Shonda Rhimes: 'Your tribe is waiting. You are not alone', Human Rights Campaign - 2015

15 March 2015, JW Marriott Hotel, Los Angeles, USA

I have been a writer since before I could spell.

I used to dictate stories into a tape recorder with my sister Sandie. Then I tried to get my mother to type them up. I was maybe 3. And when I learned to spell…writing opened worlds.

Nothing else provides that singular hum in my brain, that special trip to the imagination. Writing was…well, for me it was like sitting down at a piano for the first time and realizing that I always knew how to play. Writing was my melody. Writing was who I was. Writing was ME.

I spent my school days writing in journals. I still have them. Little fabric covered books, frayed and fading. They’re boxed up in my attic — about 20 of them, I think.

Little books filled with hopes and dreams and stories and pain.

Let me describe myself as a kid: highly intelligent, way too chubby, incredibly sensitive, nerdy and painfully shy. I wore coke bottle thick glasses. Two corn row braids traveled down the sides of my skull in a way that was just not pretty on me. And here’s the kicker — I was often the only black girl in my class.

I did not have friends.

No one is meaner than a pack of human beings faced with someone who is different.

I was very much alone.

So…

I wrote.

I created friends. I named them and wrote every detail about them. I gave them stories and homes and families. I wrote about their parties and their dates and their friendships and their lives and they were so very real to me that —

You see, Shondaland, the imaginary land of Shonda, has existed since I was 11 years old.

I built it in my mind as a place to hold my stories. A safe place. A space for my characters to exist. A space for ME to exist. Until I could get the hell out of being a teenager and could run out into the world and be myself.

Less isolated, less marginalized, less invisible in the eyes of my peers.

Until I could find my people in the real world.

I don’t know if anyone has noticed but I only ever write about one thing: being alone. The fear of being alone, the desire to not be alone, the attempts we make to find our person, to keep our person, to convince our person to not leave us alone, the joy of being with our person and thus no longer alone, the devastation of being left alone.

The need to hear the words: You are not alone.

The fundamental human need for one human being to hear another human being say to them: “You are not alone. You are seen. I am with you. You are not alone.”

I get asked a lot by reporters and tweeters why I am so invested in “diversity” on television. “Why is it so important to have diversity on TV?” they say. “Why is it so challenging to have diversity?” “Why does Cyrus need to be gay?”

I really hate the word “diversity”. It suggests something…other. As if it is something…special. Or rare.

Diversity!

As if there is something unusual about telling stories involving women and people of color and LGBTQ characters on TV.

I have a different word: NORMALIZING.

I’m normalizing TV.

I am making TV look like the world looks. Women, people of color, LGBTQ people equal WAY more than 50% of the population. Which means it ain’t out of the ordinary. I am making the world of television look NORMAL.

I am NORMALIZING television.

You should get to turn on the TV and see your tribe. And your tribe can be any kind of person, any one you identify with, anyone who feels like you, who feels like home, who feels like truth. You should get to turn on the TV and see your tribe, see your people, someone like you out there, existing. So that you know on your darkest day that when you run (metaphorically or physically RUN), there is somewhere, someone, to run TO. Your tribe is waiting for you.

You are not alone.

The goal is that everyone should get to turn on the TV and see someone who looks like them and loves like them. And just as important, everyone should turn on the TV and see someone who doesn’t look like them and love like them. Because, perhaps then, they will learn from them.

Perhaps then, they will not isolate them.

Marginalize them.

Erase them.

Perhaps they will even come to recognize themselves in them.

Perhaps they will even learn to love them.

I think that when you turn on the television and you see love, from anyone, with anyone, to anyone — real love — a service has been done for you. Your heart has somehow been expanded, your mind has somehow grown. Your soul has been opened a little more. You’ve experienced something.

The very idea that love exists, that it is possible, that one can have a “person”…

You are not alone.

Hate diminishes, love expands.

I do a lot of talking in my Writers Rooms about how images matter. The images you see on television matter. They tell you about the world. They tell you who you are. What the world is like. They shape you. We all know this. There have been studies.

So if you never see a Cyrus Beene on TV, ever? An older, bad ass, take no prisoners, Republican, conservative, Rumsfeld-ian gay man who loved his husband James so deeply and tried desperately not to kill him…

If you never see James dragging Cyrus into the 21st century…

If you never see young Connor Walsh on How To Get Away Murder getting to have the same kind of slutty dating life we’ve seen straight characters have on TV season after season after season…

If you never see Erica Hahn exuberantly give what’s become known as the Leaves on Trees monologue telling Callie that she’s realized she is a lesbian…

If you never see openly bisexual Callie Torres stare her father down and holler (my favorite line ever) “You can’t pray away the gay!!!” at him…

If you never see a transgender character on TV have family, understanding, a Dr. Bailey to love and support her…

If you never see any of those people on TV…What do you learn about your importance in the fabric of society? What do straight people learn? What does that tell young people? Where does that leave them? Where does that leave any of us?

I get letters and tweets and people coming up to me on the street. Telling me so many incredible stories. The dad telling me about how something he saw on one of my shows gave him a way to understand his son when he came out. Or the teenagers, all the teenagers man, who tell me they learned the language to talk to their parents about being gay or lesbian. The teenage girls who have found a community of peers and support on line because of the Callie Arizona relationship — Calzona. I get story after story.

There were times in my youth when writing those stories in Shondaland quite literally saved my life. And now I get kids telling me it quite literally saves theirs. That is beyond humbling.

And every single time it comes down to one thing.

You are not alone.

Nobody should be alone.

So. I write.

We are only on the edge of change. There is still so much more work to be done. I’m going to accept this award as encouragement and not as accomplishment. I don’t think the job is finished yet.

I have a lot of lesbian and gay friends whose marriages I would like to see recognized in every single state in this country. And there are so many minds and laws that still need to be changed. I want to applaud the HRC for their work in fighting so hard for equality and the end of discrimination of all kinds for the LGBT community. The work you are doing is tremendous.

Writing is no different for me now than it was when I was talking into that tape recorder with my sister Sandie. Yes, it’s on a larger landscape. Yes, it’s all of Thursday night. Yes, I am less shy, arguably less nerdy, clearly better styled. The glasses have been replaced by contacts.

I am still often the only black girl in my class. (Look around you.)

But here’s the thing: I am no longer alone.

The characters that lived inside my head are on the television screen. They are not just my friends now — they are also everyone else’s. Shondaland is open and, if I am doing my job right, there will be a person here for everyone.

I want to say how much I appreciate all of the support and kindness I have received. A lot of people out there have been quick to come to my defense in wonderful ways. Especially after I tweet angry. I’m very proud of what I said to the person who tweeted me the nasty comment about “gay scenes”. I would say Bye Felicia again and again. But sometimes I wish I thought first and tweeted later — because think of what an even more awesome thing I COULD have said with a rewrite and some notes?! But seriously, still, I am eternally grateful.

Finally I want to say this: if you are a kid and you are out there and you are chubby and not so cute and nerdy and shy and invisible and in pain, whatever your race, whatever your gender, whatever your sexual orientation, I’m standing here to tell you: you are not alone.

Your tribe of people, they are out there in the world. Waiting for you.

How do I know this for sure? Because mine? Are sitting at that table right over there.

Thank you.

Ida B Wells: ‘Our country’s national crime is lynching’ Chicago rally - 1900

 23 January 1900, The Arena, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent people who openly avow that there is an "unwritten law" that justifies them in putting human beings to death without complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal. The "unwritten law" first found excuse with the rough, rugged, and determined man who left the civilized centers of eastern States to seek for quick returns in the gold-fields of the far West. Following in uncertain pursuit of continually eluding fortune, they dared the savagery of the Indians, the hardships of mountain travel, and the constant terror of border State outlaws.

Naturally, they felt slight toleration for traitors in their own ranks. It was enough to fight the enemies from without; woe to the foe within! Far removed from and entirely without protection of the courts of civilized life, these fortune-seekers made laws to meet their varying emergencies. The thief who stole a horse, the bully who "jumped" a claim, was a common enemy. If caught he was promptly tried, and if found guilty was hanged to the tree under which the court convened.

Those were busy days of busy men. They had no time to give the prisoner a bill of exception or stay of execution. The only way a man had to secure a stay of execution was to behave himself. Judge Lynch was original in methods but exceedingly effective in procedure. He made the charge, impaneled the jurors, and directed the execution. When the court adjourned, the prisoner was dead. Thus lynch law held sway in the far West until civilization spread into the Territories and the orderly processes of law took its place. The emergency no longer existing, lynching gradually disappeared from the West.

But the spirit of mob procedure seemed to have fastened itself upon the lawless classes, and the grim process that at first was invoked to declare justice was made the excuse to wreak vengeance and cover crime. It next appeared in the South, where centuries of Anglo-Saxon civilization had made effective all the safeguards of court procedure. No emergency called for lynch law. It asserted its sway in defiance of law and in favor of anarchy. There it has flourished ever since, marking the thirty years of its existence with the inhuman butchery of more than ten thousand men, women, and children by shooting, drowning, hanging, and burning them alive. Not only this, but so potent is the force of example that the lynching mania has spread throughout the North and middle West. It is now no uncommon thing to read of lynchings north of Mason and Dixon's line, and those most responsible for this fashion gleefully point to these instances and assert that the North is no better than the South.

This is the work of the "unwritten law" about which so much is said, and in whose behest butchery is made a pastime and national savagery condoned. The first statute of this "unwritten law" was written in the blood of thousands of brave men who thought that a government that was good enough to create a citizenship was strong enough to protect it. Under the authority of a national law that gave every citizen the right to vote, the newly-made citizens chose to exercise their suffrage. But the reign of the national law was short-lived and illusionary. Hardly had the sentences dried upon the statute-books before one Southern State after another raised the cry against "negro domination" and proclaimed there was an "unwritten law" that justified any means to resist it.

The method then inaugurated was the outrages by the "red-shirt" bands of Louisiana, South Carolina, and other Southern States, which were succeeded by the Ku-Klux Klans. These advocates of the "unwritten law" boldly avowed their purpose to intimidate, suppress, and nullify the negro's right to vote. In support of its plans the Ku-Klux Klans, the "red-shirt" and similar organizations proceeded to beat, exile, and kill negroes until the purpose of their organization was accomplished and the supremacy of the "unwritten law" was effected. Thus lynchings began in the South, rapidly spreading into the various States until the national law was nullified and the reign of the "unwritten law" was supreme. Men were taken from their homes by "red-shirt" bands and stripped, beaten, and exiled; others were assassinated when their political prominence made them obnoxious to their political opponents; while the Ku-Klux barbarism of election days, reveling in the butchery of thousands of colored voters, furnished records in Congressional investigations that are a disgrace to civilization.

The alleged menace of universal suffrage having been avoided by the absolute suppression of the negro vote, the spirit of mob murder should have been satisfied and the butchery of negroes should have ceased. But men, women, and children were the victims of murder by individuals and murder by mobs, just as they had been when killed at the demands of the "unwritten law" to prevent "negro domination." Negroes were killed for disputing over terms of contracts with their employers. If a few barns were burned some colored man was killed to stop it. If a colored man resented the imposition of a white man and the two came to blows, the colored man had to die, either at the hands of the white man then and there or later at the hands of a mob that speedily gathered. If he showed a spirit of courageous manhood he was hanged for his pains, and the killing was justified by the declaration that he was a "saucy nigger." Colored women have been murdered because they refused to tell the mobs where relatives could be found for "lynching bees." Boys of fourteen years have been lynched by white representatives of American civilization. In fact, for all kinds of offenses--and, for no offenses--from murders to misdemeanors, men and women are put to death without judge or jury; so that, although the political excuse was no longer necessary, the wholesale murder of human beings went on just the same. A new name was given to the killings and a new excuse was invented for so doing.

Again the aid of the "unwritten law" is invoked, and again it comes to the rescue. During the last ten years a new statute has been added to the "unwritten law." This statute proclaims that for certain crimes or alleged crimes no negro shall be allowed a trial; that no white woman shall be compelled to charge an assault under oath or to submit any such charge to the investigation of a court of law. The result is that many men have been put to death whose innocence was afterward established; and to-day, under this reign of the "unwritten law," no colored man, no matter what his reputation, is safe from lynching if a white woman, no matter what her standing or motive, cares to charge him with insult or assault.

It is considered a sufficient excuse and reasonable justification to put a prisoner to death under this "unwritten law" for the frequently repeated charge that these lynching horrors are necessary to prevent crimes against women. The sentiment of the country has been appealed to, in describing the isolated condition of white families in thickly populated negro districts; and the charge is made that these homes are in as great danger as if they were surrounded by wild beasts. And the world has accepted this theory without let or hindrance. In many cases there has been open expression that the fate meted out to the victim was only what he deserved. In many other instances there has been a silence that says more forcibly than words can proclaim it that it is right and proper that a human being should be seized by a mob and burned to death upon the unsworn and the uncorroborated charge of his accuser. No matter that our laws presume every man innocent until he is proved guilty; no matter that it leaves a certain class of individuals completely at the mercy of another class; no matter that it encourages those criminally disposed to blacken their faces and commit any crime in the calendar so long as they can throw suspicion on some negro, as is frequently done, and then lead a mob to take his life; no matter that mobs make a farce of the law and a mockery of justice; no matter that hundreds of boys are being hardened in crime and schooled in vice by the repetition of such scenes before their eyes--if a white woman declares herself insulted or assaulted, some life must pay the penalty, with all the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and all the barbarism of the Middle Ages. The world looks on and says it is well.

Not only are two hundred men and women put to death annually, on the average, in this country by mobs, but these lives are taken with the greatest publicity. In many instances the leading citizens aid and abet by their presence when they do not participate, and the leading journals inflame the public mind to the lynching point with scare-head articles and offers of rewards. Whenever a burning is advertised to take place, the railroads run excursions, photographs are taken, and the same jubilee is indulged in that characterized the public hangings of one hundred years ago. There is, however, this difference: in those old days the multitude that stood by was permitted only to guy or jeer. The nineteenth century lynching mob cuts off ears, toes, and fingers, strips off flesh, and distributes portions of the body as souvenirs among the crowd. If the leaders of the mob are so minded, coal-oil is poured over the body and the victim is then roasted to death. This has been done in Texarkana and Paris, Tex., in Bardswell, Ky., and in Newman, Ga. In Paris the officers of the law delivered the prisoner to the mob. The mayor gave the school children a holiday and the railroads ran excursion trains so that the people might see a human being burned to death. In Texarkana, the year before, men and boys amused themselves by cutting off strips of flesh and thrusting knives into their helpless victim. At Newman, Ga., of the present year, the mob tried every conceivable torture to compel the victim to cry out and confess, before they set fire to the faggots that burned him. But their trouble was all in vain--he never uttered a cry, and they could not make him confess.

This condition of affairs were brutal enough and horrible enough if it were true that lynchings occurred only because of the commission of crimes against women--as is constantly declared by ministers, editors, lawyers, teachers, statesmen, and even by women themselves. It has been to the interest of those who did the lynching to blacken the good name of the helpless and defenseless victims of their hate. For this reason they publish at every possible opportunity this excuse for lynching, hoping thereby not only to palliate their own crime but at the same time to prove the negro a moral monster and unworthy of the respect and sympathy of the civilized world. But this alleged reason adds to the deliberate injustice of the mob's work. Instead of lynchings being caused by assaults upon women, the statistics show that not one-third of the victims of lynchings are even charged with such crimes. The Chicago Tribune, which publishes annually lynching statistics, is authority for the following:

In 1892, when lynching reached high-water mark, there were 241 persons lynched. The entire number is divided among the following States:

Alabama.........    22    Montana..........     4
Arkansas........    25    New York.........     1
California......     3      North Carolina...     5
Florida.........    11      North Dakota.....     1
Georgia.........    17     Ohio.............     3
Idaho...........     8      South Carolina...     5
Illinois........     1        Tennessee........    28
Kansas..........     3     Texas............    15
Kentucky........     9    Virginia.........     7
Louisiana.......    29     West Virginia....     5
Maryland........     1     Wyoming..........     9

Arizona Ter....     3      Missouri..........    6

Mississippi.....    16     Oklahoma.........     2

Of this number, 160 were of negro descent. Four of them were lynched in New York, Ohio, and Kansas; the remainder were murdered in the South. Five of this number were females. The charges for which they were lynched cover a wide range. They are as follows:

Rape..................    46        Attempted rape......    11
Murder................    58    Suspected robbery...     4
Rioting...............     3    Larceny.............     1
Race Prejudice........     6    Self-defense........     1
No cause given........     4    Insulting women....     2
Incendiarism..........     6    Desperadoes.........     6
Robbery...............     6    Fraud...............     1
Assault and battery...     1    Attempted murder....     2
No offense stated, boy and girl.............. 2

In the case of the boy and girl above referred to, their father, named Hastings, was accused of the murder of a white man. His fourteen-year-old daughter and sixteen-year-old son were hanged and their bodies filled with bullets; then the father was also lynched. This occurred in November, 1892, at Jonesville, La.

Indeed, the record for the last twenty years shows exactly the same or a smaller proportion who have been charged with this horrible crime. Quite a number of the one-third alleged cases of assault that have been personally investigated by the writer have shown that there was no foundation in fact for the charges; yet the claim is not made that there were no real culprits among them. The negro has been too long associated with the white man not to have copied his vices as well as his virtues. But the negro resents and utterly repudiates the efforts to blacken his good name by asserting that assaults upon women are peculiar to his race. The negro has suffered far more from the commission of this crime against the women of his race by white men than the white race has ever suffered through his crimes. Very scant notice is taken of the matter when this is the condition of affairs. What becomes a crime deserving capital punishment when the tables are turned is a matter of small moment when the negro woman is the accusing party.

But since the world has accepted this false and unjust statement, and the burden of proof has been placed upon the negro to vindicate his race, he is taking steps to do so. The Anti-Lynching Bureau of the National Afro-American Council is arranging to have every lynching investigated and publish the facts to the world, as has been done in the case of Sam Hose, who was burned alive last April at Newman, Ga. The detective's report showed that Hose killed Cranford, his employer, in self-defense, and that, while a mob was organizing to hunt Hose to punish him for killing a white man, not till twenty-four hours after the murder was the charge of rape, embellished with psychological and physical impossibilities, circulated. That gave an impetus to the hunt, and the Atlanta Constitution's reward of $500 keyed the mob to the necessary burning and roasting pitch. Of five hundred newspaper clippings of that horrible affair, nine-tenths of them assumed Hose's guilt--simply because his murderers said so, and because it is the fashion to believe the negro peculiarly addicted to this species of crime. All the negro asks is justice--a fair and impartial trial in the courts of the country. That given, he will abide the result.

But this question affects the entire American nation, and from several points of view: First, on the ground of consistency. Our watchword has been "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Brave men do not gather by thousands to torture and murder a single individual, so gagged and bound he cannot make even feeble resistance or defense. Neither do brave men or women stand by and see such things done without compunction of conscience, nor read of them without protest. Our nation has been active and outspoken in its endeavors to right the wrongs of the Armenian Christian, the Russian Jew, the Irish Home Ruler, the native women of India, the Siberian exile, and the Cuban patriot. Surely it should be the nation's duty to correct its own evils!

Second, on the ground of economy. To those who fail to be convinced from any other point of view touching this momentous question, a consideration of the economic phase might not be amiss. It is generally known that mobs in Louisiana, Colorado, Wyoming, and other States have lynched subjects of other countries. When their different governments demanded satisfaction, our country was forced to confess her inability to protect said subjects in the several States because of our State-rights doctrines, or in turn demand punishment of the lynchers. This confession, while humiliating in the extreme, was not satisfactory; and, while the United States cannot protect, she can pay. This she has done, and it is certain will have to do again in the case of the recent lynching of Italians in Louisiana. The United States already has paid in indemnities for lynching nearly a half million dollars, as follows:

Paid China for Rock Springs (Wyo.) massacre - $147,748.74
Paid China for outrages on Pacific Coast.- $276,619.75
Paid Italy for massacre of Italian prisoners at New Orleans -$24,330.90
Paid Italy for lynchings at Walsenburg, Col - $10,000.00
Paid Great Britain for outrages on James Bain and Frederick Dawson - $2,800.00

Third, for the honor of Anglo-Saxon civilization. No scoffer at our boasted American civilization could say anything more harsh of it than does the American white man himself who says he is unable to protect the honor of his women without resort to such brutal, inhuman, and degrading exhibitions as characterize "lynching bees." The cannibals of the South Sea Islands roast human beings alive to satisfy hunger. The red Indian of the Western plains tied his prisoner to the stake, tortured him, and danced in fiendish glee while his victim writhed in the flames. His savage, untutored mind suggested no better way than that of wreaking vengeance upon those who had wronged him. These people knew nothing about Christianity and did not profess to follow its teachings; but such primary laws as they had they lived up to. No nation, savage or civilized, save only the United States of America, has confessed its inability to protect its women save by hanging, shooting, and burning alleged offenders.

Finally, for love of country. No American travels abroad without blushing for shame for his country on this subject. And whatever the excuse that passes current in the United States, it avails nothing abroad. With all the powers of government in control; with all laws made by white men, administered by white judges, jurors, prosecuting attorneys, and sheriffs; with every office of the executive department filled by white men--no excuse can be offered for exchanging the orderly administration of justice for barbarous lynchings and "unwritten laws." Our country should be placed speedily above the plane of confessing herself a failure at self-government. This cannot be until Americans of every section, of broadest patriotism and best and wisest citizenship, not only see the defect in our country's armor but take the necessary steps to remedy it. Although lynchings have steadily increased in number and barbarity during the last twenty years, there has been no single effort put forth by the many moral and philanthropic forces of the country to put a stop to this wholesale slaughter. Indeed, the silence and seeming condonation grow more marked as the years go by.

A few months ago the conscience of this country was shocked because, after a two-weeks trial, a French judicial tribunal pronounced Captain Dreyfus guilty. And yet, in our own land and under our own flag, the writer can give day and detail of one thousand men, women, and children who during the last six years were put to death without trial before any tribunal on earth. Humiliating indeed, but altogether unanswerable, was the reply of the French press to our protest: "Stop your lynchings at home before you send your protests abroad."

Mary Church Terrell: ‘What it means to be coloured in the capital of the U.S’, United Women's Club of Washington DC- 1906

 10 October 1906, United Women’s Club, Washington DC, USA

Washington, D.C., has been called "The Colored Man's Paradise." Whether this sobriquet was given to the national capital in bitter irony by a member of the handicapped race, as he reviewed some of his own persecutions and rebuffs, or whether it was given immediately after the war by an ex-slaveholder who for the first time in his life saw colored people walking about like free men, minus the overseer and his whip, history saith not.  It is certain that it would be difficult to find a worse misnomer for Washington than "The Colored Man's Paradise" if so prosaic a consideration as veracity is to determine the appropriateness of a name.

For fifteen years I have resided in Washington, and while it was far from being a paradise for colored people when I first touched these shores it has been doing its level best ever since to make conditions for us intolerable. As a colored woman I might enter Washington any night, a stranger in a strange land, and walk miles without finding a place to lay my head. Unless I happened to know colored people who live here or ran across a chance acquaintance who could recommend a colored boarding-house to me, I should be obliged to spend the entire night wandering about. Indians, Chinamen, Filipinos, Japanese and representatives of any other dark race can find hotel accommodations, if they can pay for them. The colored man alone is thrust out of the hotels of the national capital like a leper.

As a colored woman I may walk from the Capitol to the White House, ravenously hungry and abundantly supplied with money with which to purchase a meal, without finding a single restaurant in which I would be permitted to take a morsel of food, if it was patronized by white people, unless I were willing to sit behind a screen. As a colored woman I cannot visit the tomb of the Father of this country, which owes its very existence to the love of freedom in the human heart and which stands for equal opportunity to all, without being forced to sit in the Jim Crow section of an electric car which starts form the very heart of the city– midway between the Capital and the White House. If I refuse thus to be humiliated, I am cast into jail and forced to pay a fine for violating the Virginia laws....

As a colored woman I may enter more than one white church in Washington without receiving that welcome which as a human being I have the right to expect in the sanctuary of God....
Unless I am willing to engage in a few menial occupations, in which the pay for my services would be very poor, there is no way for me to earn an honest living, if I am not a trained nurse or a dressmaker or can secure a position as teacher in the public schools, which is exceedingly difficult to do. It matters not what my intellectual attainments may be or how great is the need of the services of a competent person, if I try to enter many of the numerous vocations in which my white sisters are allowed to engage, the door is shut in my face.

From one Washington theater I am excluded altogether. In the remainder certain seats are set aside for colored people, and it is almost impossible to secure others.... With the exception of the Catholic University, there is not a single white college in the national capitol to which colored people are admitted.... A few years ago the Columbian Law School admitted colored students, but in deference to the Southern white students the authorities have decided to exclude them altogether.

Some time ago a young woman who had already attracted some attention in the literary world by her volume of short stories answered an advertisement which appeared in a Washington newspaper, which called for the services of a skilled stenographer and expert typewriter....The applicants were requested to send specimens of their work and answer certain questions concerning their experience and their speed before they called in person. In reply to her application the young colored woman. . . received a letter from the firm stating that her references and experience were the most satisfactory that had been sent and requesting her to call. When she presented herself there was some doubt in the mind of the man to whom she was directed concerning her racial pedigree, so he asked her point-blank whether she was colored or white. When she confessed the truth the merchant expressed...deep regret that he could not avail himself of the services of so competent a person, but frankly admitted that employing a colored woman in his establishment in any except a menial position was simply out of the question....

Not only can colored women secure no employment in the Washington stores, department and otherwise, except as menials, and such positions, of course, are few, but even as customers they are not infrequently treated with discourtesy both by the clerks and the proprietor himself. . . .
Although white and colored teachers are under the same Board of Education and the system for the children of both races is said to be uniform, prejudice against the colored teachers in the public schools is manifested in a variety of ways. From 1870 to 1900 there was a colored superintendent at the head of the colored schools. During all that time the directors of the cooking, sewing, physical culture, manual training, music and art departments were colored people. Six years ago a change was inaugurated.  The colored superintendent was legislated out of office and the directorships, without a single exception, were taken from colored teachers and given to the whites....

Now, no matter how competent or superior the colored teachers in our public schools may be, they know that they can never rise to the height of a directorship, can never hope to be more than an assistant and receive the meager salary therefore, unless the present regime is radically changed....

Strenuous efforts are being made to run Jim Crow cars in the national capital.... Representative Heflin, of Alabama, who introduced a bill providing for Jim Crow street cars in the District of Columbia last winter, has just received a letter from the president of the East Brookland Citizens’ Association “indorsing the movement for separate street cars and sincerely hoping that you will be successful in getting this enacted into a law as soon as possible.” Brookland is a suburb of Washington.

The colored laborer’s path to a decent livelihood is by no means smooth. Into some of the trades unions here he is admitted, while from others he is excluded altogether. By the union men this is denied, although I am personally acquainted with skilled workmen who tell me they are not admitted into the unions because they are colored. But even when they are allowed to join the unions they frequently derive little benefit, owing to certain tricks of the trade. When the word passes round that help is needed and colored laborers apply, they are often told by the union officials that they have secured all the men they needed, because the places are reserved for white men, until they have been provided with jobs, and colored men must remain idle, unless the supply of white men is too small....

And so I might go on citing instance after instance to show the variety of ways in which our people are sacrificed on the altar of prejudice in the Capital of the United States and how almost insurmountable are the obstacles which block his path to success....

It is impossible for any white person in the United States, no matter how sympathetic and broad, to realize what life would mean to him if his incentive to effort were suddenly snatched away. To the lack of incentive to effort, which is the awful shadow under which we live, may be traced the wreck and ruin of score of colored youth. And surely nowhere in the world do oppression and persecution based solely on the color of the skin appear more hateful and hideous than in the capital of the United States, because the chasm between the principles upon which this Government was founded, in which it still professes to believe, and those which are daily practiced under the protection of the flag, yawn so wide and deep.

Robert Mueller: 'You may find yourself standing alone', Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law - 2013

12 April 2013, University of Virginia,

Good morning. Thanks to Dean Mahoney for having me here today. It is good to be back in Charlottesville at one of the best law schools—one could argue the best law school—in the country. I say that remembering what I found unique about this school 40 years ago.

Then, as now, UVA was different from other law schools. Rather than simply teaching the basic tenets of the law, it sought to provide the foundation for future leadership.

As you have heard, I came to the law school from the Marine Corps, with a tour in Vietnam. As you all know, the Vietnam War was deeply divisive for our country, and there were a number of law schools that were not receptive to veterans of Vietnam. Not so UVA.

The university was looking for a range of experiences, understanding that a true legal education is an amalgam of the law and of values, with the goal of preparing its students for service—service to the country, service to Virginia, and service to others.

Then, as now, a variety of views were represented. Many of my fellow students—good friends—opposed the war in Vietnam.

I do remember that on the first day of classes, I sat down next to a somewhat scruffy classmate. I still had a Marine Corps hair cut and was dressed rather neatly. He had hair down to his shoulders, a Fu Manchu mustache, and was dressed in a grubby t-shirt and shorts…and he was not wearing shoes. He never wore shoes.

I very quickly came to find out that he was a conscientious objector. He did not pay much attention in class and seemed to be there for the ride.

At least that is what I believed until the first grades were posted. He was at the top of the class, while I was lingering somewhere in the middle.

We actually became fast friends, and our debates fostered mutual respect and a sharing of vision. Ironically, he is now a very well-paid antitrust lawyer, while I have spent most of my career in some form of public service.

The qualities that drew me to UVA all those years ago are the qualities that have made UVA such a unique institution. And for me, these qualities are what make receiving the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law such a special honor.

Today, I would like to speak to what I believe to be three basic tenets for a rewarding professional life. The first is integrity. The second is commitment to the rule of law. And the third, the value of public service.

Before I address that topic, I would like to take a moment to talk about the FBI—the institution with which I have been fortunate to be associated for the last several years.

When I took office as Director on September 4, 2001, I had expected to focus on areas familiar to me as a prosecutor—drug cases, white-collar criminal cases, and violent crime. But days later, the attacks of September 11 changed the course of the Bureau.

National security—that is, preventing terrorist attacks—became our top priority. We shifted 2,000 agents from our criminal programs to national security. We also understood that we had to focus on long-term, strategic change. We had to enhance our intelligence capabilities and upgrade our technology. We had to build upon strong partnerships and forge new friendships, both here at home and abroad.

We are now an organization 36,000 strong—14,000 of whom are agents; 3,000 of whom are analysts; and the balance, other professional staff.

At the same time we built these capabilities, we had to maintain our efforts against traditional criminal threats. And we had to do all of this while respecting the rule of law and the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution.

Today, the FBI is a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization. National security does remain our top priority. Terrorists with global reach and global ambitions seek to strike us at home and abroad. Spies steal our state secrets and our trade secrets for military and competitive advantage. Cyber criminals lurk on our networks, stealing information for sale to the highest bidder. Computer intrusions and network attacks are becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated.

Simultaneously, we face a wide range of criminal threats, from white-collar crime and public corruption to transnational criminal syndicates, migrating gangs, and child predators.

And indeed, the threats we face are varied and ever changing. We as an organization must continually evolve in order to prevent terrorist and criminal attacks, because terrorists and criminals certainly are evolving themselves.

This description of the FBI today provides the backdrop for my comments on the values that contribute to a rewarding career.

* * *

Nearly 100 years ago, the university unveiled the formal east entrance to the grounds, known as the Senff Gateway. It still stands today, by the old medical school building.

You may have passed under it many times without noticing the inscription atop one of the two archways. It reads, “Enter by this gateway and seek the way of honor, the light of truth, and the will to work for men.” The inscription is attributed to President Alderman, who believed that these were the three great principles of life at the university.

Though the words may be a bit different from my own, they embody the tenets I mentioned earlier—integrity, commitment to the rule of law, and the value of public service.

Let us begin with integrity—what the archway calls “the way of honor.”

As improbable as it may seem, particularly to a 1L muddling through civil procedure or contracts, as a lawyer you may one day end up in the highest ranks of judicial power. You may manage multinational law firms, advocate for those in need, or set groundbreaking precedent.

In the end, it is not only what we do, but how we do it. Whatever we do, we must act with honesty and integrity. Whether we are working with a client, opposing counsel, or in court, we are only as good as our word. We can be smart, aggressive, articulate, and indeed, persuasive. But if we are not honest, our reputations will suffer.

And once lost, a good reputation can never ever be regained. As the saying goes, “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have it, nothing else matters.”

The FBI’s motto is Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. Uncompromising integrity—both personal and institutional—is the core value. For the men and women of the FBI, integrity should be reflected in all that we say and all that we do.

For attorneys and non-attorneys alike, there will come a time when you will be tested, in ways both small and large.

Good morning. Thanks to Dean Mahoney for having me here today. It is good to be back in Charlottesville at one of the best law schools—one could argue the best law school—in the country. I say that remembering what I found unique about this school 40 years ago.

Then, as now, UVA was different from other law schools. Rather than simply teaching the basic tenets of the law, it sought to provide the foundation for future leadership.

As you have heard, I came to the law school from the Marine Corps, with a tour in Vietnam. As you all know, the Vietnam War was deeply divisive for our country, and there were a number of law schools that were not receptive to veterans of Vietnam. Not so UVA.

The university was looking for a range of experiences, understanding that a true legal education is an amalgam of the law and of values, with the goal of preparing its students for service—service to the country, service to Virginia, and service to others.

Then, as now, a variety of views were represented. Many of my fellow students—good friends—opposed the war in Vietnam.

I do remember that on the first day of classes, I sat down next to a somewhat scruffy classmate. I still had a Marine Corps hair cut and was dressed rather neatly. He had hair down to his shoulders, a Fu Manchu mustache, and was dressed in a grubby t-shirt and shorts…and he was not wearing shoes. He never wore shoes.

I very quickly came to find out that he was a conscientious objector. He did not pay much attention in class and seemed to be there for the ride.

At least that is what I believed until the first grades were posted. He was at the top of the class, while I was lingering somewhere in the middle.

We actually became fast friends, and our debates fostered mutual respect and a sharing of vision. Ironically, he is now a very well-paid antitrust lawyer, while I have spent most of my career in some form of public service.

The qualities that drew me to UVA all those years ago are the qualities that have made UVA such a unique institution. And for me, these qualities are what make receiving the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law such a special honor.

Today, I would like to speak to what I believe to be three basic tenets for a rewarding professional life. The first is integrity. The second is commitment to the rule of law. And the third, the value of public service.

Before I address that topic, I would like to take a moment to talk about the FBI—the institution with which I have been fortunate to be associated for the last several years.

When I took office as Director on September 4, 2001, I had expected to focus on areas familiar to me as a prosecutor—drug cases, white-collar criminal cases, and violent crime. But days later, the attacks of September 11 changed the course of the Bureau.

National security—that is, preventing terrorist attacks—became our top priority. We shifted 2,000 agents from our criminal programs to national security. We also understood that we had to focus on long-term, strategic change. We had to enhance our intelligence capabilities and upgrade our technology. We had to build upon strong partnerships and forge new friendships, both here at home and abroad.

We are now an organization 36,000 strong—14,000 of whom are agents; 3,000 of whom are analysts; and the balance, other professional staff.

At the same time we built these capabilities, we had to maintain our efforts against traditional criminal threats. And we had to do all of this while respecting the rule of law and the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution.

Today, the FBI is a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization. National security does remain our top priority. Terrorists with global reach and global ambitions seek to strike us at home and abroad. Spies steal our state secrets and our trade secrets for military and competitive advantage. Cyber criminals lurk on our networks, stealing information for sale to the highest bidder. Computer intrusions and network attacks are becoming more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated.

Simultaneously, we face a wide range of criminal threats, from white-collar crime and public corruption to transnational criminal syndicates, migrating gangs, and child predators.

And indeed, the threats we face are varied and ever changing. We as an organization must continually evolve in order to prevent terrorist and criminal attacks, because terrorists and criminals certainly are evolving themselves.

This description of the FBI today provides the backdrop for my comments on the values that contribute to a rewarding career.

* * *

Nearly 100 years ago, the university unveiled the formal east entrance to the grounds, known as the Senff Gateway. It still stands today, by the old medical school building.

You may have passed under it many times without noticing the inscription atop one of the two archways. It reads, “Enter by this gateway and seek the way of honor, the light of truth, and the will to work for men.” The inscription is attributed to President Alderman, who believed that these were the three great principles of life at the university.

Though the words may be a bit different from my own, they embody the tenets I mentioned earlier—integrity, commitment to the rule of law, and the value of public service.

Let us begin with integrity—what the archway calls “the way of honor.”

As improbable as it may seem, particularly to a 1L muddling through civil procedure or contracts, as a lawyer you may one day end up in the highest ranks of judicial power. You may manage multinational law firms, advocate for those in need, or set groundbreaking precedent.

In the end, it is not only what we do, but how we do it. Whatever we do, we must act with honesty and integrity. Whether we are working with a client, opposing counsel, or in court, we are only as good as our word. We can be smart, aggressive, articulate, and indeed, persuasive. But if we are not honest, our reputations will suffer.

And once lost, a good reputation can never ever be regained. As the saying goes, “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have it, nothing else matters.”

The FBI’s motto is Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. Uncompromising integrity—both personal and institutional—is the core value. For the men and women of the FBI, integrity should be reflected in all that we say and all that we do.

For attorneys and non-attorneys alike, there will come a time when you will be tested, in ways both small and large. You may find yourself standing alone, against those you thought were trusted colleagues. You may stand to lose what you have worked for. And the decision will not be such an easy call.

Certainly Virginia has prepared its students for such a test, for integrity is a way of life here at UVA. Nothing sets Virginia apart from other universities more than the concept of honor. The Honor System, in place since 1842, and the community of trust it enables, rests on one precept—and that is integrity. Our careers in the law, our professional and our personal success—and indeed, our reputations—rest on that same precept.

Moving to the second tenet, the rule of law. This is, to my mind, what the archway’s inscription describes as “the light of truth.”

Every FBI employee takes an oath promising to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Each of you will take a similar oath upon admission to the bar. For us, these are not mere words. They set the expectations for our behavior…the standard for the work that we do.

For the American people to respect the Bureau, we must be objective and we must be fair…and that also means we must be apolitical. That has been one of the great things about my job—that it has allowed for the benefits of public service, but without the politics.

We at the FBI take great care to consider the privacy and civil liberties implications of our programs and our investigations. When writing policy or investigative guidelines, or when taking on new projects, we consult with not only our in-house counsel and the Department of Justice, but also with groups such as the ACLU.

And in a practice started by my predecessor, Louis Freeh, all new agents visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington to better understand what happens when law enforcement becomes a tool of oppression—or worse.

For if we safeguard our civil liberties but leave our country vulnerable to attack, we will have lost. If we protect our citizens from crime and terrorism but sacrifice our civil rights, we will have also lost. It is not a question of conflict; it is a question of balance. The rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights—these are not our burdens. These are what make all of us safer and stronger.

Turning to the importance of public service—or as the gateway reads, “the will to work for men.”

To be sure, it is difficult to consider entering public service upon graduation from law school, often with the burden of student loans.

As I mentioned earlier, I did have the opportunity to serve as a Marine in Vietnam. Those years—those experiences I shared with my fellow Marines—shaped my world view. I do consider myself fortunate to have survived my tour in Vietnam. There were many who did not. And perhaps because of that, I have always felt compelled to try to give back in some way.

I have been lucky to spend the better part of my career in public service and to benefit from the intangible rewards that come from such service. One such unexpected reward is that public service often can be a humbling experience. And there are few of us who would not benefit from a lesson in humility—myself included.

In this regard, I tell the story of my old friend and college classmate Lee Rawls, who was naturally humble. He had spent many years working on Capitol Hill, and we had served together in a previous administration. When I became Director of the FBI, I asked him to join me as a close adviser, and, remarkably, he agreed.

Lee was a mentor. He knew how to cut through nonsense and get to the heart of the matter better than anyone else. He also knew how to put me in my place. During one particularly heated meeting, everyone was frustrated—mostly with me—and I myself may have been a wee bit impatient and ill-tempered.

Lee sat silently, and then—out of the blue—posed the following question: “What is the difference between the Director of the FBI and a 4-year-old child?”

The room grew hushed. Finally, he said, “Height!”

On those days when we were under attack by the media and being clobbered by Congress…when the Attorney General was not at all happy with me…I would walk down to Lee’s office, hoping for a sympathetic ear. I would ask, “How are we doing?”

Lee would shake his head and say, “You’re toast. You’re dead meat. You’re history.” He would continue, “Don’t take yourself too seriously, because no one else around here does.”

It was that innate sense of humility—the idea that the world does not revolve around you—that was central to Lee’s character. That same sense of humility…that constant reminder of one’s place in the grand scheme of things…that sense of being in the world and of the world…is central to public service.

UVA’s public service program is testament to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of educating citizen-lawyers—a belief that schools should instruct students to be more than just good lawyers, but also good citizens. A belief that they should use their legal training to work for the common good, and that their careers should amount to time well spent.

As I look back, I know that I have been truly fortunate to have been able to spend such time in the public sector. It has given me the opportunity to participate in investigations such as the Pan Am 103 bombing…to work with homicide detectives in Washington, D.C., bringing criminals to justice…and, for the last 12 years, to work with one of the finest institutions in the world. These were experiences that would be difficult to replicate in the private sector.

I should add that I say this understanding that there are a number of you who are contemplating what you will do with your degree. I, of course, am not above urging you to consider the FBI as a career.

In any event, each of us must determine for ourselves in what way we can best serve others. Those of you who are students will leave UVA with a firm grasp not only of the law as it stands, but the law as it should be, and the law as it could be.

Find something you love, some way in which you can contribute—something that will leave you believing that your time has been well spent.

* * *

It seems only fitting, as we celebrate Founder’s Day, to again look to Thomas Jefferson. Citizen-lawyer. Founding father. Delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Governor of Virginia. Envoy to France. Our nation’s first secretary of state. Vice president. And, of course, our third president.

Before he died, Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, which records none of these astounding accomplishments. Instead, it lists just three things—author of the Declaration of American Independence, author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia. These were, to his mind, his greatest contributions to society. Time well spent, indeed.

Thank you for having me here today. I would be happy now to take a few questions.

against those you thought were trusted colleagues. You may stand to lose what you have worked for. And the decision will not be such an easy call.

Certainly Virginia has prepared its students for such a test, for integrity is a way of life here at UVA. Nothing sets Virginia apart from other universities more than the concept of honor. The Honor System, in place since 1842, and the community of trust it enables, rests on one precept—and that is integrity. Our careers in the law, our professional and our personal success—and indeed, our reputations—rest on that same precept.

Moving to the second tenet, the rule of law. This is, to my mind, what the archway’s inscription describes as “the light of truth.”

Every FBI employee takes an oath promising to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution. Each of you will take a similar oath upon admission to the bar. For us, these are not mere words. They set the expectations for our behavior…the standard for the work that we do.

For the American people to respect the Bureau, we must be objective and we must be fair…and that also means we must be apolitical. That has been one of the great things about my job—that it has allowed for the benefits of public service, but without the politics.

We at the FBI take great care to consider the privacy and civil liberties implications of our programs and our investigations. When writing policy or investigative guidelines, or when taking on new projects, we consult with not only our in-house counsel and the Department of Justice, but also with groups such as the ACLU.

And in a practice started by my predecessor, Louis Freeh, all new agents visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington to better understand what happens when law enforcement becomes a tool of oppression—or worse.

For if we safeguard our civil liberties but leave our country vulnerable to attack, we will have lost. If we protect our citizens from crime and terrorism but sacrifice our civil rights, we will have also lost. It is not a question of conflict; it is a question of balance. The rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights—these are not our burdens. These are what make all of us safer and stronger.

Turning to the importance of public service—or as the gateway reads, “the will to work for men.”

To be sure, it is difficult to consider entering public service upon graduation from law school, often with the burden of student loans.

As I mentioned earlier, I did have the opportunity to serve as a Marine in Vietnam. Those years—those experiences I shared with my fellow Marines—shaped my world view. I do consider myself fortunate to have survived my tour in Vietnam. There were many who did not. And perhaps because of that, I have always felt compelled to try to give back in some way.

I have been lucky to spend the better part of my career in public service and to benefit from the intangible rewards that come from such service. One such unexpected reward is that public service often can be a humbling experience. And there are few of us who would not benefit from a lesson in humility—myself included.

In this regard, I tell the story of my old friend and college classmate Lee Rawls, who was naturally humble. He had spent many years working on Capitol Hill, and we had served together in a previous administration. When I became Director of the FBI, I asked him to join me as a close adviser, and, remarkably, he agreed.

Lee was a mentor. He knew how to cut through nonsense and get to the heart of the matter better than anyone else. He also knew how to put me in my place. During one particularly heated meeting, everyone was frustrated—mostly with me—and I myself may have been a wee bit impatient and ill-tempered.

Lee sat silently, and then—out of the blue—posed the following question: “What is the difference between the Director of the FBI and a 4-year-old child?”

The room grew hushed. Finally, he said, “Height!”

On those days when we were under attack by the media and being clobbered by Congress…when the Attorney General was not at all happy with me…I would walk down to Lee’s office, hoping for a sympathetic ear. I would ask, “How are we doing?”

Lee would shake his head and say, “You’re toast. You’re dead meat. You’re history.” He would continue, “Don’t take yourself too seriously, because no one else around here does.”

It was that innate sense of humility—the idea that the world does not revolve around you—that was central to Lee’s character. That same sense of humility…that constant reminder of one’s place in the grand scheme of things…that sense of being in the world and of the world…is central to public service.

UVA’s public service program is testament to Thomas Jefferson’s concept of educating citizen-lawyers—a belief that schools should instruct students to be more than just good lawyers, but also good citizens. A belief that they should use their legal training to work for the common good, and that their careers should amount to time well spent.

As I look back, I know that I have been truly fortunate to have been able to spend such time in the public sector. It has given me the opportunity to participate in investigations such as the Pan Am 103 bombing…to work with homicide detectives in Washington, D.C., bringing criminals to justice…and, for the last 12 years, to work with one of the finest institutions in the world. These were experiences that would be difficult to replicate in the private sector.

I should add that I say this understanding that there are a number of you who are contemplating what you will do with your degree. I, of course, am not above urging you to consider the FBI as a career.

In any event, each of us must determine for ourselves in what way we can best serve others. Those of you who are students will leave UVA with a firm grasp not only of the law as it stands, but the law as it should be, and the law as it could be.

Find something you love, some way in which you can contribute—something that will leave you believing that your time has been well spent.

* * *

It seems only fitting, as we celebrate Founder’s Day, to again look to Thomas Jefferson. Citizen-lawyer. Founding father. Delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Governor of Virginia. Envoy to France. Our nation’s first secretary of state. Vice president. And, of course, our third president.

Before he died, Jefferson wrote his own epitaph, which records none of these astounding accomplishments. Instead, it lists just three things—author of the Declaration of American Independence, author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia. These were, to his mind, his greatest contributions to society. Time well spent, indeed.

Thank you for having me here today. I would be happy now to take a few questions.

Marcus Garvey: 'You still stand fighting yourselves, dishonouring yourselves', Know Thyself - 1925

1924 or 1925, New York, USA

This is described as an 'interview' in various sources but the audio is a long monologue. it is believed to have taken place prior to 1825, after Garvey was charged with mail fraud, but before he went to prison.

May I say something to you to give you a true knowledge of yourself and life, so that the same glory and success obtained by other men who understand themselves may be yours? Man in the full knowledge of himself is a superb and supreme creature of creation. When man becomes possessor of the knowledge of himself, he becomes master of his environment, the captain of his own ship, the director of his own destiny, the accomplisher of his own ends. Man should understand himself because man is full of knowledge and this knowledge is a gift of nature. When Mother Nature created man, she deprived him of nothing. He was given the faculty of understanding all things around him. And this faculty for understanding has not been taken away from him. None of his senses have been taken away from him. So there is no excuse for the black man in lacking the knowledge that man has used to beautify the world and produce all that he needs for his happiness and civilization. Look the world over, and whatever you see in it that is pleasing to man, contributing to man’s comfort, to his needs, and to his satisfaction—it is but the work of man, man blessed with the knowledge of himself and the understanding of all things around him. If you are able to live with the knowledge of yourself and with the greater knowledge of nature, you must know what is good and what is not, you must know what is finite, you must know that which is material, physical, and otherwise is at your disposal to create or otherwise use. …

If we leave America, and go over to the east of Japan, they will be telling their fellow citizens of Japan, the wonderful accomplishments of the Japanese people, proving that man is moving onwards as time moves on.

But you, you have hated yourselves as you’ve done in previous years, you have shown malice, prejudice and hate to each other. The result is that while other races have made progress,.while India has made progress through it's nationalism, while Ireland has made progress through it's republicanism, while the whole world has made progress in man’s accomplishments, you still stand fighting yourselves, dishonouring yourselves, showing no disposition toward that higher life, so that you will be abundantly blessed. 

So reflect and think that you were created for some purpose, other than exhibiting malice towards your neighbour or fellow men of your own race. What a pity it is that we cannot stand united without the written law? There is no written law compelling other races to stand together? They are brought together by the gentle touch of nature. The unwritten law of nature causes them to stand together on all occasions, so wheresoever you will find them in the field. That one gentle touch of nature causes them to stand together, if need be die together.

But with the Black man, you can preach to him from the pulpit, you lecture from the platform, from the byways and the hedges, the spirit of cooperation, but he will not cooperate. You talk to him gently, you try talking harshly, and he will still not cooperate.

The result is that he falls prey to those who understand themselves, and walk through the world making you their serfs and slaves. You must acquire an understanding of yourselves!

A longer version of the interview is here

Stephen Murphy - 'Before You Push the Chair', 'The Healing', Listowel Writers Week - 2018

3 June 2018, John B Keane's Pub, Listowel, Co Kerry, Ireland

[As title of Stephen's poem suggests, contains themes of mental illness and suicide]

I was in Limerick last night, I was here for Thursday - I had a bit of a gig on for Thursday, and then I went home for Friday morning ... [inaudible] ... and then I was down in Limerick at Homeland last night, and I was thinking, fuck it, you know what, I’m going back to The Healing.

And the reason I wanted to come back to the Healing is because I wanted to give this poem at it. Because if it’s not for The Healing that we’re here, what is it?

And it’s a poem called ‘Before You Push the Chair’.

And it’s a lot less craic than most of the other stuff, sorry.

Before You Push The Chair

I want you to know that I've been there

In those moments when it feels as though
every wall's a prison
When the whole world kneels upon you
and the darkness of your vision
Has encompassed all before you
and turned your whole world black
And it feels as though you'll never get
to see your old world back.

I've been labelled with depression,
and branded with disease
And given the impression
that for anyone who sees
Past this great deception
that's been sold to us as fact
There's a template for expression
as to how we should react.

But I've come to see despair
as a product of control
That's embedded in our psyche
by the forces who patrol
What we read within our papers,
or see upon our screens
As deliberately tapered
to tamper with our dreams

And for all that we resist it,
it's there on every surface
From our buses to our bodies,
all designed to fit the purpose
To remind us that for all we have,
it's still never enough
That there'll always be that void to fill
with other mindless stuff

And though some still cling to God
to bring some structure to their lives
And others seem to need to be
destructive to survive
There's a whole new generation
wandering aimless and confused
Who were born into an age
that never had a God to lose
And in their quest for validation
they turn to the machine
'Cause they've come to know the world
through the comfort of a screen.

And I've seen the way we've gone
from being socially adept
From a people who were strong
to being totally inept
Where anxiety and loneliness
are living side by side
And everyone's just saving face
for fear of losing pride
As the constant threat of homelessness
and risk of repossession
Has come to manifest itself
as clinical depression
So we medicate the masses
just to keep them from the rope
And eradicate the last remaining
evidence of hope
Just to sell us back
the superficial versions of our selves
From the sacrificial altars
of our supermarket shelves
And then tell us that
'A problem halved is just a problem shared'
But thus a problem doubled
is a problem that's been layered
'Cause so many now despair
because to paraphrase Voltaire;
They see who rules who suffers,
yet still they're running scared.

But before you push the chair,
I want you to step down from there
And be the light you're born to be
To understand that those who see things differently
Are those who reshape history
That the prophets in the scriptures
were the poets of their time
And everyone you'll ever meet
has struggled with the mind
But one true friend will always trump
a million friends online

Where reality's distorted
and contorted to obscure
Designed to isolate us
and to make us insecure
But for all our social networks,
our net worth is obsolete
When we need the praise of strangers
to make us feel complete

But beyond our echo chambers,
when we lift our eyes we'll see
That around us lie the embers
of our own humanity
And as day is why we name the night
so too we'll come to see
That the they we like to blame in life
is only ever we
And for all we try to justify
the versions of our truth
They will always be perversions
to another's absolute
'Cause no matter where the roots lie,
the one thing guaranteed
Is that the plant will always come
to bear the hallmarks of the seed.

And I don't have all the answers,
and I'll never say I do
I've just as many doubts
and insecurities as you
But a friend of mine once told me
that I showed up in a dream
And I'm not exactly sure
what any of it means

But I was walking through a desert
with my back towards the sun
In a crowd of other people
but for every other one
Their shadows fell before them
but for me it fell behind
And he said that he just stood there
and watched us for a time

'Til at last I took an hourglass
and smashed it with a stone
Then poured the sand upon the sand
as there I stood alone
And when he asked me why I did it,
I turned to him and said;
'That was simply just the way
that the universe was made.'

I know that may sound clichéd,
but I've been thinking about it since
And the more that I've been thinking,
the more that I'm convinced
That maybe all of us are only
pouring dust upon the dust
And it's not us killing time
but more just time that's killing us

But when two people every day here now
are taking their own lives
And countless many others
are struggling to survive
At what point do we acknowledge
that this problem's epidemic
And not just a polemic
of some college academic?

'Cause we're so intent on carrying
this intense collective grief
That we seem content on marrying
our lack of self-belief
To a greater sense of victimhood
that always comes across
As a symptom of the dogma
we've adopted from the cross

But I'm tired of trying to find the words
'I'm sorry for your loss'
When that loss could be avoided
for a fraction of the cost
And I'm tired of the statistics,
'cause the numbers can't uphold
The stories of the victims
that will largely go untold
And I'm tired of the stigma
that still surrounds our mental health
As if for simply feeling
is a failing of the self
But I'm mostly just exhausted
'cause I'm all too well aware
That right now someone else
is just about to push the chair.

And I wish that I could tell them,
for however dark their plight
That through the shelter of each other
We can learn that love is light.

Stephen Murphy is releasing a book of his poetry. Please visit his facebook page and purchase a copy.

Australia: Lifeline 131144
Ireland/UK: Samaritans 116 123
USA: Lifeline 1-800-273-8255
India: suicide.org for regional hotlines

Hillary Clinton: Human rights are gay rights', Trailblazer award, The Center for the LGBT community - 2017

6 December 2011, International Human Rights Day,  Geneva, Switzerland

Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.

Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations and individuals around the world.

At three o’clock in the morning on Dec. 10, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the U.N. General Assembly called for a vote on the final text.

Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people.

It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever U.N. resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear — I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility, too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home — the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.

And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the president has directed all U.S. government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, ‘If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.’ There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: ‘Be on the right side of history.’ The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together.

Thank you very much.

Al Gore: 'We could lose these conditions. We could lose what is most precious to us' Climate Reality Training - 2018

28 June 2018, Berlin, Germnay

The most painful experience that I have ever been through. We had been to a baseball game. It was a wonderful day and my child was holding my hand. One of his friends took out running across the street. I didn’t realize it because I was so busy. I looked back not fully aware of the moment then the hand… slipped… free… from mine. And then the tragedy unfolded ––The story has a happy ending — it was a full recovery despite everything. But it was a long experience of worries, dark and fearful thoughts. “One of my children were dying.” I was praying over what appeared to be a lifeless body. Suddenly two nurses showed up with their bags. They had been to the baseball game and they took their bags with them just in case there might be an accident. And there was. The ambulance came immediately.

The next 30 days and nights I spent in the hospital in the intensive care unit not knowing for much of that time what the outcome would be. And during those days and nights I remember so vividly going over my schedule and I looked at all these events that were scheduled for the next days, the next week, the week after that and the month after that. I remembered how many of those events that felt extremely important when I wrote them in my schedule, how much preparation I would be asked to do. How serious these matters were. They just blew off the pages as they were lighter than a feather — they no longer mattered at all… and I remember thinking about the agenda of action that I had mapped out for myself, issues that I was engaged in. There were so many of them. The only one that did not blow off that list was the climate crisis, because in some place it was connected in my heart to the main challenge of my life scoring the good health of my child.

And when I went back, finally, the healing continued outside the hospital, and full recovery began long after that. When I went back dealing with the climate crisis, it felt different to me, and I could not put into words what it was that felt so different.

Some 15 years passed after the incident, and during the making of the first movie “Inconvenient Truth,” the director David Guggenheim, during a very long day, interviewed me without a camera but continued to ask deeply personal questions. The conversation was so intense it was almost like a psychiatrist conversation. In other ways he was like a child that replied to every question with a “Yes, but why?”. During our conversation the day turned into night, and nobody moved or turned on the light because it was so intense. It was during that conversation I finally found the way to put words to describe what it was that felt different to me about the climate crisis after the event of this terrible tragedy that had happened and the aftermath of that terrible incident.

And here is what I learned.

We as human beings naturally protect ourselves against imagining or thinking deeply about the most terrible thing that could happen or the most unimaginable loss. If we did not protect ourselves against such thoughts life would be drained of a good deal of its joy. So it’s a natural phenomena. But I was confronted face to face brutally with the prospect of losing someone especially precious to me and it left a raw place in my heart. I learned so much from those who came up to me from all walks of life, sharing elevators with strangers, servers in restaurants, people I did not know who had read about this and told me of experiences they had had and reached out to me.

I figured out that one of the secrets about human condition of people that have suffered is that it binds people together and people that had suffered instinctively reach out to those they feel that is going through some difficult experience that really changed my life.

But it’s something else that was made clear to me. When I went back to really thinking deeply about the climate crisis it touched that one place in my heart and gave me a feeling that I was not capable of having before the pain that I had previously experienced. It caused me to feel for the first time this beautiful nature that we live in. This beautiful planet that’s ideal for living. The conditions that lead to the flourishing of humanity. We could lose these conditions. We could lose what is most precious to us.

I actually think that one of the many reasons for climate deniers is that human instinctively push away such thoughts.But we could lose it! We have not lost. It is still here. Damage has been done to which we must adapt. But the great loss that would be the most tragedy in the history of human species and many other species as well is still retreated, it could still be protected.

So go along with the knowledge that you been through. Go along with all the new relationships that you have established here. Go along with the feeling of passion why you were here in the first place that you must keep in your heart. The most valuable resource you have.

I want you to… I wanna share with you… this feeling that this precious earth of ours is…. beginning to slip…….. from our grasp. It has not slipped away. Now is the time to make sure it does not. So I close by asking you to hold on. We are going to win. With your help we will win. God bless you and thank you!

Robert H Jackson: 'The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman,' The Federal Prosecutor - 1940

1 April 1940, Great Hall Department of Justice Building, Washington DC, USA

It would probably be within the range of that exaggeration permitted in Washington to say that assembled in this room is one of the most powerful peace-time forces known to our country. The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen's friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.

These powers have been granted to our law-enforcement agencies because it seems necessary that such a power to prosecute be lodged somewhere. This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done- wanted crime eliminated-but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved.

Because of this immense power to strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself, the post of federal district attorney from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the senate of the United States. You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.

Your responsibility in your several districts for law enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered to Washington, and ought not to be assumed by a centralized department of justice. It is an unusual and rare instance in which the local district attorney should be superseded in the handling of litigation, except where be requests help of Washington. It is also clear that with his knowledge of local sentiment and opinion, his contact with and intimate knowledge of the views of the court, and his acquaintance with the feelings of the group from which jurors are drawn, it is an unusual case in which his judgment should be overruled.

Experience, however, has demonstrated that some measure of centralized control is necessary. In the absence of it different district attorneys were striving for different interpretations or applications of an act, or were pursuing different conceptions of policy. Also, to put it mildly, there were differences in the degree of diligence and zeal in different districts. To promote uniformity of policy and action, to establish some standards of performance, and to make available specialized help, some degree of centralized administration was found necessary.

Our problem, of course, is to balance these opposing considerations. I desire to avoid any lessening of the prestige and influence of the district attorneys in their districts. At the same time we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.

Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. The lawyer in public office is justified in seeking to leave behind him a good record. But he must remember that his most alert and severe, but just, judges will be the members of his own profession, and that lawyers rest their good opinion of each other not merely on results accomplished but on the quality of the performance. Reputation has been called "the shadow cast by one's daily life." Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a. judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just.

The federal prosecutor has now been prohibited from engaging in political activities. I am convinced that a good-faith acceptance of the spirit and letter of that doctrine will relieve many district attorneys from the embarrassment of what have heretofore been regarded as legitimate expectations of political service. There can also be no doubt that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing alignments and associations. I think the Hatch Act should be utilized by federal prosecutors as a protection against demands on their time and their prestige to participate in the operation of the machinery of practical politics.

There is a most important reason why the prosecutor should have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view of all groups in his community. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn't blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the eases in which he receives complaints. If the department of justice were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable violation of federal law, ten times its present staff would be inadequate. We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning, What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm-in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

In times of fear or hysteria· political, racial, religious, social, and economic groups, often from the best of motives, cry for the scalps of individuals or groups because they do not like their views. Particularly do we need to be dispassionate and courageous in those cases which deal with so called "subversive activities." They are dangerous to civil liberty because the prosecutor has no definite standards to determine what constitutes a "subversive activity," such as we have for murder or larceny. Activities which seem benevolent and helpful to wage earners, persons on relief, or those who are disadvantaged in the struggle for existence may be regarded as "subversive" by those whose property interests might be burdened or affected thereby. Those who are in office are apt to regard as "subversive" the activities of any of those who would bring about a change of administration. Some of our soundest constitutional doctrines were once punished as subversive. We must not forget that it was not so long ago that both the term "Republican" and the term "Democrat" were epithets with sinister meaning to denote persons of radical tendencies that were "subversive" of the order of things then dominant.

In the enforcement of laws that protect our national integrity and existence, we should prosecute any and every act of violation, but only overt acts, not the expression of opinion, or activities such as the holding of meetings, petitioning of congress, or dissemination of news or opinions. Only by extreme care can we protect the spirit as well as the letter of our civil liberties, and to do so is a responsibility of the federal prosecutor.

Another delicate task is to distinguish between the federal and the local in law-enforcement activities. We must bear in mind that we are concerned only with the prosecution of acts which the congress has made federal offenses. Those acts we should prosecute regardless of local sentiment, regardless of whether it exposes lax local enforcement, regardless of whether it makes or breaks local politicians.

But outside of federal law each locality has the right under our system of government to fix its own standards of law enforcement and of morals. And the moral climate of the United States is as varied as its physical climate. For example, some states legalize and permit gambling, some states prohibit it legislatively and protect it administratively, and some try to prohibit it entirely. The same variation of attitudes towards other law-enforcement problems exists. The federal government could not enforce one kind of law in one place and another kind elsewhere. It could hardly adopt strict standards for loose states or loose standards for strict states without doing violence to local sentiment. In spite of the temptation to divert our power to local conditions where they have become offensive to our sense of decency, the only long-term policy that will save federal justice from being discredited by entanglements with local politics is that it confine itself to strict and impartial enforcement of federal law, letting the chips fall in the community where they may. Just as there should be no permitting of local considerations to stop federal enforcement, so there should be no striving to enlarge our power over local affairs and no use of federal prosecutions to exert an indirect influence that would be unlawful if exerted directly.

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reads the last paragraph from Robert H. Jackson's "The Federal Prosecutor."

Catherine Wallis: 'We are young and old. We are women and men', Anzac Day Dawn Service, Wagga - 2018

25 April 2018, RAAF Base, Wagga, NSW, Australia

Welcome to our Base on this important day for our Defence Force and for our community.

Everyone here got up very early this morning. For some that might be normal; but for most a very special effort has been made to be here.

And why are we here?

We each have different connections, different stories, different reasons that bring us all together in the dark to wait for the Dawn.

For some of us Anzac Day has an intensely personal connection. We remember a mate, a relative or a colleague who gave their life for their country. Like the local Wagga family the Meiklejohns, who I had the pleasure of meeting last year. They lost their beloved brother Robert in 1943, when his bomber went down over the Belgian town of Hamont-Achel. His memory is preserved in the story and song that you can learn about in the Heritage Centre behind me.

Some of us have served and returned, recently or a long time ago. Not all of us fit the traditional stereotype of the “veteran “. We are young and old. We are women and men. Some of us struggle with things that we cannot un-see. And decisions that we cannot un-make. For some of us Anzac Day is the hardest day of the year. As MAJ Clare O’Neill described: “it is difficult to share the horrors with people outside the military field when it is those people who you served to keep the horrors from.”

Some of us are current serving members of the Navy, Army and Air Force. We honour our colleagues who have served proudly before us and we hope that should we ever be placed in their position, we will act in a way that brings pride to ourselves, our families and our country. That if we are truly tested, we will be steadfast, selfless and compassionate.

And some of us here today are our neighbours and our friends. The Forest Hill and Wagga community. Who welcome us here in their town every day and who honour and respect those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Whatever our individual reasons for being here, we find ourselves close together as the light begins to shine over the Riverina, like it did on that first Anzac Day so many years ago.

We remember those who have gone - their steadfastness, their selflessness, their compassion and their comradeship.

We remember young lives taken away, and veterans of all ages who bear the scars of their service for a lifetime.

We come together with respect, with a deep sense of connection, and with hope for a peaceful future.

And we hold our community close. Our friends, our families, our neighbours and our town of Wagga.

Lest we forget

Edouard Philippe: '‘The earth is his only friend, his brother, his mother', opening Sir John Monash Centre, Villers-Bretonneux - 2018

25 April 2018, Monash Centre at Villers-Bretonneux, France

“He is entirely alone now with his little life of 19 years and cries because it leaves him.”

The young man who was crying was German, the man who wrote that was also German. It was Erich Maria Remarque. It is taken from his book All Quiet on the Western Front, which was inspired by the horrors that he and millions of others witnessed in the trenches. Coming here, seeing this centre and tour, looking at the names of the 11,000 Australians who died for France and freedom, I could not help thinking of the terrible loneliness which these thousands of young Australians must have felt as their young lives were cut short in a foreign country. A foreign country. A far away country. A cold country whose earth had neither the colour nor texture of their native bush. A far away, foreign country which they defended inch by inch. In Fromelles in the Nord region, in Bullecourt in Pas-de-Calais and, of course, here in Villers-Bretonneux. As if it were their own country. And it is their own country.

“The earth is more important to the soldier than to anybody else,” continues Erich Maria Remarque. “The earth is his only friend, his brother, his mother. He groans out his terror and screams into its silence and safety.”

For many young Australians, this earth was their final safe place. For many of them, this earth was the final confidante of a thought or a word intended for a loved one from the other side of the world. Loved ones who would only learn the sad news several months later.

Prime minister, as a keen student of history, I can tell you, it is rare to turn the tide of a battle. And even rarer to do so twice in quick succession. The first time was right here on 24 April 1918. The Germans wanted to finish things off. In a letter to his wife in January 1918, Australian Brigadier General Harold Elliott, known as “Pompey”, wrote: “The enemy are sending all the best men from the Russian front and any prisoners we get are full of tales of the preparations. The Boche are making to settle us for good this time.”

One of the goals was to take Amiens. To get there, they had to pass through Villers-Bretonneux. On the 17th it was raining shellfire. The Australian troops stood firm. In fact, they went one better because on the 24th at 10pm, with the help of the British, they counterattacked. After the fiercest of battles, parts of which took place on the very site of the memorial, they repelled the Germans and went down in history. And that’s when the tide was turned for the second time. It was then that a meticulous, wise and dogged man took centre stage. As an engineer, the son of Prussian Jewish immigrants who had worked hard to pay for his studies and had quickly joined the army reserves of a young Australian nation. That man was John Monash. It was July 1918. The Allies were back on the offensive. But thanks to Monash, they had a new attack strategy. They were combining tanks with infantry using the tanks as “moving fire” to allow the men to advance in relative safety. After 93 minutes, the troops had completed their mission.

This has been noted in history because Monash, with typical British composure and Prussian precision, had calculated that the operation would take 90 minutes, so he was not far off the mark at a time in the war when as you know soldiers often fought for hours to gain just a few metres. The strategy, which even surprised the Germans, would subsequently be employed on a much larger scale with the outcome which we all know. So this was how this Australian engineer with his unerring instinct came to be hailed as one of the best allied tacticians on par with France’s Estienne and Britain’s Fuller.

Then came the episode which perhaps struck the most. It was when King George V of the UK and the British Dominions, emperor of India, grandson of Queen Victoria, conferred a knighthood on the field of battle to the son of Prussian Jewish immigrants who had gone to Australia to start a new life. An act which has come down to us through the ages, and which reminds me of an act by another great king, this time a French one. I am talking about Francis I, who on 15 September 1515 at the battlefield of Marignano dubbed Chevalier Bayard “the knight without fear and beyond reproach”. And so, after this gesture by George V, Australia had its Bayard of the bush.

We cannot relive these stories. The mud, the rats, the lice, the gas, the shellfire, the fallen comrades, we can never truly imagine what it was like. So we must tell them. We must show them. Again and again. Show the faces of these young men whose lives were snuffed out in the mud of the trenches. Show the daily lives of these 20-year-old volunteers from far away who listened only to their youthful courage, to their love for country or that of their parents or grandparents to die here in Villers-Bretonneux. Show it with the help of modern technology. Without taking our eyes off the names etched on to the memorial – names which are real, not virtual. We must also embody, experience and pass on the friendship which now unites the people of the Somme, the Hauts-de-France region and its representatives and the thousands of Australians who come here each year to pay their respects. For them I have just one simple message, which I believe all schoolchildren in the north of France now know: “We will never forget Australians” to which you reply in Australia: “Lest we forget.”

We will never forget their courage, we will never forget that they sacrificed their young, happy and peaceful lives to experience the horrors of war thousands of miles from their homes when they had no obligation to do so. We will never forget that 100 years ago a young and brave nation on the other side of the world made history by writing our history. Lest we forget.

John Franklin Stephens: 'See me as a human being, not a birth defect', United Nations - 2018

15 March 2018, United Nations, New York City, USA

Good day.

My name is John Franklin Stephens. I am a man with Down Syndrome and my life is worth living.

When my body was first forming, when the first two cells were dividing, each of them had one extra chromosome. People like me tend to be a little shorter because our arms and legs are shorter. Our faces are a little bit flatter because our cheekbones and noses don’t stick out from our faces as much.

All that adds up to a person who is a little bit more uncommon .. in my case uncommonly handsome.

Don’t worry I am very accepting, very inclusive. I won’t think less of you just because I have more chromosomes than you do.

I have been asked to tell you how to improve the lives of people with Down syndrome. The key is right there in my opening paragraph. It begins with ‘I am a man.’ See me as a human being, not a birth defect, not a syndrome. I don't need to be eradicated. I don't need to be cured. I need to be loved, valued, educated and, sometimes, helped.

What should that help be? Provide training to parents and babies as soon as possible. Provide medical care, eye exams and glasses. Send us to school with everyone else. Provide job training and coaches until we learn to work on our own. Most of all, expect competence, not failure. By the way, the cost to the rest of you of providing that help is the cost of a single cup of coffee per month.

What difference will inclusion, acceptance, and early intervention mean? Allow me to use my life as one example of what's possible. If it sounds like I'm bragging, it's because I am. I went to school with my neighbors; I was included in ordinary classes. The common kids and I learned from each other. I learned to fight for the right to be treated like everyone else. I have been to the White House twice, and I didn't have to jump the fence either time. I have had a lead role in a movie and a recurring role in an award-winning TV show, and my writings have been published all over the world. Last October, I spoke to the U.S. Senate. That testimony went viral. Over 160 million people have viewed it.

So, what is the point of all my bragging? Simply, that a life with Down syndrome can be as full and exciting as any other. My generation owes an awesome debt to organizations like the Lejeune Foundation and Special Olympics for freeing us from the prison of neglect.

I truly believe a world without people like me will be a poorer world, a colder world, a less happy world. To those who believe the world would be a better place without us, let me make three points.

First, we are a medical gift to society. Our extra chromosome makes us a blueprint for medical research in areas that include soft tissue cancer, heart disease, immune system disorders, and Alzheimer's disease.

Second, we are an unusually powerful source of happiness. A Harvard-based study has discovered that people with Down syndrome, their parents, their siblings, and people close to them are all happier than society at large.

Finally, we are the canary in the eugenics coal mine. Genomic research is not going to stop at screening for Down syndrome. We have an opportunity right now to slow down and think about the ethics of deciding that certain humans do not get a chance at life.

So, I have been a good guest. I have made you smile, maybe even laugh. Now, before I go, let me be Frank. How would the world react if a nation proclaimed that it would use genomic testing to make itself "Unpopular Ethnic Minority Free by 2030?" The U.N. has all a name for this – but we need not go there. Instead, let us pledge together to welcome diversity. Let us decide from this day forward to include, not exclude; educate, not isolate; and celebrate, not terminate. Thank you.

Naomi Wadler: 'We know life isn’t equal for everyone', March for Our Lives - 2018

24 March 2018, Washington DC, USA

I am here today to acknowledge and represent the African-American girls whose stories don’t make the front page of every national newspaper,whose stories don’t lead on the evening news. I represent the African-American women who are victims of gun violence, who are simply statistics instead of vibrant, beautiful girls full of potential.

It is my privilege to be here today, I am indeed full of privilege. My voice has been heard. I am here to acknowledge their stories, to say they matter, to say their names, because I can, and I was asked to be. For far too long, these names, these black girls and women, have been just numbers. I’m here to say, ‘Never again’ for those girls, too. I am here to say that everyone should value those girls, too.

People have said that I am too young to have these thoughts on my own. People have said that I am a tool of some nameless adult. It’s not true. My friends and I might still be eleven, and we might still be elementary school, but we know. We know life isn’t equal for everyone, and we know what is right and wrong. We also know that we stand in the shadow of the Capitol, and we know that we have seven short years until we, too, have the right to vote. So I am here today to honor the words of Toni Morrison: ‘If there is a book that you want to read but it hasn’t been written yet, you must be the one to write it.’ I urge everyone here and everyone who hears my voice to join me in telling the stories that aren’t told, to honor the girls, the women of color who are murdered at disproportionate rates in this nation. I urge each of you to help me write the narrative for this world and understand, so that these girls and women are never forgotten.

Related content: Emma Gonzalez's speech at the same event, beautifully written and centred around the six minutes and twenty seconds of shooting at Parkland, and the seventeen lives lost.

" For those who still can't comprehend, because they refuse to, I'll tell you where it went."

Emma Gonzalez: 'Six minutes, and about 20 seconds', March for Our Lives - 2018

24 March 2018, Washington DC, USA

Six minutes, and about 20 seconds. In a little over six minutes, 17 of our friends were taken from us, 15 more were injured, and everyone, absolutely everyone in the Douglas community was forever altered. Everyone who was there understands. Everyone who has been touched by the cold grip of gun violence understands. For us, long, tearful, chaotic hours in the scorching afternoon sun were spent not knowing.

No one understood the extent of what had happened. No one could believe that there wer bodies in that building waiting to be identified for over a day. No one knew that the people who were missing had stopped breathing long before any of us had even known that a code red had been called. No one could comprehend the devastating aftermath, or how far this would reach, or where this would go.

For those who still can't comprehend, because they refuse to, I'll tell you where it went. Six feet into the ground, six feet deep. Six minutes and 20 seconds with an AR-15, and my friend Carmen would never complain to me about piano practice. Aaron Feis would never call Kyra "miss sunshine," Alex Schachter would never walk into school with his brother Ryan, Scott Beigel would never joke around with Cameron at camp, Helena Ramsay would never hang around after school with Max, Gina Montalto would never wave to her friend Liam at lunch, Joaquin Oliver would never play basketball with Sam or Dylan. Alaina Petty would never, Cara Loughren would never, Chris Hixon would never, Luke Hoyer would never, Martin Duque Anguiano would never, Peter Wang would never, Alyssa Alhadeff would never, Jamie Guttenberg would never, Jamie Pollack would never.

[Silence]

Since the time that I came out here, it has been six minutes and 20 seconds. The shooter has ceased shooting, and will soon abandon his rifle, blend in with the students as they escape, and walk free for an hour before arrest. Fight for your lives before it's someone else's job.

Related content: Naomi Wadler, aged just eleven, gave a powerful speech at March for Our Lives DC

" I am here to acknowledge their stories, to say they matter, to say their names, because I can, and I was asked to be. "

Daniel Webb: 'I can’t reconcile their compassionate words here at the UN and the cruelty that I’ve seen them inflict on Manus', outside United Nations Human Rights Council - 2018

2 March 2018, United Nations, New York, USA

We just delivered a big statement to the UN Human Rights Council about the 1800 innocent human beings who are still suffering on Manus and Nauru.

I think it’s probably the one thing that our Government doesn’t want to talk about here on the world stage. But it is so clearly the massive elephant in the room whenever they want to talk about human rights.

I mean, I’ve been to Manus myself three times, and I have seen firsthand the suffering.

I have seen the exhaustion, and the fear and the hopelessness on the faces of those men who have had five years of their lives ripped away from them in that place.

And then I come here, and I’ve heard our Government day after day talk about how important human rights are, and how all people are equal and deserve fairness and respect, and I’m sorry, but I just can’t reconcile the two.

I can’t reconcile their compassionate words here at the UN and the cruelty that I’ve seen them inflict on Manus.

And the fact that there are still one hundred and fifty children languishing in limbo on Nauru.

And I think there are governments here who just attack the very concept of universal human rights head on. But there’s also a really insidious threat that’s posed by governments like ours, who sit on the Council gnawing away at the very foundations of human rights with their own hollow words and unprincipled actions.

So we have, in the strongest terms, urged the UN and the international community to hold our government to account for its cruelty to refugees.

Daniel Webb: 'As we speak, there are 1800 innocent human beings including 150 children that the Australian Government has held in offshore camps for almost five years', UN Human Rights Council - 2018

2 March 2018, United Nations, New York, USA

Mr President,

In recent days this Council has sounded the alarm about chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the persecution of human rights defenders in Iran and the families being burned alive in their homes in Myanmar.

The Australian Government has professed its concerns, yet right now it is imprisoning people for fleeing these very atrocities.

Our Government will never want to talk about it here at this Council. But as we speak, there are 1800 innocent human beings including 150 children that the Australian Government has held in offshore camps for almost five years.

Time and time again this Council has warned our Government that its cruelty to refugees is unlawful and wrong.

And while our Government could give every single one of these people freedom and safety tomorrow, it is making the political decision not to.

Mr President, such deliberate and unprincipled cruelty by members of this Council gnaws away at the very foundations of universal human rights.

So, while the Australian Government will be hoping that this deep, dark stain on its human rights record is just ignored and forgotten, we urge this Council to ensure accountability.

Thank you.

Michael Solomon: 'For once, value our lives over your bank accounts', National Walkout Day - 2018

Video may be difficult to view in some regions

15 March 2018, Washington DC, USA

My name is Michael Solomon, I am a sophomore at Springbrook High School

Before I start, I want to thank all of you who have helped.

but most of all, I want to thank everyone who is out here supporting us today, because you are the fuel that the engine of this movement needs to run on.

I want all of you to know, that you are on the right side of history with this.

Now personally, I'm proud to take part in a nationwide movement that we are a part of today.

But I think we call agree, in an ideal world, none of us would be here. In an ideal world, the 20 first-graders and kindergartners who died at Sandy Hook would be in middle school today. In an ideal world, the 58 concert-goers who were gunned down in Las Vegas would have gone home and returned to be with their families. In an ideal world, the 32 students who died at Virginia Tech would be employed professionals, and the 17 victims from Stoneman Douglas would probably be eating lunch at school right now, and the only thing they would be worrying about is a test for ext period.

But  unfortuantely this isn’t the case.

Unfortunately we live in a country where law makers are more concerned about contributions from the NRA than they are about the lives of their own constituents. And thanks to people like them, you and I have to go to school every day, and wonder in the back of our minds if we'll even make it to graduation.

That shouldn't haappen.

So this will go on for no longer.

We the students of the United States have a message to those of you in congress. If you don't give us stricter background checks, heavier restrictions on AR15 assault style weapons, and and easier access to mental health institutions and resources, you will pay dearly at the ballot box.

A lot of us are 18 today, and a lot of us will be 18 by November, and that’s when midterms start. So I can promise you this. Do your jobs, give us concrete solutions, and for once, value our lives over your bank accounts, or we will vote you out.

I want everyone to remember this, this is not an excuse to skip school, nor is it a hopeless effort that will bear no fruit. I want everyone to remember, everyone here to remember history. That the protest and the march on washington during the civil rights movement brought us the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of the sixties.

I want everyone to remember that the protests and the women's suffrage momvement gave us the 19th amendment.

And so on and so forth.

I want all of you to know that all of us will join their ranks in the history books because we too will remain persistent until there is real change.

picture Bethany Rodgers

Chaim Rumkowski: 'Give me your children', Lodz ghetto - 1942

4 September 1942, Lodz ghetto, Poland

Chaim Rumkowski was an elder of the Lodz ghetto, 60 years old, a widower, who perhaps had some delusions of grandeur in his difficult role as go-between with the murderous Nazi regime. This is an extremely upsetting speech to read.

A grievous blow has struck the ghetto. They are asking us to give up the best we possess - the children and the elderly.

I was unworthy of having a child of my own, so I gave the best years of my life to children. I've lived and breathed with children, I never imagined I would be forced to deliver this sacrifice to the altar with my own hands. In my old age, I must stretch out my hands and beg: brothers and sisters - hand them over to me. Fathers and mothers: give me your children.

Yesterday afternoon, they gave me the order to send more than 20,000 Jews out of the ghetto, and if not - "We will do it!” So the question became, 'Should we take it upon ourselves, do it ourselves, or leave it to others to do?".

Well, we - that is, I and my closest associates - thought first not about "How many will perish?" but "How many is it possible to save?" And we reached the conclusion that, however hard it would be for us, we should take the implementation of this order into our own hands.

I must perform this difficult and bloody operation - I must cut off limbs in order to save the body itself. I must take children because, if not, others may be taken as well - God forbid.

I have no thought of consoling you today. Nor do I wish to calm you. I must lay bare your full anguish and pain.

I come to you like a bandit, to take from you what you treasure most in your hearts. I have tried, using every possible means, to get the order revoked. I tried - when that proved to be impossible - to soften the order. Just yesterday, I ordered a list of children aged nine - I wanted at least to save this one age-group: the nine to ten year olds. But I was not granted this concession.

On only one point did I succeed: in saving the ten year olds and up. Let this be a consolation to our profound grief.

There are, in the ghetto, many patients who can expect to live only a few days more, maybe a few weeks. I don't know if the idea is diabolical or not, but I must say it: "Give me the sick. In their place we can save the healthy."

Common sense dictates that the saved must be those who can be saved and those who have a chance of being rescued, not those who cannot be saved in any case.

We live in the ghetto. We live with so much restriction that we do not have enough even for the healthy, let alone for the sick. Each of us feeds the sick at the expense of our own health: we give our bread to the sick. We give them our meagre ration of sugar, our little piece of meat. And what's the result? Not enough to cure the sick, and we ourselves become ill. Of course, such sacrifices are the most beautiful and noble. But there are times when one has to choose: sacrifice the sick, who haven't the slightest chance of recovery and who also may make others ill, or rescue the healthy.

I could not deliberate over this problem for long; I had to resolve it in favour of the healthy.

In this spirit, I gave the appropriate instructions to the doctors, and they will be expected to deliver all incurable patients, so that the healthy, who want and are able to live, will be saved in their place.

I must tell you a secret: they requested 24,000 victims, 3,000 a day for eight days. I succeeded in reducing the number to 20,000, but only on the condition that these be children under the age of ten. Children ten and older are safe. Since the children and the aged together equal only some 13,000 souls, the gap will have to be filled with the sick.

I understand you, mothers; I see your tears, alright. I also feel what you feel in your hearts, you fathers who will have to go to work in the morning after your children have been taken from you, when just yesterday you were playing with your dear little ones. All this I know and feel.

Since four o'clock yesterday, when I first found out about the order, I have been utterly broken. I share your pain. I suffer because of your anguish, and I don't know how I'll survive this - where I'll find the strength to do so.

I can barely speak.

Help me carry out this action. I am trembling.

A broken Jew stands before you.

This is the most difficult of all orders I have ever had to carry out at any time. I reach out to you with my broken, trembling hands and beg: give into my hands the victims. So that we can avoid having further victims, and a population of 100,000 Jews can be preserved.

So, they promised me: If we deliver our victims by ourselves, there will be peace.

I understand what it means to tear off a part of the body.

So which is better?

What do you want?

That 80,000 to 90,000 Jews remain, or God forbid, that the whole population be annihilated?

You may judge as you please; my duty is to preserve the Jews who remain.

I do not speak to hot-heads. I speak to your reason and conscience. 

One needs the heart of a bandit to ask from you what I am asking. But put yourself in my place, think logically, and you'll reach the conclusion that I cannot proceed any other way.

The part that can be saved is much larger than the part that must be given away.

Holocaust survivor Abram Goldberg, 98, was present in the square that day and was a guest on the 41st episode of the podcast, speaking about that terrible day.

The children were deported from Lodz ghetto to death camp at Chelmno..

Delaney Tarr: 'Because we are coming after you', address to lawmakers - 2018

28 February 2018, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

This movement, this movement created by students, led by students is based in emotion. It is based in passion and it is based in pain...

The only reason that we’ve gotten so far is because we are not afraid of losing money. We are not afraid of getting re-elected or not getting re-elected. We have nothing to lose. The only thing we have to gain at this point is our safety…

I am not a “crisis actor”—I am not going of these pre-written speeches given to me by another person...

We are not here to be patted on the back. We are not here to be told we are doing so much because we know what we’re doing and we’re doing it for a reason. We’re doing it so our legislators, so that our lawmakers will make a change, so that they will take us seriously, so that they will not dismiss us any longer, so they won’t reschedule, so they won’t push us in another room as they dance around our questions. Because we came here prepared and we’re going to come to every single meeting with every single legislator—prepared. We know what we want. We want gun reform. We want common sense gun laws. We want stronger mental health checks and background checks to work in conjunction. We want a better age limit. We want privatized selling to be completely reformed so that you can’t just walk into a building with $130 and work out with an AR-15...

We want change and we know how to get that change...We’re going to keep moving forward because we don’t have a choice.

The people in office have failed us and if they continue to fail us, then they will no longer be in office because we will soon be given the ability to vote—and we will vote them out. And the people around us will vote them out. They must do right by us or they will lose their jobs. And we have brought that up to them time and time again...

We’ve had enough of ‘thoughts and prayers.’ We’ve had enough of ‘We’re in your consideration, we’re going think about it, and we’re going to tell you how we feel because we support you so much.’ Because we know that is not true. Because if you supported us, you would have made a change long ago and you would be making changes now...

So this is to every lawmaker out there. No longer can you take money from the NRA. No longer can you fly under the radar doing whatever it is that you want to do. Because we are coming after you. We are coming after every single one of you and we are demanding that you take action and demanding that you make a change. Thank you.

J.B. Priestley: 'We've known them and laughed at them, these fussy little steamers', broadcast after Dunkirk - 1940

5 June 1940, BBC radio broadcast, London, United Kingdom

Here at Dunkirk is another English epic. And to my mind what was most characteristically English about it - so typical of us, so absurd and yet so grand and gallant that you hardly know whether to laugh or cry when you read about them - was the part played in the difficult and dangerous embarkation - not by the warships magnificent though they were - but by the little pleasure steamers. We've known them and laughed at them, these fussy little steamers, all of our lives. We have called them 'the shilling sicks'. We have watched them load and unload their crowds of holiday passengers - the gents full of high spirits and bottled beer, the ladies eating pork pies, the children sticky with peppermint rock. Sometimes they only went as far as the
next seaside resort. But the boldest of them might manage a Channel crossing to let everybody have a glimpse of Bologne. They were usually paddle steamers, making a great deal more fuss with all their churning than they made speed; and they were not proud for they let you see their works going round.

They liked to call themselves 'Queens' and 'Belles'; and even if they were new, there was always something old-fashioned, a Dickens touch, a mid-Victorian air about them. They seemed to belong to the same ridiculous holiday world as pierrots and piers, sand castle ham-
and-egg teas, palmists, automatic machines, and crowded, sweating promenades. But they were called out of that world - and let it be noted they were called out in good time and good order. Yes, these 'Brighton Belles' and 'Brighton Queens' left that innocent foolish world of theirs - to sail into the inferno, to defy bombs, shells, magnetic mines, torpedoes, machine-gun-fire - to rescue our soldiers.

Some of them, alas, will never return. Among those paddle steamers that will never return was one that I knew well, for it was the pride of our ferry service to the Isle of Wight, none other than the good ship 'Gracie Fields'. I tell you, we were proud of the 'Gracie Fields', for she was the glittering queen of our local line, and instead of taking an hour over her voyage, used to do it, churning like mad, in forty five minutes. And now never again will we board her at Cowes and go down into her dining saloon for a fine breakfast of bacon and eggs. She has paddled and churned away - for ever. But now - look - this little steamer,like all her brave and battered
sisters is immortal. She'll go sailing proudly down the years in the epic of Dunkirk.

And our grandchildren, when they learn how we began this War by snatching glory out of defeat, and then swept on to victory, may also learn how the little holiday steamers made an excursion to hell and came back glorious.