reuters institute at oxford university.l of you, thank you for being a part of the programme, especially those who are joining us at anti—social hours wherever you are in the world. steve, i mentioned your story, it makes sense to start with you. working in hong kong since the 19805 through a pretty amazing passage of history. i mentioned the observer, but you have worked for other outlets as well. how widespread has your work been read and consumed? well, i hate to be somebody to create a surprise at the beginning, but actually more recently i have been working for the opposition, the sunday times, but i did indeed come to hong kong with the observer and i was working for them as well as a number of other outlets. more recently i have been working quite intensively, both on television and radio, for radio television hong kong, which is the public broadcaster, and those programmes have been subject to considerable censorship. i was a columnist for apple daily, which was the only remaining opposition newspaper in hong kong.

meera from the reuters institute. tit for tat was mentioned by amy.ontext to that. yeah, i mean, first of all, i'm in awe of all your reporting and it's being done under incredibly difficult circumstances and thank you for persevering. i think the tit for tat is part of a global trend of weaponising journalism, and journalists are the casualties. so we have leaders in several countries, including the united states and the previous administration in particular, being very openly critical of their own journalists and their own media outlets, as well as foreign ones, casting aspersions on the integrity of journalists, casting aspersions on their political affiliations, implying that they're not independent. and this tit for tat scenario is very, very dangerous because it enables and emboldens leaders around the world, i think, to use visas and work permits as weapons when they're exactly meant to be neutral, impartial, bureaucratic processes that protectjournalism and protect press freedom. it's really very concerning. because back in march, just looking

reuters there'll be no democracy under taliban rule, and that an islamic council will decide on the future role of women. earlier i spoke to professor corri zoli, from syracuse university's forensics and national security institute sharia law is the religious law, divine law of most of them —— muslim faith communities. it is based on the koran. i can say more about the traditions but essentially, islamic law and sharia are practised by many muslim majority communities, states, nations throughout the world. there are over 49 muslim majority nations and many of them have some islamic inspired values in their legal systems. professor, i crew u- their legal systems. professor, i grew up in — their legal systems. professor, i grew up in indonesia - their legal systems. professor, i grew up in indonesia so - their legal systems. professor, i grew up in indonesia so i - their legal systems. professor, i grew up in indonesia so i saw| i grew up in indonesia so i saw that on a daily basis in my everyday life, but is there a hard and soft approach to sharia and how much does culture play a part? different countries have different interpretations?- countries have different interpretations? there is no . uestion interpretat