and if they could -- four points that we can discuss more. we have taken a number of initiatives to understand what is. we've done of the customer exercise. we have worked with the presidential innovation fellows from the white house do some study for us. and four points have emerged, and we're looking at as we change our engagement strategy and iterate it was the private sector. first, it goes back in time and actually probably started back with the book the art of war where one of the principles is know your enemy and know yourself. one of the things that came out is we know our enemy well. we know the threat environment. we know ourselves as it pertains to the federal side and the state side but what became apparent was we really didn't understand the private sector well. in fact, we served many of the corporations we work with

including many of the former federal and the number one issue raised was you do not know me. you don't know how i operate. specifically, you don't know my risk profile or my resources or capabilities to deal with it. and for us to engage beyond transactional events, we need to know each other better. which then led us into pursuing how could we increased that engagement, that became a second principle and that was finding neutral benefit. as the presidential innovation fellows put it, measured value, not investigations. so we have defined from the perspective a corporate site what is the mutual benefit. ben paper actually speaks well of this. what are the business case, what is the value proposition for engagement with the private sector, and the outlined a number of things useful. and so we're trying to probe

what that might look like over time, how we could develop that come how to understand that better. which then now that you've identified how you can work together, how do you solve that problem? you move from information sharing to collaboration. and by collaboration it means a third principle, you have to go constructive the solution, which is a shift culturally. we like to control. we like to take the what happens what we're looking at how to do that with the private sector, how do we cope create their solution and quite frankly it actually works better, the iterations we tried because they have better day, better technology and they can do things much faster. the challenge then for us is how do we stay connected. we were still -- we are still fbi, and this is leading us to explore the fourth principle, is

how do we created franchise framework for the fbi. that allows us to develop certain standards of engagement, sort and consistent ways of doing business but does not prescribe how the business is conducted, just proscribed certain actions to keep us legal, to keep us operationally in the right space. and again ben's paper speaks to all these principles and that's why we are so pleased to be engaged with them, but those are the things we're iterating and trying. we still have our legacy programs. they will continue, perhaps become 2.0 but we are actually based on this evolving threat and how do we get ahead of it looking at how to approach the private sector. perhaps in a way we've never done before and see where that takes us. so appreciate the chance to be here today spirit that's a helpful framing for sort of priorities or frameworks.

i want to return to two of them in particular, this idea cocreation. we are director clapper talk about the distinction between cooperation and joint action, and in the post-9/11 we thought about the nfl context and then the state and local content. what we are talking about is what does that mean in the context of the private sector as well, cocreation and cooperation? steve, let me turn to you. i love your boots by the way. >> thank you. >> how do you think about this not just in the context of your interaction sitting on a stateside but also with the texas companies, texas entrepreneurs, the industries in austin, for example. how are you doing this landscape of up and horizontally? >> first i want -- what general -- [inaudible]

spirit let's pass the mic. >> how's that? there we go. the general mentioned something very important from the state simple. when i retired in 2004 i did know hurricanes had to ours but when katrina, rita and ike was a real eye-opener and we talk about continuous improvements and where we were then and where we are right now. embracing the private sector made a tremendous difference in terms of how we are able to protect texans when a catastrophic event. if you don't have been integrated for interstate operations center to your emergency management and operations and, you are wrong. there's information they have a more important than information, you have to put some terms of storage and delivery of commodities and that's water, food and fuel. in the private sector. that expertise doesn't exist in the government necessary. they bring tremendous capability

and expertise immediately. we did know anything about in terms of stimulating fuel demand, pre-evacuation. some of things they could bring into. we bring them right into an established them as a part of the incident command with innocent operations center. it's worked out very well in that regard. for them the payoff is this, that they want in terms of serve the public as well and their customers. their customers are in the cities and locations that are impacted so that you some information and they can get back and operating sooner. any type of catastrophic event, power is important, utility industry. having him as an equal partner. that's the biggest crosswalk. today we need to think in terms of critical and for such a, resources, the crown jewels, but today soft targets are such

without justification of terrorism we've got to worry about those things as well, special events. so private sector, key partners, but how do we move from cooperation, the general duty good job talk about corporation and coordination. that's integration of effort. everyone gets along right now. everyone wants to coordinate and cooperate but depend on what the issue is, whether it's gangs, with its transnational criminal organizations, how can reintegrate our efforts to maximize the impact. >> all the important insights. op, from your perspective, house both the private sector viewing this landscape, first of all? and what is your sense of innovation this but you what's happening comforts up with what you're doing at ibm with the federal government from both a national security perspective as well as just a national economic perspective? what is your sense of what's happening in the vibrant and worst the opportunity?

>> i think there's several points. with the movement from traditional market -- market state terrorism, the landscape has shifted. it's pulling more and more what you want to call soft targets but it's pulling more and more commercial oriented qaeda targets into that battle space. clearly once a week or certainly if not once a month i would get phone calls am somebody that is leading the public sector -- leaving -- in the ic and say hey, bob, i'm going to such and such client or such and such organization, i need to build an icy. 9/11 intelligence center that i can understand what's happening in my world. the critical issues that we deal with at the governmental level about high-value awareness and in depth understanding.

how quickly can we build something to ensure that we're protecting not only ourselves but also the folks that visit my locations and those constituen constituents. i think technology will play a key part in that. we have been talking a lot about information sharing, and information sharing is something that we've been talking about and promoting for years. it's not a technological problem sharing information. it's a problem of will in many cases. who is willing to share what information when, where and how. i would say while information sharing is the basis for these types of events and for preventing these types of things, it's access and this addition to the information that is critical. i like to say information is king. it is the most important thing, but sharing access and distribution of that information

is king. it makes a real difference. it's important that we look at how we do that as close to the edge as possible. because it's about real-time situational awareness and it's about making sure that we can react as quickly as possible. one of the things i think is will import from a technological perspective is that technology can move faster than the speed of threat. the challenge is how quickly can people assimilate what technology is telling them. we are focused a lot in my division around we can take that of bytes of information and make decisions in real-time as to what's happening from analytics perspective. the question is can we get the information as quickly as possible to those in need so they can make on grand situational decisions or even backup the situation decisions, depending on whether they are in theater or not. >> your point about the need for intelligence and capabilities within the private sector, just

my own experience, consulting, you see a lot of the major banks creating -- to understand better where the risks and all abilities lie. so whether it's energy, oil, gas, banking, that need answers for information and understanding full abilities is there. and then the conductivity outward. frank, i want to go back to the point about information sharing because it's critical because it's been the centerpiece of how we have thought about the success of public-private partnership. it's also different given the nature of the threat or the threat is now coming from a radicalized individuals in the bedroom somewhere in the neighborhood in the united states. the threats manifesting in a laptop, someone that is infested with some out where at starbucks using the open wi-fi system. it's happening with the electrical grid potential been g

systemically affected by a more sophisticated actor. these are manifestations that are not necessarily clear. they are not big buildups from some well organized set of attackers. is a more individualized, more amorphous, sometimes more atomized type of attacks. how she would be think about information sharing in that changed landscape? >> that's given to what we thought about in the past. >> information sharing after 9/11 was, i know something, i think i know what you need to know so i will tell you what i think you need to know but i will keep all the other stuff close hauled. the environment we live in today, information sharing has to be about information being available 24/7, to answer the question when the question is needed, not when i think you need it. so it's the idea that if all the

information available and having access to that information as general clark religion so that you can make decisions on the fly. and that's not i'll decide until you, that we will give you access to what you need to make those decisions. we look at 800,000 police officers in this country. one of those police officers is probably going to be the first touch of a terrorism investigation. so empowering them to understand what is happening dynamically and if they see things to enforce their investigations, and patrols, make a report out that information. so bob and i were talking before the event. i think we are entering into a world, and just make one other point, when i left the government in 2005 and went to ge, i every security class in the world working at the head of

diplomatic security's state department on march the third. march the fifth i became a neanderthal. i had no need to know, no clearance to get information. general electric small 300,000 person company operating in 120 countries across the world. didn't have the same level of need to know as my colleagues and diplomatic security. that begin by thinking about how the government needs to see that private sector as customers just as they see our military forces, diplomatic forces. because they are -- as those forces are. what to do for the economic security for our nation is too important not to allow them to have that same access speed especially when dhs has this possibility with all the critical infrastructure sectors, right?

>> and 85% of the critical infrastructure is in private hands. so if you're thinking about the economic security of the united states of america and intelligence is critical to ensuring the economic security of the united states of america, our private sector partners have to be seen as clients, not as an afterthought. >> i want to get back to brad's point about the structures. steve, given your experience both at the federal level, now in texas, do we have the structures right? we built these fusion centers. we've got jttfs and a bright ever the structures that we tried to build sometimes -- do we have the right structures to do what frank is talking about from your perspective? have you created structures speak with less structures do more to the torso approach that ben report talked about. the challenge is that we still

don't have information in operability. the general build it in terms of what is a collector of these days. the law enforcement officer whether it's one of our troopers, special agent, one of our texas rangers are all in forces. they are protectors and enforce a. they have to be into terms of what the tradecraft is a what the requirements of the federal government are. then assistance, look at texas, 1757 different law enforcement agencies and 69% have ample we -- -- we are putting into the system, records maintenance system which is really all that information that the agent thousand collectors, and you don't know if it's a parking ticket, speeding ticket or an arrest for a dwi. isn't the key piece so that the intel committee needs to link this person to someone else. it's of vital.

the challenge that we have is fixing that peace right there. there some programs but it's very expensive to convert all of these legacy systems and jail management system into a platform that can be pushed and can be shared any given time. i'll say this, for example, looking at where you're at at any given time to go to be but a look at all the particular -- that nature got to move to what director comey has talked about, national-based reporting. we are an indexed state. our legislation government has pushed us so we will be -- that's a poor because if you want timely data across jurisdiction and quite frankly there's nothing that's important that doesn't cross jurisdiction theses vertically and horizontally and geographically, then you have to be able to see those dots. stephen very interesting. ben's paper talks with this

horizontal network model and i couldn't agree more with the concept and the fact that we have to shift the paradigm that we think about ordination, cooperation. brad and bob, i want to ask you both this and question but from a different vantage point. what does that mean in practice do you? if we start to move toward a more horizontal network model of homeland national security information sharing and public-private partnership, what does that mean from your vantage point? >> so i would describe it as changing our perspective inside a lease the fbi. i think we have to look at the fact that this is really about risk mitigation at its core. and historical he a law enforcement agency is about cases, investigations. so there's a cultural shift that's going to have to take place internally. so that's with us.

there's also a shift in our use the word design or creating our approach, get around perspective. we have to invite the private sector to the table early. you have to see what capabilities, what the risks, and how that might tie to my threat to if you light up companies in simplistic, i've come out of target in minneapolis, but drm profile target is different than the erm or file target across the river. it aligns much closer to the fbi as far as our threats regarding cyber, ci, other types of things. but we have no mechanism in place and that's what we're working on is how to get 3m and target at the table with us to

talk through come and again trying to network this out what is the solution set, what can be cocreated to do do with their different sets of problems? the challenge i see is we like uniformity, and a network towards idol solution means you lots of little nodes solving their own problems. you have to function more like a connected computer, and you may not know everything. you may not see everything i touch everything, but you have to have a level of working relationship or trust. i'm speaking kind of hypothetical, but we've actually seen some examples come into play, and i will speak specifically. the bureau faced some challenges around ransomware, specific to the health care industry. and we did the bureau thing. we notified the corporations in the industry, probably in a very classic sense of pins and

flashes can e-mail type things. someone actually in that industry who is associate with us through one of our it is a programs and said i have a solution. i am the ceo of a software company. i can create software that will network amongst these health care companies, and you don't have to be involved on the front and. we can set it up ourselves, and if you ever need to get information to us again, you can go through this software solution. that person did it in four months. he owns the company. he's willing to connect it to us as needed, and to me that is an example of the direction that ahead and figure out over time how to capture more and more of those situations. because now it's the private sector try to mitigate their risk for their business with her solution set, connected to us because we still have the intelligence, as frank has talked about, the information

that can help them. it's a different mindset, different model, different perspective. i think in particular director comey sees it, having worked on both sides, and the challenge for my office is how do we institutionalize it, build it out over time. and also just made me pause and say i think it also, the goal for the fbi is connect it not just fbi private sector but with other usg and public sector. if we can move in this direction, succeed. >> how do you see from your vantage point and what are the opportunities? >> first of all i think the shift that's already happening. not only organizations like ben's started that but organizations like the national cyberforensic training alliance. they've got room and inside the rooms since fbi analysts and

commercial sector analysts, banking analyst and retail analyst and so forth. that shift, and it's driving that information paradigm, but it's driving it in many ways for different motivations. that's working people expect a little bit of attention to. the motivation at the governmental level is really about security and protection and service. at the commercial level, while those are all important things, a lot of this is about brand protection. it's important about the brand is perceived. utah about the breach that target. we all understand at the breach with th it the to the target brd for a while. so it's different motivations all working towards the same things. i think several things have brought it to light. i was incredibly heartened when secretary carter came in and talked about piii i initiatives.

the fact that the highest levels that's an priority or that opened up a lot of doors to have conversations that we were never having before. to the point earlier about critical infrastructure protection. if the grid is attacked in hawaii, that's the first responders. they are going to call in support and get help overtime but that grid supports pacom and all the pearl harbor. pearl harbor ghost dog, that's a problem. the largest cocom in the world. the ships are having. i think we start to see more of those people. i think the advent of the fusion centers with another great move towards again combining public-private information sharing initiatives at all levels not just closed source but open source in both private and public source materials. >> bob, let me stick with you for a second what's your sense of the greatest impediment at

least from your ibm perspective but also given your long interaction with the government, different government agencies? what's the impediment toward sort of a more efficient cooperation and partnership with the type you're talking about? >> i said earlier some of this is will it be we have the will to do this, to make this happen? it's not a technology issue. technology problems have for the most part been solved. its interpretation of things like statute. we put some for important protective measures after for the use of information. if you really have nothing to do at night, that will put you to sleep. it talks about you cannot cominco criminal history data with history data. so we put processes and rules

and regulations in place and we're adhering to those but sometimes we are so over focused on what might happen, we are not paying enough attention to what is happening. and i think if we can get down some of those barriers, we mentioned earlier on stage the index, national document exchange the fbi program. i can remember when they first launched the index program, there was a lot of concern at the state level and local level about what's the indemnification if i give you my information? if somebody uses that come someone they shouldn't, do i have liability? at the state of local level in particular, local level issues are typically dealt by city attorneys and city managers, and they worry about what's liability for my city. i think we've done a great job at dealing with the indemnification issue but it took time, but it was because we

had the will to do that. as long as we continue to stay forward with hi this will and desire to make these things happen, there's nothing i think we can't do. >> frank? >> i agree wholeheartedly. spill you've got a great voice anyway, it doesn't matter. >> i don't know. i think it is about will end it's about innovation. i just think we are in a space now that demand innovation and innovative thinking at the congressional level, executive branch and the state and local governments in terms of the power of information sharing. we also have under our constitution certain rights, the bill of rights that are important to our citizens and privacy and civil rights and civil liberties must be a part of the solution, but the

american people in our view at the department of homeland security expect that we will use all available public information to make judgments about the security of our nation. we just announced or it's going to the omb process that we want to collect social media handles as a look at people applying for electronic assistance for travel authorization to the u.s. there's a great cry within the privacy community that this may be a bit too far but our expectation from the american people is if so what is applying to travel here for a benefit, that we should check all available information to determine whether the individual represents a threat to our country. and increasingly, some of the data resides in social media.

so we think it's a legitimate way of looking at broader data sets that help us make decisions, but the question of will and understanding of the how we will do that and still protect the constitutional rights of our citizens is part of i think a very important discussion that's going on right now. >> lelet me comment and i will turn it back to you. this came up in the san bernardino context as t to whetr not do it to whether not that was enough sitting in the visa process as well. by director clapper also talked about a certain degree of limitation in terms of both american will and perception, especially in the post-snow environment, around domestic intelligence or information gathering. how do you gauge that? you are responsible for analysis for the department. what does that balance look like? we can't be blind to what's happening in the homeland given the nature of the threat. at the same time we do need to protect privacy and civil

liberties -- >> we have been doing this for 30 years, 40 years -- of losing a decade there. it started after the church commission in 1974. it was focused first on the military and dod but it has permeated the way in which our intelligence agencies think about protecting privacy and civil liberties of u.s. citizens. so i think we have a framework, and it stems from the church commission in terms of how we should do that. that we can integrate privacy, civil rights, civil liberties, intelligence, oversight into the process of collecting intelligence in a domestic environment, and do so safely without jeopardizing the rights of american citizens. it's a doable. we are doing it today. we are doing it with great

oversight and appropriate oversight. so i don't think there's an impediment to it. there is the will to take on more information sets that help us take a better picture of what's going on domestically. >> bob, say whatever you want to say but i want you to answer this question if you can. does technology i can help us with that balance? does it help us both with the protection of personal data and identity but also allowing us to connect the dots and understand their network threats we face speak with i will answer that directly. i want to tie back what frank said about innovation. we are on, in a new era. certainly in computing. it's the cognitive era. it's been able to take machine learning, artificial intelligence, cognition kinds of capabilities and apply to science. imagine is creating -- is

creating information and each time you add a new piece of information, that information does not deliver any kind of information that's like that. let me get close to the information. you are working on this problem, i've added a new piece of information that may change your thinking as you treat this intelligence product. we've got some identities and we think these three people are missing people or these three objects are the same people but i've added new information and disputes that they are indeed, that may change your approach. this capability is going to change the game. it's going to allow us to do everything that we were up you're talking about, even more, given the bill is to not only take our mission and accelerate it, but to provide all of the protections, all of the rules and regulations and requiremen requirements, and ensure that we

are not violation, that those that need have come those that don't need an avenue to know, don't. and if one is a loaded at the right time at the right place. is what i referred to as kind of always on analytics. no matter how good our ic community is, it's hard for everybody to be on your game 24 hours a day 365 days out of the year. technology can solve that problem and help. >> we've got just a minute before we open it up to the audience, so get ready. i want to ask discussion because we talked about information sharing, talked about structures and models, technology. let's talk quickly about people. i think you represent sort of the best in this class, which is to say you serve at the highest level in law enforcement. you served in different capacity in private sector. and there is a fraternity and sorority of ex-government agents

from diplomatic security, secret service, fbi, dea that serve now in the private sector. what's the role of personalities and relationships and trust in the kinds of structures and networks we're talking about? >> you mean the federal mafia? i think the trust is there. that is some help to the, the fact they have been there, done that. in terms of understanding so i think there's been a just in terms of those that go to have the expertise ago and connect with it. i can see an advantage to it. i did want, to give reflect on fusion center early. i want to say something before general kelly gets out of here, is commend them on the great job he's done on fusion center to not recognize all great are equal but the id you can clair bidez when you locate databases furtively horizontally. a tremendous vision come it

works. anything worth doing by yourself, is worth doing together. that's been a great program in terms of support and we've got the fabric of support across all different agencies. it's been very helpful from our standpoint. >> brad, very quickly. final thought. >> people, talent. i think it's actually, he spoke, the federal connection is good but it's actually a two-edged going. because businesses more and more actually bring in people with different backgrounds, especially attack emerging economy. you to find as many high level former fed in those roles as you used to. and that is the future. that's where our economy is going. i think the challenge for us is how to build that same level of trust you talked about with people that don't have a background, so now we're back to working with them, getting to

know them, mutual benefit. that's challenging because depending on where you're at, there's maybe a natural reaction against the federal government. related to it, part of our focus is to move beyond just the security side, the cso. not that they are not a value but at the end of the day decisions in the company are made up higher levels through general counsels, cfo, ceo. we need to explore how to engage better with them and i think ben's is excellent example of how we can transition into the world. because those are the people who make decisions around the cyber investment, or and not investment in a nation-state program or other things. we have to look at how we build that they didn't want to be ahead of the threat and not just investigate it. we have had those conversations if i could make one closing comment, as a talked about in

the back room, i think, everybody -- i think it's imperative that we figured this out now. we as a country are very, very good at fixing problems after catastrophic events. we mentioned fema earlier, or katrina, fema totally change the way they did business with the private sector, and we are part of it so i know it well. 9/11, tragedy, and we totally changed the way we do business on the federal in public side. i don't think we want to be in a place where we have the same sort of catastrophic event that forces us to figure out how to be better partners with the private sector. i think by force of will, by tone at the top, by moving forward on this, it's imperative that we work through what does the future look like what is the way forward in this arena. >> just one thing. there are different cultures.

law enforcement is one of those cultures and firefighting is a difficult culture. even public health. when you can't afford a cultural arrogance, it has to be 18 across and go to understand what the firefighters and did it commitment to the law enforcement professionals. at the same point the military pensions of enterprise intelligence when we have grown up and law enforcement such as stovepipe individual case mentality is a tremendous benefit. it comes with the great respect. there are advantages and have. we understand people grow up in a culture which is fine as long as there's an understanding that this is a cross this plan or an approach if you're going to maximize the impact of protect the public. >> great point. that's open to the audience. i think would probably get free solid questions go with this

young lady in the back. [inaudible] >> the idea and then send it. you talked a lot about -- like risk mitigation but we talked about some of the challenges from the federal perspective in terms of information sharing around willingness. but having worked on both sides and have very proud of done that, what i don't hear often enough is a conversation around how do we incentivize the private sector to do a better job to elaborate with the government and information sharing before a catastrophic event? last to appoint raised earlier, a little bit i think it's all related around the centers,

there's so many people have served in both the private sector, defense and and the federal government who are still what i would call power users. talk about this in the technology since. you have power users of the platform. how do we create a cadre of people once they've had their passports stamped -- doing national security to remain power users and come back and share and collaborate outside of catastrophic events? >> great question. incentives and leveraging. >> i think the incentive is there, and certainly we've seen it in cyber. i think we have seen it in emergency response after katrina and sandy of those sorts of things that our business community understands what's available within our federal, state and local law enforcement and security agencies. that is of value to them and enterprise.

the challenge has been in the past the fear of prosecution or the government wielding of the powers against them for their efforts to try to help the cover. i think we solve that on the cyber side with the cyber legislation that was recently passed. i think increasingly we are seeing our private sector partners have greater confidence in the professionalism of the folks there working with and that this is a team, not an adversarial sort of relationship. and that's hard for them in certain cases to accept that given the past behavior of our government agencies. but i think we talked earlier anand i was going to comment on this notion of trust building. you build trust by doing trustworthy things day after day

after day. it doesn't happen just because you say i'm from dhs, trust me. it happens because you do trustworthy things. i think the thing that we have done on the federal side is reached out to our partners across industry, across state and local law enforcement security and said look, don't just trust us, make sure we deliver what you expect of us. just one final point. after the most recent terrorist event in our country, we in the fbi had a telephone call, same as the event, 1800 people on the telephone call. we went through what we knew about the terrorist event, who we thought were the perpetrato perpetrators, but their tactics, techniques and procedures were.

that call happened in the evening, and to date, no information from the call has leaked. unprecedented. trust within the fbi and within our state and local and private sector partners. so doing trustworthy things i think build a confidence that you can do more with people, eventually kind of what we've been working on a dhs. the bureau as the work of audit, and our state and local partners demanding that we act in a trust away with them for the information that they need. >> another question. yes? [inaudible] >> my question is how can the intelligence community better communicate how the church committees find the impact --

within the cyber world -- [inaudible] >> frank, do you want to take that once again? >> i'm just the oldest guy here since general klauber left speed and you've got the biggest title. >> only four and a half decades. he's got five. book, i think, i had the honor of serving on president bush's privacy and civil liberties oversight board. and part of our duties was to look at the terror screening program, nsa. politically controversial, lots of discussion about whether nsa should or shouldn't be involved in that activity. and i'm not political so i won't

make political comments. is in the application of the authorities that were given to nsa in that program that appropriate privacy civil rights and civil liberties protections were the first consideration in how the program was applied. i think it really surprised some of my colleagues on the civil liberties board how strongly that culture existed in nsa. so any intelligence professional that has grown up since the church commission has had this beaten into the brain. it is a part of intelligence culture of our country. it's how we think about doing things. it's the first thing in the forefront of our minds. in fact, may limit us by not doing things we are authorized to do for fear of violating that trust. i think it's very.

i don't think it's widely recognized as being there but i think it is there. it's how we think about operating the it's what we do everyday and it's part and parcel of our culture as intelligence professionals. >> if i could complement that for a second base on my own, too. the treasures program which the new times we'll in 2006, i've should i think incredibly innovative in terms of how we thought about an intelligence program that leveraged large amounts of data into financial context. this was with data, the backbone of the global banking system. but had built into the design with the subject itself, swift, the protection of privacy and civil liberties from the get-go. so it's the only intelligence program that i'm aware of that ever had the involvement of the subject in not just the design, what information was to be

accessed, but how that was been controlled and analyzed after. and, in fact, the private sector after there had a represented in the transcendent that could literally shut off the analysis at any point in real-time if there was a sense that he was moving be on the boundaries and agreements made in terms of the use of that data. and the data by the way was constricted more and more overtime because due to the collaboration, the government realize we don't need a lot of this information. we just need certain bits and bytes of it, and that became constrained. i think is way of using technology if you coordinate with the private sector in ways that make this much more protective. >> may be one quick question, more. yes. if you make it quick. >> ought no[inaudible]

>> my question is how do you think the federal government continues to attract graduates with skills, maybe from the s.t.e.m. fields which oftentimes they are entertaining jobs or similar jobs from the private sector? >> brad, why don't you take us so we don't have the general answering internal questions. in public. >> you have to deal with this, too, from the bureau perspecti perspective. >> it's a very good question. i think it's an ongoing struggle in what i see on the federal side coming out of the private sector side. we don't have the same set of incentives but you can't on the private sector side, it's not just money by the way, it's also

flexibility i think we have a federal workforce have to begin to explore if you really want young talented individuals, how does that paradigm shift also? we were talking a paradigm shift with public-private partnerships, but internally, i see a tremendous shift coming out of a corporate environment for 20 years into this environment, and i actually applaud how many young talented people work for us. i think it shows a great patriotism, that they're willing to step up and help. but i also understand from the private sector what the draw is to go out there. i don't have a specific answer for you other than i know it's a discussion inside fbi up to director level, is how do we change this to attract more talent for the future of. >> thank you. join me in thanking the panelists for a great

discussion. [applause] >> i'm going to ask for panelists to stay in place for just a second. and i want to thank ben for the partnership infringes on two closed-door session today. i'm going to introduce sharon wagner to give us some concluding thoughts. karen is a former undersecretary of homeland security for intelligence and analysis. she's also a former budget director, a former cfo of intelligence community and lots and lots of other things. she is currently teaching. she's doing consulting work with a lot of companies, and amazingly to me like some of the folks in the audience, she finds time to volunteer and give back to some of these discussions on some of our most challenging national security issues.

karen is chair of insa's homeland council. she's about to give up and let don have the opportunity to excel, but i ask you to welcome karen to give us some concluding thoughts. [applause] >> i see i did add a former chair of the homeland security council for insa to my long list of farmers. thank you, chuck. really all i'm here to do is to thank the panel very much for your remarks come to a perspective on the nature of the challenges that we currently face. and the responses from federal, state and local governments and the role of private sector very interesting thoughts and insights, and we really appreciate your willingness to be with us here today. and i also want to echo, to thank director clapper for

sharing his thoughts on the intelligence committees efforts to address the evolving threat >> releasing reports today on the need to improve information sharing and community involvement in the homeland security enterprise.

the two reports take kind of a different approach, so they'll be great companion pieces. ben's is taking a more bottoms- -up approach, providing incentive for private market participation. the other is focusing on efforts to coordinate and integrate activities at the federal level and recommitting to best practices and information sharing and collaboration with state and local partners in the private sector. there are printed copies of these available to you for you to take with you on your way out. we are interested in your feedback. if you would like to provide it after you've read them. and thanks again to everyone for participating and attending this event. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> national intelligence director james clapper spoke earliering at this conference. we'll have that a along with this panel that just wrapped up here. it's available on the c-span video library at c-span.org. >> every four years the presidential candidates turn from politics to humor at the al smith me moral foundation dinner -- memorial foundation dinner at new york's historic waldorf-astoria hotel. >> i must say, i have traveled

the banquet circuit for many years. i've never quite understood the lo gist arics of dinners like this and how the absence of one individual could cause three of us to not have seats. >> mr. vice president, i'm glad to see you here tonight. you've said many, many times in this campaign that you want to give america back to the little guy. [laughter] mr. vice president, i am that man. [laughter] >> it's an honor to share the dais with a descendant of the great al smith. and, al, your great grandfather was my favorite kind of governor. [laughter] the kind who ran for president and lost -- [laughter] >> al, you are right, a campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. we -- blue jeans in the morning, perhaps, a suit for a lunch fundraiser, sport coat for

dinner, but it's nice to wear what ann and i wear around the house. [laughter] >> watch with hillary clinton and donald trump tonight at nine eastern on c-span and c-span.org and listen at 9 p.m. eastern with the c-span radio app. ♪ ♪ >> after i came up with my idea of reproductive rights, i went and researched. and with recent events i've heard about in our news, i knew i could find information on that, and that would also help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to form my outline for my piece. >> i don't think i took a very methodical approach to this process which, i mean, you could if you wanted, but i think really with a piece as dense as this, i would say, it's really just a process of working and reworking. so as i was trying to come up with what my actual theme was, i was doing research at the same

time, and i was coming up with more ideas for what i could film. okay, that would be a great shot. so i'd think about that, and that would give me a new idea about what to focus on. really the whole process was just about building on other things as i'm scratching what doesn't work, and and you just keep going until you finally get what is the finished product. >> this year's theme? your message to washington d.c. tell us, what is the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address this 2017? our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grades6-12 with $100,000 a awarded in cash prices. students can look along or in groups of up to three. include some c-span programming and also explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers, and the grand prize, $5,000, will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20th, 2017.

so mark your calendars and help us spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to our web site, studentcam.org. >> live coverage this morning where shortly we will hear from author karen armstrong and a former turkish minister of state part of a forum on pair senses of muslims and islam, the role that policymakers and culture institutions can play in their relations with muslim communities. this should get under way in just a couple of moments. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and once again we'll be hearing from author karen armstrong and a former turkish minister of state. they'll be talking about perceptions of muslims and islam in the this forum which is about to get underway here on c-span2. while we have a moment, tell you about some of the other programming coming up. at 12:30 eastern today, donald trump will be speaking at a county fair in delaware, ohio. c-span will have that live. again, starts at 12:30 eastern today. he and hillary clinton will be adding their humor tonight in new york city as they attend the 70th annual al smith memorial dinner.

it raises money for catholic charities. live coverage also on c-span, and that starts at 9 p.m. before that at seven in the ohio senate race, we'll hear from incumbent republican rob portman and ted strickland as they debate for the second time this week. that will also be on c-span. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us. i'm fred kemp, president and ceo of the atlantic council.

i'm delighted to have a packed house today of great turnout for today's constitution on the widespread implication of islamophobia. what we want to do today is debunk myths and encourage a good conversation, a much healthier conversation on this topic than we think is actually occurring at the time. it's a topic of crucial importance that has gathered significant attention in the united states and europe and around the world. enormous thanks to our partner in today's event, the vice president of the foundation and publisher of -- [inaudible] i'll invite her to join me on stage in just a moment, but this is characteristic of the sort of cutting edge work and thinking that you've done throughout your career. we have a first rate group of panelists comprised of leading experts on the subject. thank you all for lending your time and expertise today, to

today's discussion. i'll introduce them later as we, as we start the panel. and since social media plays a very important part in buttressing and dismantling racial and religious bias, i encourage you all to take this discussion to twitter under the hashtag beyond islamophobia. but let me start by introducing b be usla who will be setting the tone for today's discussion, and it's important to those that this discussion takes place just before the opening on saturday of the art of quran exhibit in the smithsonian gallery. laughs night there was a -- last night there was a special showing which very much fits into this whole effort to debunk the myths of islamophobia. so we have one of turkey's most

prominent media leaders as publisher of the leading newspaper. throughout her impressive career, she's advocated for societal change on a range of issues. from ending domestic violence -- an issue on which she led a campaign that led to important legal reforms -- to gender equality, a cause for which she championed a platform that nearly doubled the number of women in the turkish parliament in 2007. one of the greatest testaments to the respected and trusted position that she holds in turkey is the fact that it was through cnn turk, one of the independent media conglomerates that she oversees that president erdogan delivered his facetime message to the public during the military coup earlier this year at a moment of severe threat to its democracy. you have been instrumental in carving out a space for issues that have gone under the radar

and shifting the public perception and debate. it's been an honor to work with you so closely on this event, and i hope this is just the beginning of an effort to take on this important subject. the floor is yours. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. president obama in his latest speech at the united nations said until basic questions are answered about how communities coexist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer, and the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies. yes, he is correct, the world is too small, and the people's destinies are more interrelated to each other than it has ever been before.

a threat here at this place in the world is not only affecting these people, this place, but the entire globe, and we've seen this in global finance, we've seen this in public health, we've seep -- we've seen this also in many other cases. but we are recently experiencing it in refugee crisis and terrorism. the wall that obama is referring to has appeared in our life very recently when the european countries started talking about build up a wall to keep the threat of refugees away from them. this is going to take its place in the history as the most disgraceful human act. unfortunately, terrorist organizations like isis, al-qaeda and so forth are, are attacking to the world with terrorism, invoking the name of islam.

this is a very big phenomena, and it's a very tragic issue for both muslims and non-muslims. just to make it clear, unfortunately the muslims that are, that have been targets of isis terrorism is much, many more than the combination of christians and jews. so it's a global problem, not only the problem of the western world. i want to emphasize this. well, what is this doing? this is, of course, promoting islamophobic sentiments within the western world. and it also, unfortunately in return, is fueling the anti-western sentiments within the muslim countries. so it is really feeding each other, both diseases are feeding each other and and causing a bigger and bigger problem for the world. it is also giving, islamophobia

is also giving a very good propaganda tool to the hands of the terrorists who are trying to recruit the muslim youth that are oppressed, that are isolated and that are not able to be recognized. so this is another implication of islamophobia. i want to mention one more, i think, important conclusion of islamophobia. it's, unfortunately, alienating the muslims, the people with the muslim faith, and they are not being -- i shouldn't say they are not, but there's a possibility that they would not be so engaged with being a good ally in acting against terrorism. so these are are all possible outcomes of islamophobia. but how do we deal with it? what is islamophobia? it stems from phobia which is a fear of the unknown, right? if we put it so simply, then the

answer is very simple. let's get rid of the phobia. so, which is let's get to know each other. let's try to find ways where we can engage in good conversations so that we can build a world where we can coexist together. better conversations is important. i think it's crucial to getting to know each other because, unfortunately, we forgot having good conversations. when i say good conversations, i first mean good listening which is actually listening, which is listening with the intention of understanding the other side, acknowledging and recognizing the other side, and it's also good talking. talking not only to get your word across and to start a monologue, but also to invite a conversation and a dialogue where you can search for answers, for solutions of the problem.

i think media can be a big facilitator in this. i think media has a huge role in this, in creating a language where the world can start talking to each other rather than everybody engaging in a monologue. freedom of thought and and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights. they are a seen quo nonof enlightenment ands process, and the freedom of speech is the back bone of democracy. but it should not be exercised at the cost of attacking one's dignity. it should not be exercised at the cost of attacking one's faith either because, you know what? dig hity is also a human -- dignity is also a human right. and i think, for example, when we talk about especially in the terms of how do we cover islam,

what do we say and what do we don't say, we most of the time find ourselves in the, tangled in the conversation of, so, muslims don't get -- christians don't get offended, how come the muslims do? well, because they are different. why don't we ask questions like so how, what does it make you feel? or what is it that you really get offended, so that we can move beyond this conversation of -- and take the topic forward to find a conclusion. another very important freedom is the freedom to ask questions. as a publisher, i truly very much appreciate this. it's a treasure, and we should vigorously defend it. but when we ask questions, do we always have to ask a question to verify the other side, our own

presumptions? do we always have to ask to get our own prejudgments or own beliefs verified? i think, no. i think we can introduce a new language in journalism where we ask questions so that the other side is heard, so that the other side can express themselves better, so that the other side can talk fearlessly in the field of respect and grace. we also in media defend freedom of speech for all cost. i think we should also start defending the right to be heard for everybody. because if one is not heard, anger starts building up in there. and that anger very, a lot of the time can turn into radicalization and extremes. so this is also an important, an

important aspect we should watch out when we're creating a new language. well, these might seem theoretical because we know that the practical life, media is tough. we are facing a very tough competition. we run after best ratings, best page views, good circulation every minute, every day, every day. finish and we know that the best ratings goes to extreme rhetoric. we know that the loud voices and the radical voices get the best attention. so what do we do? i propose that we put these on side, and we also remember our moral obligation of our profession to the society. we can choose to be, as media, to be a channel of hate red and -- hatred and fear which in a polarized world, unfortunately, it's also pushing

media to act many such way. but we can also choose to be a channel of wisdom, of reason and of respect. and i think depending on which one we choose, it's going to have big consequences on the global peace and harmony. and this morning here on this stage i invite all my media colleagues to stop for one minute and think. are we really going to follow this madness of constant stimulation of fear? or are we going to promise our children more a life -- for a life that is safer? because this fear is threatening all of our safety. i think we can do this if we join forces for a better

conversation around difficult points of topics like islamophobia. and today i hope that this panel is going to be the first panel that's going to kick off the good conversation about islamophobia. there is a beautiful saying in the quran which defines this very sum my but -- simply but very beautifully. it goes, it goes, listen closely to all voice is the and choose the best of it. thank you very much for listening and contributing. [applause] .

[inaudible conversations] >> this is the more of it you of everyone. >> vuslat, thank you so much for those observations and thank you for helping make this happen. so let me now welcome our panel. joining us today and i will start at the end is vali nasr, my good friend, 15 of the school of advanced international studies, better known as sais. he is a well renowned scholar on the middle east and also has experience in the public sector, special visor to the president's

special representative for afghanistan, pakistan. he really is one of the great intellectual entrepreneurs in discount or any town. zainab salbi is the host of the zainab salbi project, host original series. her incredible work at the grassroots level has our awards and recognition from the world economic forum from president bill clinton and time and forms magazines your of got karen armstrong next on the list. will come back to you, minister. karen armstrong is office of the british empire, well known for exceptional work writing -- is that right? >> i have very few good words to say -- [laughter] rather embarrassed but. >> is the reluctant officer of the british --

[laughter] >> well known for exceptional work writing and promoting literature on religion and fundamentals and. she's been a drive of international action against extremism through forging international intercultural and interreligious dialogue. she was instrument integration of a charter for compassion, a document which urges the peoples and religions of the world to embrace the core value of compassion. and, finally, and by no means the least, minister mehmet aydin is a former minister of state in a turkish council of ministers and a former member of the turkish parliament, the grand national assembly of turkey. he is also a well published an well-known scholar and author on philosophy and religion. so thank you all for being here. so this is a crucial topic with vast implications for domestic as well as foreign policy. divides countries, it divides societies, divides communities

but it also has the power to bring them together. i want to delve right into the discussion. in the past years, particularly the past month we watched europe struggle under the weight of over 1 million refugees, fleeing concert and economic distress and seeing politicians of both sides of the atlantic call for council refugee numbers and more strenuous vetting of refugees following terrorist attacks across europe. in the u.s., our election i think is the visit by large has provided more heat than light on this subject. so we want to provide some light today. so against this drawback i'd like our experts to talk about how we can walk the line between security concerns and racism that may affect create a spirit of exclusion and subsequent homegrown radicalization. this is a lot at stake your so i'm looking to my

aids because i think we've got a quick film that we're going to show. it's not ready to show yet? it's going to come a little waiter your what we're going to try to do is frame the subject. wittiest islamophobic, what are the right sources of it, what is a taking place in what way is it taking place. and then talk a little bit about the stakes, and then finally try to outline some solutions. i think we di take the want to focus in this conversation on the solution. this is also interactive in the sense that you are twitter hashtag. you can then give us your ideas, your responses to what we've said we will have a q&a period as well but what you don't get and you can see in terms of ideas, particularly when it comes to the potential solution. karen is the reluctant office of the british empire, maybe you can lay the groundwork for us to

understand the extent of the islamic phobia and its implications. you've said in the past that before 1700, this is a quote, religion permeated the whole of life so thoroughly that taking religion out of politics would be like extracting chin from catatonic. even though some of us think we want to go on a 12 step program against islamophobia. i wonder if you could, you've written the history of religious persecution so maybe ca you can give us the context of where we are now. >> well, we certainly move. it doesn't seem long ago, does it, before when we were cheering because the berlin wall was being torn down. and now there's talk of new walls being erected, and now people are cheering again. so something has shifted. islamophobia, what is it? well, it is a phobia. it is an irrational fear. it's not based on reason.

it is based on a gut feeling, and it's one of those indications of people who are struggling in all kinds of life with globalization. the fact we cannot live without one another, we are profoundly interconnected politically, environment only, economically. when markets fall in one part of the world, they drop all around the world. and the more global we are, the more people in both religious and political terms are retreating into denominational or national ghettos. and throughout history, i'm a historian, and i often try to understand things by seeing how they been in the past. there have been these explosions of hatred of certain groups.

i, just think of the crusades, for example. and what is interesting is that these phobias often project onto a so-called enemy where it very worries about one's own position. the crusaders who slaughtered muslims with great joy, projected that most unchristian violence on to the other side of humanity. and i think there's quite a lot of today. foreign policy issue to import and -- i just like to mention some of british foreign policy. i mentioned the british empire, enough said, which we bear a considerable responsibility for a lot of the problems in the region today. but also back to paris in

january last year, and all those leaders marching together shoulder to shoulder, linking arms for freedom of expression. win very many of those leaders, including my own prime minister, david cameron, headed countries that had for decades come in the case of britain, for over a century, aggressively supported regimes in muslim majority countries that would be neither people in the freedom of expression. and a sort of denial of that, and i think we've got to look at this kind of denial, this kind of unhealthy rational fear. because it's not something we can just sort out by telling people to pull themselves together and look at the facts. >> since you mentioned foreign policy and vali, maybe you can

step in, because obviously this is interwoven with 9/11. it's interwoven with the various foreign policy decisions have been made come in some ways one could say it's a little surprising that islamophobia is as hot as it is. as i read it was 40% right after 9/11, in terms of the feelings around muslims, negative feelings about muslims in the united states, and 60% more or not. you would think under a president who has been much more commutative to the islamic world, his famous cairo speech, that it wouldn't be that way. i wonder if you could do a witha little bit of a feeling from your perspective as a foreign policy practitioner where does this, how do you look at the phenomenon of islamophobia? >> well, building also on what kerry was saying, islamophobia isn't a trip itself occurred on

the state-run after 9/11. i can -- i think at that point them towards an issue that was external to the united states. was different from now is about islamophobia in a way was a policy deliberately pushed from the very top of the u.s. administration. it was an idea that was part and parcel of the u.s. administrations way of managing its middle is relations. the term was coined and used by president george bush and tony was dissuaded from doing it. and the idea was essentially that 9/11 could have been construed as a challenge to u.s. policy in the middle east, as a way of sidestepping, examining u.s. policy from essential islamophobia was a way of passing the blame back to the muslims, put islam itself on trial and for its response built in promoting terrorism rather than put u.s. foreign policy on

trial for creating some of the problems. in fact, the big disconnect was in the muslim world the understanding of 9/11 was that this was about u.s. foreign policy, envious idea what this is about islam. this sort of i would say top down and push on making islamophobia at the center of focus of understanding what happened after 9/11, very quickly found traction in the evangelical community in the united states. and i say that very deliberately. the evangelical community has very clear perceptions with any understanding of faith at the end of time, effort directly involved islam as a competitor. and on the ground and missionary activity in asia, in various parts of the world, in africa, islam is the main competitor. there's a very clear sense of islam is the enemy. but even among evangelicals, islamophobia was not about

solving that whether was it from inside the country. islam was a problem that was outside the united states and was either in the form of terrorism or competition was threatening the united states. i would say if you look at president obama's cairo speech, i think arabs and muslims have criticized it at many levels but i think it's great, essentially he officially in cairo without saying so, abandoned islamophobia as the official american policy. that is -- >> that's a powerful statement. >> that's the significance of the cairo speech. he essentially said this about u.s. policy and nonpolitical one u.s. policy on the table, which is called the arab-israeli peace process middle east settlement and i'm not going to do much about it but i'm going to acknowledge that the problem has to do with u.s. foreign policy, and as president, as the head of the u.s. government i'm no longer going to follow this track.

throughout, we can see, this is an administration in which the president doesn't want to use of the term islamic extremism, who suggested preferred using the word that he is to islamic state. that is the stage and varieties of ways. and yet as you say we are back to where we were and more. i think that's partly because it's no longer a foreign policy issue. this is now about other things are happening in europe and the united states. it's about rise of population, population ultimately it has economic roots but it's about culture war. and it goes to the issue of integration, ant integration% is about two things. numbers and assimilation. muslims are a problem on both fronts. the numbers are growing, particularly in europe. that puts him on the radar. and he did not assimilate therefore it appears they did not assembly or are slow to assimilate. the debate of the summer

officially about assimilation. there's a shift. this is not going to go away. if isis is defeated it is not going to go away with u.s. foreign policy. this is now morphed into the whole dynamic of what's happening to american society itself, anger at outsiders, has to deal with what's happening in europe. of course, refugees in syria, beheadings in iraq, those things come bombs going off in paris, brussels, nearly at fuel to the fire. but i think the challenge for muslims is no much, much bigger because this is not about defending activities that are happening over there or it's not really defending their place in american society or european society going forward spent the thing that is interesting, vali, is there's been a poll that

showed off a half of u.s. muslims, 48%, said their own religious leaders have not done, these are u.s. muslims, have not done enough to speak out against extremism. is this part of it? >> i think this idea that muslim leaders have to speak about, i find actually offensive. and the one point of having or everything else that donald tobin said all along that i found particularly offensive was wasted in the last debate about the burden of finding out who's planting a bomb rests on muslims. this is the essentially, it's collective guilt, almost guilty and left proven innocent the the burden is on themselves to prove themselves innocent. also the fact some out if it's a preacher or someone says something, it's sort of, you

count how many preachers have said that, although nobody looks at how do people have given that law. i think the jordanian government gave up a door stopper the number that been given. it does raise one important problem which is maybe muslims are unique as migrant community in that we are not in control of those who interpret our faith, right? they are fitting in in cairo and in riyadh and at different world views and different priorities spill but a lot of muslims say is why can't you see us in the diverse people that we are what we are 1.6 billion people. the fact that you keep on referring to us as one faith is to start with tonight as the diversity of our identities beyond the nationalities, the on the region's, the on our professions. whether i am a mother or an activist for an iraqi or muslim or i am religious or not.

it's complete generalization. so the first thing is we need to individualize the process on the generalized all or some of the. if i generalize all christians as one faith. that's number one. the second thing is a lot of, you cannot generalize muslims. i we talk about the issue in america? in america there are also different kinds of molson's. as an immigrant my identity is very different that an american born and raised person. their point of identity is american. and the decision making reference that they're making whether to wear a headscarf or not to wear a headscarf is radically different. and all of the pillars and foundation of my point of identity assembly was born and raised in iraq, mosul dominate country. so the point of identity is different. second, i did just the start on radicalization france. number one reason i can have these radicals groups are being

recruited is not the mosques. doesn't affect most of the mosques are just taking the formal speech. do good, the well, all the basic tenets of every other religion, do good. it's actually the internet. it's molson 90% or so are being recruited or informal gatherings. so that's disturbing that many muslims are feeling in both america or in europe, and it is it's very different in how they're feeling. in the middle east i was in iraq three weeks ago and they see isis and they see all of that as, all they care about is this is against islam. they are introducing a new terminology, a new description of islam. that is alien to muslims themselves. you know, it's like me saying that kkk is defined all of christianity, which is incorrect that some muslims are feeling. in the middle east and iraq they don't even know what's happening in america.

pages that they are against us. isis is against us as muslims. but muslims being here and in france, they are actually, my finding shows in all of these issues, they are hurt and they are scared. and the ones who are sort of holding that tension is women and it's women who are wearing headscarves. i want to sort of, people are convinced that comforting not even policy or theoretical discussion. this is normal people on a day-to-day level, you encounter and i am encountering who keep on presuming negativity about your come and aspect of their basic identity. it's like i feel as a muslim woman no matter how much i talk about how i grew up, my upbringing, my philosophy, i am still asked what i presume as hurtful and insulting and prejudice questions about my background. no matter how much i say what i

do in my life, i and minimized. so were you compressed -- spin this is an important point for

the audience and for us, which is who is suffering from islamophobia. and what you're bringing out is, if i'm reading you correctly, women and particularly women who wear headscarves, so the victims of islamophobia our first and foremost this group and then again as you look at the 1.6 billion muslims in the welcome only 300 of them are in the middle east by the way, 220 million in indonesia. so is that what you're saying, that this is -- who are those who suffer most from islamophobia? >> in the western world the ones who are suffering the most in my opinion are women who are wearing headscarves as they are symbolic, they are physically different. the assumption of islamophobia, ma people are afraid that if you ask people what are you afraid of, on an average level. the afraid that most of going to impose sharia on america or in france or wherever. when you go back to the muslims, do you have intention of imposing sharia? now, we came to this country because we like the constitution. many muslims don't know what sharia is, just we get that out of the we actually. is not something you grow up thinking about. second, people assume muslim women are oppressed. that's a very mainstream assumption. but then the muslim women are physical or the ones wearing headscarves because it's a physical reminder of difference. but what they're doing is they are all pressing the three women by prejudice and acts of violence, social media files, trying to harass them, throwing beer on them, like violence is

happening in cities, in states like minnesotminnesot a and other places. and so what's happening is sort of a reaction. these women are said no, i'm going to do it as proof that i am not an oppressed woman. but then they are also afraid. there is the retraction of the kindred at large to think we are scared. we are scared. in france muslims are afraid to say i pray. muslims are afraid to say i don't eat pork, because if they say that they're going to be assumed as they are radicalized. >> they have a right to be afraid because again if you look at history, when these of phobias blow up, they've often been succeeded by appalling actions. i didn't get into all this because i am filled with peace and love and compassion. i get into it because i felt a sense of dread, and to begin with the salman rushdie crisis.

i deplored the fatwa, but i was appalled by the way british intellectuals, the greater of the grid, -- out and out denunciation of islam itself. and i said to myself, we've learned nothing in europe since the 1930s. it was precisely this kind of talk where you siphoned off one person and miniaturized their identity in the way you described that made it impossible to sheikh that made it possible for him to do what he did. it was at the end of that decade there were concentration camps again on the outskirts of europe, this time with muslims in them. if these kind of catastrophes happen in places like germany, which was the most enlightened and civilized country in europe a leading player in the enlightenment, in yugoslavia as

we used to call it, where muslims, jews and christians have coexisted amicably for centuries, when none of us can say this can't happen here. and so, they are right to be afraid. and i think we should all be afraid lest we lose our western soul by giving in to these, all the things that we value and that are celebrated in the city, with all your shrines. it's like a holy city of great presidents and scriptures, their words behind them speaking about equality, toleration, pluralism. none of us has helped to those. the british empire certainly didn't hold to any of those, and americans has had its problems, too. but nevertheless, that decision is precious and has never been more important now. and i fear that we are in danger

of losing ourselves, losing our western self. >> minister, you sort of where a couple that's coming to this issue. one of them is having explored interactions, religion and politics as a theoretical person, professor of ethics, policy of religion. but also as a practical person as the turkish minister of state. so give us your thoughts or much of her best far. and perhaps also talk about whether this theme plays a role in anywhere in turkey's role in europe and interaction with its european neighbors. >> i think a danger to start the concept itself. i think it requires the kind of analysis. so it is a multi-dimensional concept begin with. that term is near perhaps from islamophobia. it's 100 years or so, beginning of the 20 centric of a frenchman wrote a book called -- so it was

the view in light of the west. but it became fairly well-known after the persecution pashtun runnymede foundation for trust which had the title islamophobia, a challenge for us all. now it has become more challenging as a matter fact. so it has a multidimensional concept to begin with. it has a psychological, dimension. the word phobia comes from this dimension of the content and secondly, of course, it grows, it deepens in social life so but as a social dimension and also, it has also a visible, political dimension. so we are face-to-face nowadays with the politics of islamophobia. and this is not just one for. this is not just one simple

thing. it's a complicated radical movement which is before us and it requires addressing and it requires to do something. so to begin with of course the term phobia was problematic. some people didn't want to use the word phobia, because a friend of mine says that islamophobia was there long before the term, but invented. so the idea, the thought is as long as the christian muslim relationships. it goes back to the early days of islam because islam is also challenging. but it grew during the middle ages. when you had christians, nowadays you don't really talk about christians but in those

days -- so the roots, the basic roots go back to those days. so it is really a powerful theme coming from history to our day. about 10 years ago, for example, i had the chance to listen to the politicians in all european centers, european countries. the politics was a kind of weak idea rather than a strong political attitude or little idea. but now it has become a very serious political activity. and it, a good benefit in a way for politicians, even for example, the united states for a little bit quiet in terms of islamophobia. it has become a very important

topic in political life as well. so in a way islamophobia requires immediate addressing immediate struggle in order to make it not academic. it was endemic in the european psyche nevertheless. now it has become a kind of academic. it is going to affect all of us, not only the muslims but all of us in every part of the world. what can we do? ..

the importance in the short term and long line as well. secondly you have to be very careful about criticizing religion. it may not be important in one country, saying nasty things about the profit may not important in this part of the world. i don't mean here but in any part of the world because it is important in other parts so you have to be careful. we have to respect the values of other countries, other civilizations. in the life of culture, it is strong in the west and it is the mother and the father as well.

the western culture is the culture and the civilization you are really saying quite a lot apart from not only using a descriptive statement that dogmatic in a way, normative statement as well. for example huntington, very important thing, this western idea of superiority is not scientific, is not moral and is dangerous. one important civilization in the world, he said you know we have -- we have an assumption that everyone is like us. if they are not like us they want to be like us.

if they don't want to be like us they have to be under pressure to be like us or forced to be like us and not just assumptions, this is something we do quite a lot of things, not just an idea but a lot of things. this is nonscientific, not -- the third one, also dangerous. because with us. >> you helped us turn the corner. and provocatively turn the corner to solutions so intercultural education respecting the value of other cultures, the western idea and

western projection of superiority, so let's make this a conversation about throwing out some ideas for specific solutions, how to address this phenomena and and just jump in wherever you like. >> i think i really passionately care about how we talk about it because that is another system as well. the belief system, starts from a belief system, and other systems in our language, so i think changing the language is extremely important. how do we really sincerely talk

about these issues, not without prejudgment, or verify our assumptions, and how to open up the subject. >> the nature of dialogue these buzzwords, how to engage in dialogue but in recent presidential estates there is very little dialogue going on. when people came to talk to socrates they thought they knew what they were talking about but after the relentless questioning, about such crucial matters, at that point, you have

to go back -- at that point you can tell the philosopher you know nothing at all. we are a very efficient society. everybody trying to become an expert. they read some articles or something and they know -- sometimes the things they say are really embarrassing, the depth of ignorance that is involved, to dismantle us and our superiority of realizing how little we know, then we are open to -- let them shake us. >> i think you have to have

patience, not just one or two things or clarification, going to larger political dynamics going on. the education has to be broader, and i think the point is a great deal of time in the community testing -- they went after 9/11 in california, the largest objection they had was to be counted when the axis of evil happened. and islamic superiority. showing the diversity of muslim

culture, the foundation, very important to show the opportunity but more than that you have to separate islamphobia and what is more fundamental, just about opinion and it is a great deal of problems, younger muslims moving up into businesses, government and sectors and the every day pressures they feel when they say what is or is not, where they come from, where their aspirations are. that i