:54,970 She was divorced unilaterally by her husband, a divorce that is effective, 179 00:23:54,970 --> 00:24:00,880 but it's a criminal act, according to the same equal rights for women's law. 180 00:24:00,880 --> 00:24:10,540 A unilateral divorce? It might be OK in terms of the religion, but it's a crime in terms of Israeli penal law. 181 00:24:10,540 --> 00:24:20,950 That's that's an anomaly. I know I can see your your face uncle, but it is an anomaly, but it is something that that that exists. 182 00:24:20,950 --> 00:24:25,330 So she brought a civil suit in torts against the husband. 183 00:24:25,330 --> 00:24:33,010 This is a statutory tort and and she wanted and she got compensation. 184 00:24:33,010 --> 00:24:44,050 I mean, the thing is, I can go on and on and and cite more and more cases in which the religion and state conflict did come up. 185 00:24:44,050 --> 00:24:53,740 And actually, in my book, the whole first chapter is about slavery, all of these cases and these tensions. 186 00:24:53,740 --> 00:24:59,050 An interesting anomaly also exists with respect to the Christian courts that would be sitting in east Jerusalem, 187 00:24:59,050 --> 00:25:06,880 and they would be applying jurisdiction over Christian courts that would be sitting in the occupied territories of the West Bank, 188 00:25:06,880 --> 00:25:14,440 as well as in Jordan. Now East Jerusalem is regarded by Israel as part of its sovereign authority. 189 00:25:14,440 --> 00:25:20,860 Now, the opening of an American consulate in east Jerusalem is a big issue because this is our 190 00:25:20,860 --> 00:25:27,850 sovereign territory and you can't have a consulate for the Americans operating in Jerusalem, 191 00:25:27,850 --> 00:25:34,030 for the Palestinians. It's it's united capital of Israel. 192 00:25:34,030 --> 00:25:42,820 So the Greek Orthodox appellate court would be sitting in east Jerusalem that is regarded by Israel as part of its sovereign territory, 193 00:25:42,820 --> 00:25:53,880 but it would be operating under Jordanian law. What it is discussing appeals that would be coming from the West Bank and from Jordan. 194 00:25:53,880 --> 00:26:00,760 I mean, if if this is not religion and state, I don't know what it is, I mean, just imagine this happening in the US. 195 00:26:00,760 --> 00:26:04,950 A court sitting in the US that would be applying for a law. 196 00:26:04,950 --> 00:26:10,830 I mean, even citing Sharia or international law was a big issue, citing it, not applying it. 197 00:26:10,830 --> 00:26:17,970 And in the US, right here, it's operating under the authority of a foreign law. 198 00:26:17,970 --> 00:26:26,490 So empirically, therefore, there are a lot of cases discussed. 199 00:26:26,490 --> 00:26:31,920 So I came up with the metrics that I think that does explain this exclusion 200 00:26:31,920 --> 00:26:36,510 of the minority religions from the religion and state discussion in Israel. 201 00:26:36,510 --> 00:26:39,870 And this is the metrics it builds on two variables. 202 00:26:39,870 --> 00:26:48,930 One is the public and the private, and the other is the coercive and the liberal, according to what I argue in the book. 203 00:26:48,930 --> 00:26:54,720 When it comes to Judaism in Israel, it's part of what I regard as Israel's public sphere. 204 00:26:54,720 --> 00:26:58,140 It's part of its identity as a Jewish state. 205 00:26:58,140 --> 00:27:07,860 If there is legitimacy, justification for why there is recognition for Jewish religious norms and institutions, 206 00:27:07,860 --> 00:27:18,180 it's because of Israel as a Jewish state. Generally, OK, so if you take the Law of Return and the definition of who is a Jew, 207 00:27:18,180 --> 00:27:26,520 that has generated a lot of discussion and the definition is predominantly religious today, right? 208 00:27:26,520 --> 00:27:29,520 Then this goes to the identity. 209 00:27:29,520 --> 00:27:40,170 There is no other law, I think in Israel, even with the Basic Law that defines Israel as a Jewish state more than the Law of Return. 210 00:27:40,170 --> 00:27:49,090 It is. It is the law of Israel as a Jewish state, and that definition is predominantly religious. 211 00:27:49,090 --> 00:27:55,750 Who is a Muslim, but who is a Christian? Is that a matter for the state? 212 00:27:55,750 --> 00:28:02,560 Does anybody care? I can't care less. You want to define yourself as a Muslim? 213 00:28:02,560 --> 00:28:07,690 Be my guest. You want to define yourself as a Catholic in Israel the way you want to. 214 00:28:07,690 --> 00:28:13,810 I don't care if it's a religious, if it's a secular, if it's a subjective, I don't care. 215 00:28:13,810 --> 00:28:27,910 It's my business. It's your private. Recognising Jewish reform and conservative streams is very difficult and has generated a lot of discussion. 216 00:28:27,910 --> 00:28:39,700 OK. And still, today they suffer from a lot of discrimination, institutional discrimination from the demonic Orthodox frame of Judaism. 217 00:28:39,700 --> 00:28:49,120 But when it comes to the non-Jewish religious communities, it's almost like incorporating a private corporation of a sort. 218 00:28:49,120 --> 00:28:57,640 So you have about, uh, let me see. 219 00:28:57,640 --> 00:28:59,210 Sorry, I don't have the list here. 220 00:28:59,210 --> 00:29:14,050 You have about 10 different Christian religious communities, some of which would would have only maybe 200 300 members like the Syrian Orthodox Group. 221 00:29:14,050 --> 00:29:20,020 It is recognised as a religion that Baha'is were recognised back in 1971, 222 00:29:20,020 --> 00:29:34,600 and I think there are maybe at best 100 or 150 Baha'is in the State of Israel, and the Evangelical Christian Church was also recognised in 1970. 223 00:29:34,600 --> 00:29:42,520 It does exist. It has about 20 500 members or 3000 people at best. 224 00:29:42,520 --> 00:29:46,300 Look at the ease of how this recognition is accorded. 225 00:29:46,300 --> 00:29:56,020 But at the difficulty when it comes to reform and Conservative Judaism and this is the public and the private divide. 226 00:29:56,020 --> 00:30:04,720 So this is one explanation. The other variable is what would we be considering to be coercive as opposed to 227 00:30:04,720 --> 00:30:11,200 what we would be considering as being liberal in terms of the recognition itself? 228 00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:17,980 When judged through the prism of liberalism and Democrat democracy, much of the recognition, 229 00:30:17,980 --> 00:30:31,660 at least rubberneck of jurisdiction over matters of family law is considered through that prism to be coercive, to be illiberal, to be undemocratic. 230 00:30:31,660 --> 00:30:40,030 I am going we would see would be deeming rabbinical jurisdiction as a bloc, Israel's democratic rule. 231 00:30:40,030 --> 00:30:51,070 OK. Yeah. And that's why you see also secularism being obsessed with the issue of of rabbinical jurisdiction 232 00:30:51,070 --> 00:31:01,480 with authority of Jewish Everett Kadish with with Chief Rabbi Night with the religious councils. 233 00:31:01,480 --> 00:31:05,710 You know, it's it's it's very much present in there. 234 00:31:05,710 --> 00:31:09,970 It's because the trend is you perceive this to be coercive. 235 00:31:09,970 --> 00:31:18,400 And if secularism is about pushing away from religion, then it would be picking up these matters. 236 00:31:18,400 --> 00:31:25,180 But when it comes to the Palestinian Arab religious community, when it comes to their own religious courts, 237 00:31:25,180 --> 00:31:31,240 the perception is that the recognition that is accorded is liberal. 238 00:31:31,240 --> 00:31:46,160 I would be saying multicultural. It's the Jewish state giving recognition to the non-Jewish religious communities, and that recognition is itself. 239 00:31:46,160 --> 00:31:50,560 A matter of toleration, it's a matter of pluralism. 240 00:31:50,560 --> 00:31:56,170 It's a matter of liberalism. It's a matter of multiculturalism. 241 00:31:56,170 --> 00:32:08,430 OK, so. If if this is the matrix, at least from my perception, now I know why you don't mix the two issues in one discussion. 242 00:32:08,430 --> 00:32:18,180 It's like mixing oil and water. They don't mix because they are governed by different forces, by different definitions. 243 00:32:18,180 --> 00:32:23,430 You can't handle both in one. 244 00:32:23,430 --> 00:32:28,800 And when you discuss religion and state in Europe and in the U.S., 245 00:32:28,800 --> 00:32:41,490 what is always in the background is that how that recognition would affect the supposed neutrality, but the supposed non-establishment of religion. 246 00:32:41,490 --> 00:32:48,180 My quest as a state to be more neutral instead of taking sides. 247 00:32:48,180 --> 00:33:01,230 So any recognition accorded to any of the religious norms and practises would be threatening or jeopardising that neutrality in Israel. 248 00:33:01,230 --> 00:33:13,140 It's not there because that recognition when it exists a it is restricted mostly to the Jewish religious communities. 249 00:33:13,140 --> 00:33:17,730 And if it exists to the non-Jewish religious community, it's minimal in comparison. 250 00:33:17,730 --> 00:33:31,280 So it's not picked up because it's minimal, even though it might be significant in the eyes of a Western legal theorists. 251 00:33:31,280 --> 00:33:37,880 One issue I can bring up if you look up the Ministry of Religious Affairs and its website, 252 00:33:37,880 --> 00:33:41,960 OK, this is the official website of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Israel. 253 00:33:41,960 --> 00:33:46,580 OK. This is another sign of the public and the private. 254 00:33:46,580 --> 00:34:00,390 When it's speaking about itself, it is saying right to the Ministry of Religious Services provides religious services for the Jewish population. 255 00:34:00,390 --> 00:34:04,440 Now, look at the title. It's the Ministry of Religious Services. 256 00:34:04,440 --> 00:34:16,830 It's supposed to be egalitarian, but it's almost natural that when we discuss the standing of an official portfolio of a ministry, 257 00:34:16,830 --> 00:34:28,600 it would be said explicitly that it is for the Jewish population. 258 00:34:28,600 --> 00:34:33,700 And the recognition that is accorded and it is handled by this ministry happened to 259 00:34:33,700 --> 00:34:39,610 do with a lot of religious services that are provided by by by law explicit laws. 260 00:34:39,610 --> 00:34:45,580 The Chief Rabbinate would have a law and they are Neame. 261 00:34:45,580 --> 00:34:53,860 The religious operators that operate under the Chief Rabbinate would be getting salaries from the state. 262 00:34:53,860 --> 00:34:57,790 You'd have regional councils with the McVeighs, with all of the services, 263 00:34:57,790 --> 00:35:04,930 the kosher certification, it's all handled by law and provided for by by state funds. 264 00:35:04,930 --> 00:35:13,660 So you have an official report when at the end you compare the amount of money going to the religious institutions, the Israeli government. 265 00:35:13,660 --> 00:35:17,590 This is not a civil rights organisation. 266 00:35:17,590 --> 00:35:20,380 This is that this is the government itself. 267 00:35:20,380 --> 00:35:27,040 In comparison with the funding of Jewish religious institutions, the modern Jewish communities are rather severely. 268 00:35:27,040 --> 00:35:36,280 That is not my word. It's the it's the government finding an official report to you and by severely under supported by the government. 269 00:35:36,280 --> 00:35:43,120 OK. And that's the the official status when when you look at Sarah Verhofstadt, 270 00:35:43,120 --> 00:35:47,770 who wrote what defines Israel as a Jewish state, he would be saying it's two and a half law. 271 00:35:47,770 --> 00:35:55,330 The first law is the Law of Return. The second law is about the marriage and divorce laws. 272 00:35:55,330 --> 00:36:06,730 And then he would be speaking about Sabbath laws about, you know, Hillel flying on a Saturday or not restricting of transportation or not. 273 00:36:06,730 --> 00:36:21,240 OK, but when it is judged by by liberalism, as Haim Cohen, he would say that this is a blot on Israel's legal democracy. 274 00:36:21,240 --> 00:36:34,410 But when you look at how the same religious authority, when it is for the Palestinian Arab minorities, the narrative changes dramatically. 275 00:36:34,410 --> 00:36:38,610 It takes an even an opposite course. 276 00:36:38,610 --> 00:36:47,280 So it's gone and I'm intentionally bringing words from Supreme Court justices. 277 00:36:47,280 --> 00:36:54,300 And it's how gone was even the president of the Israeli Supreme Court back in the early 1980s, 278 00:36:54,300 --> 00:37:00,750 when he would be speaking about the jurisdiction of the modern Jewish religious minorities. 279 00:37:00,750 --> 00:37:05,850 This is the text in Hebrew, and I have translated it. 280 00:37:05,850 --> 00:37:10,650 The impression is that the interpretation of expanding the jurisdiction of the non-Jewish. 281 00:37:10,650 --> 00:37:15,960 So it's expanding because if I'm liberal, I should be expanding that jurisdiction, OK? 282 00:37:15,960 --> 00:37:21,990 His influence from the worry of not disturbing in in the eyes of and what in the eyes 283 00:37:21,990 --> 00:37:27,150 of a minority is considered to be part of their national and cultural autonomy. 284 00:37:27,150 --> 00:37:33,190 So it's not like we're just recognising we're even expanding and this is liberal and this is autonomy. 285 00:37:33,190 --> 00:37:42,810 OK, it's Huck Engelhardt, who was also professor of law at the Hebrew University and became a Supreme Court justice. 286 00:37:42,810 --> 00:37:49,650 She would be speaking when discussing the issue of Muslim religious and Christian the non-Jewish. 287 00:37:49,650 --> 00:37:55,440 There is a shifting of concern from individual freedom of religion to collective autonomy. 288 00:37:55,440 --> 00:38:01,140 You can see how it is shifting to an issue of a collective identity. 289 00:38:01,140 --> 00:38:10,080 And it goes on and on. But I think the most relevant depth is this text that you can't understand it, at least from my point of view. 290 00:38:10,080 --> 00:38:14,100 Without the fifth, the thesis of I've just offered this. 291 00:38:14,100 --> 00:38:21,780 This is a text from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published back in 1961, and the reader is very irrelevant to the discussion, 292 00:38:21,780 --> 00:38:35,910 at least in this in this place, because it's it's a it's a publication that was titled The Arabs in Israel and it took up religion. 293 00:38:35,910 --> 00:38:43,320 And it's it's it's some bragging about how Israel is treating its its Arab minority in different ways, 294 00:38:43,320 --> 00:38:47,760 and one way is its treatment of its religious establishment. 295 00:38:47,760 --> 00:38:52,050 And this is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaking, and it would be stressing. 296 00:38:52,050 --> 00:39:00,390 In fact, the Muslim and Christian religious courts have jurisdictional powers exceeding those of rabbinical courts. 297 00:39:00,390 --> 00:39:03,330 It's bragging. It's taking pride. This is us. 298 00:39:03,330 --> 00:39:12,930 And in Israel, we're giving the Muslims and the Christians even a wider jurisdictional authority this state of religious judicial autonomy. 299 00:39:12,930 --> 00:39:17,430 Look at the wording continues to be maintained in Israel lately. 300 00:39:17,430 --> 00:39:23,970 Indeed, it had been extending to the Druze community. We've recognised the mother, which was true in 1957. 301 00:39:23,970 --> 00:39:30,180 In 1962, there was a law and rules. Religious courts are now being established all at the same time. 302 00:39:30,180 --> 00:39:36,960 An entirely different process has been taking place where in other Arab countries in Egypt, for instance, 303 00:39:36,960 --> 00:39:47,610 the Sharia courts and the courts of the other religious communities were abolished in 1956 and their powers transferred to civil courts. 304 00:39:47,610 --> 00:39:55,110 So it's condemning Egypt for abolishing religious jurisdiction while condemning because in 1961, 305 00:39:55,110 --> 00:40:01,530 the arch enemy of Israel was Egypt of Jamal Abdel Nasser. Look what we are doing in Israel. 306 00:40:01,530 --> 00:40:12,120 We're recognising we're even adding an Egypt that abolishing this is not meant to be praising Egypt. 307 00:40:12,120 --> 00:40:16,890 But the praise and the condemnation here is coming from this assumption. 308 00:40:16,890 --> 00:40:25,890 That recognition itself is tolerant, liberal and my recognition is, is that discriminatory? 309 00:40:25,890 --> 00:40:32,100 And this comes from this perception that I'm trying now. 310 00:40:32,100 --> 00:40:43,710 You find the designation of this particular authority as being religious and multicultural in the writing of even recent publications. 311 00:40:43,710 --> 00:40:49,320 So Ilan Saban would be deeming this jurisdictional authority a group differentiated right. 312 00:40:49,320 --> 00:40:56,490 Kretschmer would be speaking of group rights. Zamir Now this happened to be liberal academics. 313 00:40:56,490 --> 00:41:02,130 It's not coming from a conservative viewpoint, but this is exactly the sentiment. 314 00:41:02,130 --> 00:41:10,770 OK, now. And I think I'm right in my characterisation, 315 00:41:10,770 --> 00:41:20,460 then comes up the issue of individuals rights of members of these religious groups that happen to be minority groups. 316 00:41:20,460 --> 00:41:28,050 Now. Just to make us. The case even more clear. 317 00:41:28,050 --> 00:41:38,100 I happen to be a Supreme Court justice sitting on the Israeli Supreme Court, and I have two petitions coming before me to make it very simple. 318 00:41:38,100 --> 00:41:41,580 This is not the actual case, but to make the point clear. 319 00:41:41,580 --> 00:41:50,790 One petition is by a Jewish woman trying to challenge the rabbinical jurisdiction, and I happen to be a liberal judge. 320 00:41:50,790 --> 00:41:56,070 I happen to be Haim Cohen sitting on the Supreme Court. OK? 321 00:41:56,070 --> 00:41:59,430 And I would be asking myself, What should I do? 322 00:41:59,430 --> 00:42:07,290 Where should I be tilting the scales for the petitioners and against the jurisdiction or for the jurisdiction and against the petitioner? 323 00:42:07,290 --> 00:42:15,660 And I happen to be liberal. So probably if I would be deeming that jurisdictional authority to be blocked on Israel's democracy, 324 00:42:15,660 --> 00:42:21,660 I would be more for the woman against the jurisdictional authority. 325 00:42:21,660 --> 00:42:33,910 But I'm the same liberal judge and I conceive of OK, I conceive of of the religious jurisdiction of the Palestinian Arabs. 326 00:42:33,910 --> 00:42:40,870 As being liberal, and I have a petition against the Sharia court or against the Christian court, 327 00:42:40,870 --> 00:42:45,610 and I would be asking myself, how would my liberalism play out in this instance? 328 00:42:45,610 --> 00:42:58,020 Would it be for the community or would it be for the individual? And it played out in a lot of cases for the community and against the individual. 329 00:42:58,020 --> 00:43:06,850 So if there is a predicament in terms of individuals that happened to be subject to that jurisdictional authority. 330 00:43:06,850 --> 00:43:17,110 Their predicament in Israel in terms of Palestinian Arabs that are subject to the religious jurisdiction of these different religious courts. 331 00:43:17,110 --> 00:43:28,420 It's much more acute than the Jewish individual predicament, and that acuteness happened to also result from a number of other factors. 332 00:43:28,420 --> 00:43:32,260 One is there's a legitimacy deficit. 333 00:43:32,260 --> 00:43:46,780 What Israel meant with Shariah or canon law and try to fix it as much as it would feel free to do when it comes to Jewish rabbinical norms. 334 00:43:46,780 --> 00:43:53,650 And look at the Shah Bano case in India when the Indian court tried to mend with the Sharia. 335 00:43:53,650 --> 00:43:57,460 There was there was a lot of tension. 336 00:43:57,460 --> 00:44:07,360 And given the tension in the background, I mean, there is a legitimacy deficit on part of state institutions to deal with mom, 337 00:44:07,360 --> 00:44:12,550 Jewish religious authority and that legitimacy deficit. 338 00:44:12,550 --> 00:44:21,700 Also, it's mutual individuals calling on Israeli government or even at the Knesset, 339 00:44:21,700 --> 00:44:30,880 calling on Israeli institutions to fix Sharia and Christian and rules norms. 340 00:44:30,880 --> 00:44:36,740 This is not who we should turn to in order to fix our internal. 341 00:44:36,740 --> 00:44:41,170 So you have this deficit that exists, 342 00:44:41,170 --> 00:44:51,400 and this would make that predicament even worse because there is no incentive on both sides to fix what it is in existence. 343 00:44:51,400 --> 00:44:55,090 Look at the agouna case of amongst the Jews. 344 00:44:55,090 --> 00:45:05,350 There's a lot of talk about it. There were a lot of institutions established to take care of the status of the agouna amongst the Jewish community. 345 00:45:05,350 --> 00:45:13,340 But what about the Muslims? What about the Christians? There is no divorce amongst certain Christian communities. 346 00:45:13,340 --> 00:45:23,300 Like you heard it here in England 100 or so ago or in Ireland, maybe 50 years ago, if you happen to be Catholic, that's it. 347 00:45:23,300 --> 00:45:30,440 There is no divorce. What are you going to call upon to fix it? 348 00:45:30,440 --> 00:45:36,340 Would the state be intervening in the name of the Catholic Church? 349 00:45:36,340 --> 00:45:48,940 But what about my I mean, this is the legitimacy deficit, OK, now a mother, I think a circumstance that make this predicament worse. 350 00:45:48,940 --> 00:45:54,250 As I said before, the state is interested in maintaining the different religious identity. 351 00:45:54,250 --> 00:45:58,420 So if you're interested in maintaining the religious identities, why would you want to even change it? 352 00:45:58,420 --> 00:46:03,400 It is maintaining these identities, and it's self serving. 353 00:46:03,400 --> 00:46:13,070 The minority political establishment is also not arguing against it, even if it happens to be secular. 354 00:46:13,070 --> 00:46:22,180 Even the Communist Party amongst the Palestinian Arabs are not calling for the abolishment of this religious jurisdiction. 355 00:46:22,180 --> 00:46:33,010 It's silent, almost. There is no active secular agenda against religious norms amongst the Palestinian Arabs in Israel. 356 00:46:33,010 --> 00:46:39,010 Why? Because even if I happen to be secular as a political representative, 357 00:46:39,010 --> 00:46:44,260 maybe the last thing I want to bring up now is this internal religious issue 358 00:46:44,260 --> 00:46:52,820 because it would be fragmenting me from within and diminishing my ability. 359 00:46:52,820 --> 00:46:58,830 To have the national struggle struggle as my main struggle in the state. 360 00:46:58,830 --> 00:47:09,150 It would be cracking me from within, so why I would need to bring this up when I have a more serious agenda in my hands. 361 00:47:09,150 --> 00:47:17,410 So this makes it even worse. Now. 362 00:47:17,410 --> 00:47:21,170 I'll give you I guess I should stop at that one stage, 363 00:47:21,170 --> 00:47:29,350 but let me just say a couple of words about why I don't consider this to be a multicultural accommodation because this 364 00:47:29,350 --> 00:47:38,500 is the subject of the fifth chapter in the book because I think that for a group arrangement to become multicultural, 365 00:47:38,500 --> 00:47:46,270 there needs to be some qualification factors. Not every group arrangement is something that would we? 366 00:47:46,270 --> 00:47:51,580 We would be deeming as being multicultural. OK. 367 00:47:51,580 --> 00:48:00,820 Because the context matter, because why that accommodation is granted is essential. 368 00:48:00,820 --> 00:48:11,710 So segregated America was based on group arrangement, but nobody is calling it a multicultural arrangement. 369 00:48:11,710 --> 00:48:19,740 You might have the same institutions that might be for the African American community today if you go to Howard University. 370 00:48:19,740 --> 00:48:26,500 Yeah, it's predominantly African-American. Yeah, that might look today as being multicultural. 371 00:48:26,500 --> 00:48:37,180 So what's the difference? I mean, Howard University maybe existed just the same when there was segregation and today when there is no segregation. 372 00:48:37,180 --> 00:48:43,900 I think what is essential is that if recognition is accorded, it's accorded in order to protect that community, 373 00:48:43,900 --> 00:48:50,500 not to subordinate, not to maintain that identity, it's for its protection. 374 00:48:50,500 --> 00:48:55,720 That's why we conceive it as being essential. 375 00:48:55,720 --> 00:49:00,010 But as I said in this. Who are you protecting Israel as a mom, as a multiple state? 376 00:49:00,010 --> 00:49:08,140 Why are you granting Muslims and Christians and Druze and recognising their religious identity and 377 00:49:08,140 --> 00:49:14,570 safeguarding that identity to the level of exclusive jurisdiction over matters of marriage and divorce? 378 00:49:14,570 --> 00:49:23,140 Why are you doing this? Nobody's threatening. Nobody's trying to assimilate. 379 00:49:23,140 --> 00:49:31,680 Second. What about proportionality sometimes? 380 00:49:31,680 --> 00:49:39,450 Yeah. There might be a measure of assistance, a measure of recognition. 381 00:49:39,450 --> 00:49:43,650 But why go to the level of exclusive jurisdiction? 382 00:49:43,650 --> 00:49:50,290 You want to safeguard the interest. You can do it at a much lesser price, which is more proportional, maybe for the interest. 383 00:49:50,290 --> 00:49:57,990 OK, and what culture are you preserving for these individuals? 384 00:49:57,990 --> 00:50:08,730 So if I happen to be a Greek Orthodox Christian, you don't want the family car code that would be governing me and it is recognised. 385 00:50:08,730 --> 00:50:13,140 It's the Byzantine code of the church back in the 14th century. 386 00:50:13,140 --> 00:50:19,470 Is this representing my culture? Is this part of my opponent? Is this determining my options of choices? 387 00:50:19,470 --> 00:50:33,180 Of course not. Why are you preserving it that? But I think the characterisation of this authority as being multicultural is 388 00:50:33,180 --> 00:50:39,270 self-serving for the state and for the political establishment of the minority, 389 00:50:39,270 --> 00:50:45,550 for the state, essentially boxing people into their religious identities. 390 00:50:45,550 --> 00:50:54,180 But Israel would want to brag about being democratic but democratic, and such boxing does not go together. 391 00:50:54,180 --> 00:51:05,220 We don't think of boxing people into their religious identities as being democratic and liberal with no, you know, it's it's it's mandatory. 392 00:51:05,220 --> 00:51:14,670 This is the minister. How would you try even to make it appear as being multicultural as as being as being democratic? 393 00:51:14,670 --> 00:51:18,090 You, you label it, you consider it to be multicultural. 394 00:51:18,090 --> 00:51:29,190 We're recognising as the ministry was doing so, labelling is like laundering that reality and making it seem at least as something which is. 395 00:51:29,190 --> 00:51:37,080 And I think this is also happening on behalf of the political establishment that of of of the minority itself. 396 00:51:37,080 --> 00:51:46,620 It's hinging on liberal ideals, of equality, of democracy, for state, for all its citizens. 397 00:51:46,620 --> 00:51:55,690 Fine. But how how does that is, how is that compatible with religious jurisdiction? 398 00:51:55,690 --> 00:52:06,040 Exclusive religious jurisdiction, so Palestinians and Jews want to be equal on a national level, but men and woman should not. 399 00:52:06,040 --> 00:52:09,910 Is that something that is compatible? It's not. It can't happen. 400 00:52:09,910 --> 00:52:16,810 You can't be liberal to believe that Jews and Arabs should be equal, but men and women are not. 401 00:52:16,810 --> 00:52:24,790 But how would that be compatible? You also internalise the same vocabulary. 402 00:52:24,790 --> 00:52:33,930 This is our own autonomy, multiculturalism, and so there is this overlap of consensus, I guess. 403 00:52:33,930 --> 00:52:39,870 Of presenting it as. But it is not. 404 00:52:39,870 --> 00:52:46,260 And that's why the book is called an entrapment and this is how the American Entrapment defence operates. 405 00:52:46,260 --> 00:52:55,890 I'm selling you something, but only to criminalise you afterwards, but I'm trying to make you believe that what you're doing is is good for me. 406 00:52:55,890 --> 00:53:03,300 But at the end, it's actually it's not good for you because I would be putting you in jail. 407 00:53:03,300 --> 00:53:10,560 So that's that's the entrapment, and I think this is what exists and this is the reality it's been. 408 00:53:10,560 --> 00:53:19,800 It's it's it's been. Imaged as being multicultural, but it does not qualify as being multicultural. 409 00:53:19,800 --> 00:53:28,350 The qualifications don't apply here and if it's not, and though it's presented, OK, then it's an entrapment. 410 00:53:28,350 --> 00:53:30,960 But it's not an entrapment without a cost. 411 00:53:30,960 --> 00:53:43,320 It's an entrapment where you leave a lot of individuals subject subject to this religious authority in which their freedom and rights are undermined. 412 00:53:43,320 --> 00:53:50,760 In the last chapter, I go into the discussion of how we might be reforming this situation, 413 00:53:50,760 --> 00:53:56,790 but I guess I'll stop here and give you a chance to ask and hopefully to have a discussion. 414 00:53:56,790 --> 00:54:00,934 Thank you.