Please find below a small selection of speeches by Stephen Lewis. Mr. Lewis makes dozens of speeches a year, many of which are not directly related to his role as Chair of the Board of the Stephen Lewis Foundation. This is a small collection of speeches he has made recently about the AIDS epidemic and related issues.
These speeches may be reprinted, distributed, quoted, or copied as long as it is not for commercial use and they are properly sourced.
To browse older speeches, click on a year from the list on the right.
The Power of Advocacy: Fighting for Social Justice
May 23, 2012
Appel Salon, Toronto, Canada
June was a very good friend, an extraordinary talent, and a force of nature—but a force for social change as well, with this abiding commitment to human decency, surrounded by a kind of unflagging activism and principle. It’s reflected in so many ways... In that tremendous journalistic legacy and the books that were written and all of the television shows that were hosted, but of course it’s also reflected in the deeply tangible reality of Jessie’s – now the June Callwood Centre for Young Women – manifesting what was so important to June in her life. It’s reflected in Nellie’s, which is a comfort for women who have suffered oppression from violence, from poverty, and from homelessness. And of course there’s the memorable and existing Casey House, which I’ve been fortunate enough to view and to know a little about because of the relationship to AIDS—a home that began as a hospice, but as things improved along the way is now engaging with the community in remarkable fashion. So everything comes together in this astonishing, collective legacy which June left behind. And I am truly honoured to be a part of things tonight.
The beauty that suffused everything that June did was the beauty and power of advocacy which was tenacious and indefatigable, and therefore to be able to speak under the title of the ‘Power of Advocacy’ gives me pleasure. But I want to do something tonight that I’ve never before done from such a platform. And I feel very self-conscious about it. And I probably wouldn’t have the courage to do it if my wife Michele wasn’t sitting in the front row and radiating courage so that I am gently levitating although you may not have noted it. I want to tell you about what I am now doing, because it speaks to advocacy—I think it speaks to the power of advocacy—but I beg you, in advance, not to see it as an indulgence in egocentricity. I just want to convey to you what I think are some important social justice issues.
I love the Stephen Lewis Foundation. I’m embarrassed that it bears my name. I was extremely unsettled when it was suggested at the outset and I remember phoning David Suzuki to ask him whether or not I should call it the Stephen Lewis Foundation and he said to me (I’m quoting) “It worked for me, Stephen. I don’t see why it shouldn’t work for you.” So I love the Foundation and the work it does. In fact, it speaks to the almost supernatural generosity of Canadians that the Foundation has raised something in the vicinity of $70-$75 million dollars over the course of the last seven or eight years, and dispersed the vast majority of that money to the grassroots community projects—supporting, at any given time, 150-170 projects in 15 countries where AIDS has eviscerated society, community and family. I love what they do and our older daughter Ilana is the Executive Director, and the Grandmothers Campaign – which has captured the imagination of Canada – was her idea, and the excellent staff of the Foundation run it. We who are the Board of Directors are purely nominal. I mean we are so marginal as to be peripheral. We’re so peripheral as to be marginal. We are – by and large – inconsequential. And the Foundation is run by the staff and they do a lovely job. But the Foundation is a classic programme organization, doing food, clothing, shelter, school fees, grandmothers, health, housing. And I’ve lived a life – like Olivia [Chow], like Michele [Landsberg] – of advocacy. That is what grips me. I never want to spend time without attempting to achieve social justice and equality.
So when I finished the work as UN envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, along with a number of colleagues, I truly wanted to maintain the advocacy dimension of that activity. And along with the colleague with whom I’d worked most closely – a woman named Paula Donovan who lives in Boston – we co-founded and co-direct an organization called AIDS Free World. My Executive Assistant and closest colleague Christina McGill is with me here tonight and works closely with me at AIDS Free World. AIDS Free World is quite distinct from the Foundation, but it deals often with the same issues. So when we created this back in 2006/early 2007, let me tell you the things we’ve engaged in to give you a sense of the power of advocacy.
Around the year 2005/2006 – number one – we put forward the idea of the United Nations requiring a new international agency for women. The history of the United Nations in dealing with gender was utterly lamentable. Everybody knew it, but no progress was being made on the front of providing equality for women around the world. It was paltry progress; it was incremental progress; it was insufferably slow. And we desperately wanted to turn things around. And in fact the idea of an international agency was Paula’s idea. And we began to push it forward... I remember including strong reference to it in the Massey Lectures in 2005 and then something happened which was really very interesting—the way things come together in this world. Kofi Annan – then Secretary General of the United Nations – in 2006, said that he was offended by the imbalance in the various boards and commissions that were launched by the United Nations, and from now on he was going to have equal numbers of men and women on all commissions and eminent bodies. And then two weeks later, he appointed something called the “High Level Panel on System-Wide Coherence” in the United Nations with 12 men and three women—a new definition of equality, to which the United Nations is regularly addicted. If you don’t think so, then let me tell you that just a few months ago the present Secretary General of the United Nations appointed a 19-person panel at the highest conceivable levels of public prominence to deal with the distribution of the funds that were being granted to counter climate change in developing countries. They expected to achieve 100 billion dollars, and they wanted to discuss its distribution and there were 19 members on the panel: 19 men. So if you think that these things are accidental or that they learn, there is such an obstructive gene in the cerebrum of these nitwits that I can barely stand it.
So we decided we would fight for a new international agency for women and along came this new international panel on system-wide coherence and we decided that was the moment to strike and we began to say publicly – as AIDS Free World – as this vigorous and aggressive and principled and uncompromising group of 10 or 11 people working virtually (San Francisco, Boston, New York, Toronto, Jamaica) – we settled in and began to make the point publicly that it was crazy to be looking at the panorama of activity within the United Nations without having some focus on gender. And gender was not on the agenda at the time. And the advocacy consisted of writing. Paula wrote a searing tract called “Gender Equality: Now or Never,” analysing the activities of the UN and I began making contact with every single one of the 15 members on the high level panel. And when I hadn’t met them personally (I was lucky enough to know a number of them) I used intermediaries. I didn’t know the representative from Japan—I got in touch with Mrs. Ogata who had just been head of the United Nations Commission on Refugees. I couldn’t reach the Prime Minister of Norway; he was constantly elusive—I got hold of Gro Harlem Brundtland, the previous Prime Minister of Norway, and made sure the position was put. We turned up everywhere and gradually – and this was of course of ultimate significance – a great many women’s groups came to the struggle. And all around the world, at some point, significantly eclipsing our own small interventions, there came this determined effort to get a women’s agency. And everybody laughed at us. The idea that the United Nations would create a new agency more than sixty years after it was founded was ludicrous. But the panel was lobbied into the ground. And lo and behold – to everyone’s astonishment – the panel, which didn’t even have it on its agenda, said there should be an international agency for women. And then (that was in about 2008/2009) then there began the process of attempting to lobby governments to embrace the recommendation that had been made. And that meant seeing every single ambassador from various countries, to the United Nations, persuading them of the legitimacy, getting them to write their capitals, keeping the pressure on. The point about advocacy is that you make your point and then tenaciously you never stop lobbying. You drive them mercilessly until they capitulate just to get rid of you. And by and large it works. It certainly works in election campaigns when you’re knocking on doors and people say: “Oh for God’s sake I’ll vote for you. Just leave us alone.” So it was an interesting process and we came to the crunch... when the discussion ranged over who would head this new agency—who would be the Undersecretary General. And a number of perfectly reasonable, but basically non-descript candidates were put forward and then suddenly—my God it was good fortune—along came the former president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet: a wonderful, socialist feminist, who said that having retired from political life (she had served one term and was not permitted to serve more than one) she would take on the role of Undersecretary General. So now it was last February 24th I remember I was sitting in the General Assembly of the United Nations and I have to say I was choked up; I was so excited. Because you know we have an agency for children (UNICEF) we have an agency for food, we have an agency for labour, we have an agency for health, we have an agency for AIDS, we have an agency for everything except for 50% of the world’s population. And it felt so good to break through and it was important to us from the HIV/AIDS point of view because obviously if you put a strong agency together with women on the ground then the possibilities of doing something around AIDS by which women are disproportionately affected and from which they’re disproportionately infected would make a great difference.
So on February 24th last year, UN Women – as it’s called – came to life. They call it UN Women because they are tremendously creative in the choice of appellations. And now they have between two and three hundred million dollars this year. We’re moving towards a billion dollars a year in 2015... and women all over the world in developing countries who’ve never had voice or resources will suddenly have some of both and it is just exhilarating to think of what you can achieve just by being damnably tenacious about it when you’ve got a good idea for social justice.
The second thing that we then moved into as a group occurred in 2008 when we were at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City. And a fascinating little NGO called the Girl Child network in Zimbabwe came to us and begged us to intervene because in the elections in Zimbabwe in 2008 – one of which was held March, one of which was held in June – between the elections, Mugabe had unleashed his youth core and his war veterans to rape women solely and exclusively because they supported the opposition party. There was no other rationale. And the raping was extensive and terrifying. And they said to us: We know you’ll take it on. We don’t want to do this in a casual way with one news story or one press conference. We want to do it more seriously. Can you suggest what we should do? And we got together and agreed that in this instance we would actually go in and take affidavits. We would find the women who had been raped and take affidavits and assemble a dossier which we felt would undoubtedly amount to crimes against humanity and then see if we could get some of Mugabe’s thugs and colleagues before the courts in South Africa, because they’re constantly coming into South Africa and I’ll explain that in a moment. There is a vehicle through which you can prosecute in another country. (Just as we prosecute Rwandan war criminals because we have something called universal jurisdiction which means that we have domesticated the international criminal court statute—we have brought it into Canada and made it applicable here if we choose to pursue the legislation.) So South Africa is the one country in Africa that has done that.
So we got two very distinguished law firms – one Canadian and one American – and we made six separate trips to Africa: to Botswana and South Africa. We secreted the women out of Zimbabwe, and we took the affidavits of over 70 women. We could have taken many more, but we had a panorama of representative sexual violence from across the country. And the patterns were absolutely repetitive everywhere. Gangs of young thugs raising clubs would gather outside a home. They’d chant, they’d cheer, they’d sing. They’d break into the home. They would either kill or beat the partner. They would rape the woman in the presence of her children. They would rape some of the young girls. They would take the woman to literally a rape camp and keep her there for two or three weeks, applying gang rapes on a continuing basis. They screamed abuse at the women. They said things like, “Tell this to Tony Blair.” “Tell this to George Bush.” They actually were that specific. And in every single instance, the women were organizers for the opposition party, or married to organizers or candidates for the opposition party, or activists in the opposition party. It was all opposition-related. And we felt we had indeed compiled a dossier that we could pursue under crimes against humanity.
The women were destroyed. The raping was so foul and so brutal and so savage – politically-orchestrated rape – that it is beyond the telling. And we were absolutely determined to do something because the women would say to us, “We want justice. That’s all we have left. We want justice.”
It’s very hard to get justice in the slow-moving apparatus of the courts, particularly when you have a country like South Africa, which for the longest time indeed even today – is resistant to moving in on Mugabe because of the crazy relationships that exist among some of the countries. (Although there’s more and more impatience with Mugabe and his behaviour in Zimbabwe and the way in which he has destroyed the country.) But we decided to pursue this in a very serious manner. So we took our dossier before the leading lawyer dealing with what is called the National Prosecuting Authority in South Africa – the NPA – to which such submissions are made. And we took it to the lawyer and he said, “You’ve got an unassailable case; by all means pursue it.” But the National Prosecuting Authority wouldn’t hear it and we decided we should take it (this was back in 2009) because another case against Mugabe involving torture had been brought to the National Prosecuting Authority in South Africa and they had refused to hear it and it was under appeal and it was taking forever because there was government intervention and there was police obstruction and the National Prosecuting Authority internally was divided... but you hang in, because you’ve got to get justice for those women. I just can’t describe the women to you. The affidavits sometimes took seven or eight hours. We put it all together in a report. If you go to the website – aidsfreeworld.org – you’ll find it. We called it “Sexual Terror in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.” And I think that what happened to the women was almost indescribable. So we decided we would never give up. And I want to tell you, it’s just so interesting that this week the high court of Johannesburg to whom the appeal had been made, rendered a verdict in the torture case against the National Prosecuting Authority. It’s a hundred page decision – a most extraordinarily unequivocal decision – saying that the police, the government of South Africa, and the National Prosecuting Authority itself had failed to execute the legislation that existed. We know that’ll be appealed again to the Supreme Court in South Africa, and after that to the Constitutional Court in South Africa. But now that we have a case which the National Prosecuting Authority has lost, we will very carefully and quickly submit our own case on rape in Zimbabwe. We know now we’re part of the mix. We will submit an amicus brief to the higher levels when the torture case proceeds. It just feels like – by God – we’re not going to let some of them off the hook. That when they venture – these corroborators and predators and rapists whose names we know – that when they venture into South Africa, it will be possible to bring them before a court of law. It’ll take another year or two, but it just doesn’t matter; we’re going to give those women a sense of justice.
And then after Zimbabwe, we got pulled into the Congo, which is without question the worst place in the world for women—where, since 1994 after the Rwandan genocide, multiple militias have wandered through the Congo, creating havoc and engaging in patterns of sexual violence which are absolutely a nightmare. There was one report at one point just last year of a thousand women being raped every day in the Eastern region of the Congo. And I’ve visited the Eastern region and spent time in the Congo and in the Eastern region in the south Kivu part of the region there is a little capital called Bukavu. And in Bukavu there is a little hospital called the Panzi Hospital, headed by an astonishingly gifted and principled surgeon whose name is Denis Mukwege. And he and his colleague surgeons – few in number – spend a good part of their time surgically repairing the reproductive tracts of the women. And it’s just terrifying to think that this is a pattern. And although the International Criminal Court – as you may have read – finally found guilty a leader of one of the worst militias, he was found guilty and had been indicted of crimes against humanity around child soldiers. They found it difficult to prove the rapes because women will not come forward when they have been raped. So then we went to Kenya and to Liberia to begin to try to understand why wouldn’t women come forward so that you can prosecute the rapist and begin to overcome the culture of impunity. And in Kenya, which had a terrible outbreak of sexual violence after their elections in 2007/2008, we met with 20 or 30 women’s groups, all of whom said, “We’d like to start the process of getting the rapists before the courts so you could change the culture of impunity and give women a sense of some justice that we could break this pattern of congenital, endemic raping—whether pre-conflict, or post-conflict, or politically-orchestrated, or generally within the society.” And there we started talking to them about safe houses... about women coming forward and witnesses coming forward and having safe houses which would allow the prosecution to proceed. And then we went to Liberia, where we had the first ever woman president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf who, shortly after she was president, created a rape court—the first in Africa. Because the raping – you just read about the indictment of George Taylor, who will be sentenced later this month – the raping that occurred during the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone was just ghastly. And Ellen Johnson Sirleaf wanted to send a message so she set up a separate court and not many women are coming forward to the court. And it’s particularly appalling in Liberia because after the civil conflict was over, the raping continued, but it was focused on young girls between the ages of eight and twelve.
I visited with Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. We had, for two years, served together on a panel investigating the genocide in Rwanda so we were friends. And I said to her, “As president, Ellen, what are you going to do about this?” And she said, “Stephen, I don’t know. I’m gathering together some of the best front-line women in the world on International Women’s Day and we’re going to try to find out how to handle it.” And gradually there emerged for us, from our work in Zimbabwe and the Congo and Kenya and Liberia, there emerged for us the need to answer the question: Why don’t the women report the rapes? And we put it under the rubric of: Know your epidemic of rape. And Paula, again, who has particular skill in these areas, drafted a fascinating prospectus which we’re using to raise some money because you see, it’s both fascinating and unnerving to recognize the reasons.
In Liberia, the reasons women weren’t coming forward were primarily because (A) the police didn’t have petrol for their motor scooters to go into the villages and collect evidence, or (B) the women didn’t want to go into Monrovia in case the trial lasted two days—where would they sleep overnight? They certainly had no money for however downtrodden the hotel. Or (C) what if you had a trial during the harvest period and the women are doing the harvest, how could they possibly go to a trial when they needed the food both for their families and for sale? And when we were in Kenya, it all had to do with the doctors who were not prepared to do an examination, or the police who would not give them woman the form she had to fill out in order to claim sexual violence. So everywhere you looked there was a cascading series of reasons which, were they to be confronted and overcome, might – I’m not being definitive about it – might open the door to actual trials and actual convictions, and begin to reduce the culture of impunity. So under that broad heading of ending the epidemic or knowing your epidemic of rape, we’re in the process of setting in place a research apparatus for six or eight sites in countries ranging from politically-orchestrated rape to the rape that occurs around extractive industries around mining sites... and see if we can find a way of breaking that monolith of obstruction that prevents women from getting justice.
I have to say – and I have been influenced so hugely by Michele in this that I can’t say it strongly enough – I believe that the single most important struggle on the planet is the struggle for gender equality. Nothing comes close to it. And to watch the absence of gender equality destroying women’s lives is the most heartbreaking and unconscionable and insufferable reality that I’ve witnessed.
And then the third thing that we then got involved in was something called the Mac AIDS Foundation came to us. You may know Mac AIDS. They sell the lipstick Viva Glam, which I hope all of you that apply lipstick will hereafter purchase. Every penny that Viva Glam raises goes to work on HIV and AIDS. And now that Lady Gaga has announced that she’s using Viva Glam, suddenly what began, when we started with Mac AIDS as a 12-13 million dollar/year proposition, has become a 60 million dollar a year proposition, I assume all purchased by Lady Gaga herself.
And I think it’s important to know that there are these idiosyncratic outfits out there that do good work. And so Mac AIDS came to us and said, “AIDS Free World, we know you’re small but you seem to be approachable and determined. Would you do something about homophobia in the Caribbean?” And they made of course the exact connection that the homophobia in the Caribbean drives men who have sex with men underground. They don’t get tested or treated, there’s no prevention, sex is furtive and anxious... and then you look at the rates of infection and they’re very high. In Jamaica, the rate of infection of HIV in the general population is 1.6%. In the gay male population, it’s 32%. So obviously something has to be done to overcome the intense anti-homosexuality of the society. So we decided to work on Jamaica first because, to be frank, I’ve never seen such a homophobic society.
I went to Jamaica and did a number of radio programmes and I felt relieved that I was leaving with my life in tact because it was so brutal. And we decided on a two-pronged strategy in our advocacy. One prong would be to deal with the culture—the prevailing social and cultural attitudes. And the second prong would be legal. And that would constitute an advocacy package. So we started softening up the culture. We started doing public service announcements, letters to the editor, debates with the fundamentalist right wing, demonstrations outside appropriate buildings, handing out of material, getting people to realize that we were fighting for tolerance in a society where a recent survey had shown that 80% of the population self-identified as homophobic. So that’s a fairly high mountain to climb. And we were determined and we kept at it. And we hired a remarkably talented gay lawyer in Jamaica named Maurice Tomlinson who has now established an international reputation and has been working now – not only in Jamaica – but they’re doing training on documentation and bringing evidence together in St. Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago and we’re supporting a cross-dressing case in Belize and doing some work in Guyana and it’s really fascinating, but Jamaica was the target.
And then we did something that gives me great pleasure: We launched the first ever case against the Jamaican anti-homosexuality law before the inter-American Commission on Human Rights. And if in fact it is heard (as seems to be the case) I think we will win and I think that will have significant reverberations across the Caribbean, let alone in terms of overturning the legislation in Jamaica. But then something happened which sort of took my breath away. There was an election in Jamaica in December. And the party in power and the prime minister had been extremely homophobic. In fact the prime minister on the British programme Hard Talk said under no circumstances would he ever have a gay man in his cabinet. Ever. Publicly. Unequivocally. So it was difficult under those circumstances...
But the woman who headed the official opposition at the time said publicly that she would allow a free vote on the sodomy laws as they’re called in Jamaica. And the last ten days of the campaign were consumed by a discussion of homosexuality. It was most extraordinary that a country’s electoral process would deal with an LGBT issue of that import. And everybody expected the opposition to be clobbered. And instead the government was routed and the opposition came to power. And it was very exciting. And it has often been said that the work which Maurice and others did in softening up the culture and attempting to change attitudes and working in all these fronts simultaneously helped to deliver a blow to the outgoing party which had—their attitudes around men who have sex with men and sex workers and injecting drug users—the attitudes were crypto-fascist, frankly. They were just absolutely unacceptable in every respect. So that felt extremely good.
So we have the women’s agency. We have sexual violence. We have questions of homophobia (which we’re now hoping to introduce that particular two-pronged strategy into some countries in Africa where the anti-homosexuality stuff is running riot). And then, number four is the question of disabilities.
One of the most upsetting things when I was the envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa is the people who would come to you—deaf, blind, wheelchair-bound, desperate for some protection because they were so vulnerable to sexual violence. And nobody responded. I mean they were on the margins of the margins. They were the vulnerable group who was always seen as expendable. And I have to say that I didn’t respond. To this day I can’t forgive myself. You know, I make the rationalization (and I suppose it has some legitimacy)... at the time we were so consumed by death everywhere. Everywhere you turned people were dying. Countries were graveyards. The only businesses that were flourishing were funeral parlours. It was just awful. So segmenting certain groups of the population and responding to them—I just didn’t get around to it. But when the envoy ended, my colleagues and I determined that by God, we would deal with this question of disabilities. So at the International AIDS Conference in Mexico in 2008, we had a townhall, bringing disabled people from around the world and a number of other people involved in AIDS and we managed to work on the intersection of AIDS and disabilities. We don’t assume that these changes will emancipate people in these situations. I mean if you get rid of the sodomy—the anti-homosexuality laws in Jamaica, that’s just the first step to creating a free and open society for LGBT populations. You’ve got to reach the stage where the president of the United States talks comfortably about gay marriage and then you know you’re making some progress—it takes time. But on disabilities we had a tremendous open forum. It was quite inspiringly moderated by a young fellow named Avi Lewis. (Nepotism in my family knows no limits.) And it made quite an impact. But what many people realized at the time is that there weren’t even ramps to get people onto the stage. You had to lift wheelchairs, or have been in wheelchairs speaking from the floor rather than the platform. And the sign language interpretation which had to be very sophisticated because the sign language is often different in Kenya, Mexico the United States—American sign language is not universal. So there was a lot of orchestration involved and we didn’t pull it off, but in Vienna in 2010 we had a couple of major sessions on AIDS and disability and had made tremendous advances – to the credit of the International AIDS Society – on all of the access questions. And then this year, at the International AIDS Conference in Washington, we’re going even further. We are having a whole-day session on the eve of the Conference, bringing in young disabled people for a whole-day session on advocacy... on how they can advance their own positions. We’re holding it at Gallaudet University for the Deaf which is a wonderful university in Washington and then the young, disabled people – men and women – will be integrated into the Conference itself in a way which gives them the kind of equal status that they haven’t had before. And these things, as I say, they always take time, but it is so refreshing when you make some progress.
And then finally on this side of things... AIDS Free World is an avowedly, unabashed, feminist organization. We work from a feminist analysis. We work most strongly around women and women’s issues. And we started to work on vertical transmission—that is the transmission of the virus from mother to child during pregnancy, birth or breastfeeding. And again my co-director and colleagues with her were aghast at the claims that were being made by the United Nations agencies and the inadequate nature of the responses, and the sometime reckless nature of the responses. So on three separate occasions now, we have backed the United Nations into a corner such that the WHO, UNAIDS, and UNICEF have had to withdraw initiatives they’ve taken because those initiatives imperilled the life of the mother of the child or the initiatives were poorly fashioned or designed or the initiatives required significant amendment before they could be applied. And I say that with some pride because nobody takes on the United Nations. You know, it’s sacrosanct. You dare not criticize the agencies. But we love taking on the agencies. We are experts in alienation. I think it’s probably fair to say that we don’t have a friend left in the entire UN system and – if possible, by the end – we won’t have a friend left on the planet. And we don’t care. But we are determined, when we see an issue, to engage in the advocacy that can make it surrender. And all of these areas are tremendously important because they involve human survival. And I’ve learned that one should never give up. You know, you wake up one morning as Jack [Layton] did and you have 103 seats. It’s phenomenal – when you are tenacious and determined and principled – what can happen as the pendulum swings. So I’m filled with kind of spirited enthusiasm about the struggles in this world. You get beaten up, you get bashed, and you lose many of them. But you grit your teeth and you keep on fighting. And it becomes perilous, ominous and deeply important that we mount the battle. I did want to give you a sense of the advocacy that I’m engaged in at the moment, but more important—the way in which advocacy can bring hope and life to people. The way in which it can be undaunted. The way in which, when principled and uncompromising, it can actual move things forward. And one should never be oppressed or depressed by the occasional defeat. Just be enlivened by it. When you’re defeated, grit your teeth and take it forward. Thank you for having me.