Juno News - May 19, 2023


Where is Woke Ideology going? | feat. Joanna Williams


Episode Stats


Length

28 minutes

Words per minute

162.43149

Word count

4,564

Sentence count

169

Harmful content

Misogyny

9

sentences flagged

Toxicity

3

sentences flagged

Hate speech

9

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Joanna Williams is a weekly columnist for the online magazine Spiked and writes regularly for numerous other publications, including The Times, The Spectator, and The Telegraph. She s also author of the book How Woke Won: The Elitist Movement That Threatens Democracy, Tolerance, and Reason. Joanna was in the news here in Canada recently as she was due to speak at a public lecture organized by the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship on issues of gender identity and censorship. But the library canceled her event, thus exemplifying the concerns she raises in her book.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hi, everybody. Welcome to the Rupa Subramania show. I am Rupa Subramania. My guest today
00:00:21.440 is Joanna Williams. She's founder and director of the British think tank CHEO, which in Latin
00:00:27.900 means to ignite, to spark, and to set in motion. Joanna is a weekly columnist for the online
00:00:34.420 magazine Spiked and writes regularly for numerous other publications, including The Times, The
00:00:41.080 Spectator, and The Telegraph. She's also author of the book How Woke Won, The Elitist Movement
00:00:47.640 That Threatens Democracy, Tolerance, and Reason. Joanna was in the news here in Canada recently
00:00:53.740 as she was due to speak at a public lecture organized by Canada's Society for Academic
00:00:59.580 Freedom and Scholarship on issues of gender identity and censorship. She was due to speak
00:01:05.880 at the taxpayer-funded London Public Library in Ontario. But the library canceled her event,
00:01:12.820 thus exemplifying the concerns she raises in her book. The event is now scheduled for another
00:01:19.080 venue. To talk about toxic woke politics, why her lecture in London, Ontario was canceled,
00:01:25.920 and her recent book, please welcome Joanna to the show. Welcome to the show, Joanna. It's great
00:01:32.800 to have you here with me. And I want to start by asking you to explain the circumstances behind
00:01:42.060 why your talk at London Public Library was canceled. What was your talk about? And if you could just
00:01:49.780 walk us through what happened? So it's the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship here in Canada
00:01:56.920 that's hosting their annual lecture. And they very kindly asked me to come along and be the keynote
00:02:03.600 speaker for this year's event. And I was thinking about academic freedom and what you can and can't say
00:02:09.840 nowadays, particularly on a university campus, but I think in society more broadly. And it seems to me
00:02:15.020 that the number one topic that is off limits for free speech is to do with sex and gender. Certain
00:02:23.600 things that have become real taboos that you just can't say nowadays. So to say a woman is an adult human 0.91
00:02:29.680 female, for example, to say that there's no such thing as a transgender child. I mean, it seems to me 0.86
00:02:35.320 that this has become a kind of modern day blasphemy. You know, these are things that you just must not be
00:02:40.820 allowed to say. So it seems like a good idea, if you're talking about free speech, if you're talking
00:02:46.780 about academic freedom, to actually let's have a discussion about where the limits are nowadays. So
00:02:52.360 that's why I proposed the title of my talk should be sex, gender, and the limits of free speech.
00:02:57.100 Traditionally, this talk is held at the public library, because it's aimed to get a bigger audience than just
00:03:04.380 university students and professors. And to me, this seems like such an important idea, fundamental
00:03:11.100 to democracy, that you've got a taxpayer funded library, universities, which are also heavily
00:03:17.640 subsidised. And you want to, you should, I think, want to bring debates out to the public to involve
00:03:23.340 more layers of people in a debate. But London University, London Public Library, sorry, clearly
00:03:30.220 didn't see it that way. And they wanted background information about me, they wanted a transcript of
00:03:36.460 what I was going to say. And having run various background checks, having pushed this through their
00:03:42.460 committees, they clearly decided that I wasn't a suitable speaker. And the Society for Academic
00:03:47.980 Freedom and Scholarship couldn't host their annual lecture at the library.
00:03:51.160 Incredible. And did they tell you why you were your talk was being cancelled? Why they were not
00:04:00.120 going to give you that space?
00:04:01.880 Well, they have done, but it's annoying, because they do these things in very cowardly ways. I think,
00:04:09.320 I think if they were really, truly confident of the moral ground that they were taking, I think they
00:04:14.600 would be very open about the reasons. Whereas these people, they tend to obfuscate behind bureaucracy,
00:04:21.720 behind policies, and they'll point to various policy documents that they think you're breaching,
00:04:27.160 which is really their way of saying, you know, of not saying we've made a political decision that we
00:04:33.080 don't like these views, they'll refer you to policy document, a subsection B, you know, bullet point 10.
00:04:41.320 And basically, they're trying to accuse me of being dangerous, potentially, a risk of physical
00:04:47.560 violence, they say, and also sexual harassment, which kind of really takes the biscuit, you know,
00:04:53.640 well, all of them, I find utterly bizarre. I mean, in my day to day life, you know, I'm a middle aged mum
00:05:00.680 of three, you know, I, I'm an ex academic myself, I write books and papers, the idea that I pose a
00:05:07.560 physical threat to people, you know, it's kind of laughable. So serious.
00:05:13.480 No, it is. And, you know, we chatted a bit before we started recording, and this is your first time
00:05:18.680 in Canada. And so it's unfortunate that this was your experience, your your initial experience with
00:05:25.560 the country. And we'll get to that a little later, because I really want to talk about,
00:05:30.600 you know, how Canada stacks up against the UK, for example, or even Western Europe, for that matter,
00:05:39.400 in terms of cancel culture and wokeism, we'll get to that in a bit. But you wrote in your spiked column.
00:05:44.840 So you're also weekly columnist for spiked online, I've had the great pleasure of writing for them as
00:05:50.440 well, once and, and, you know, a publication I grew up reading, actually. And, and you, you know,
00:05:58.200 you've been warning about censorship, and, and you just got censored. And, you know, how deeply ironic is
00:06:05.080 that, and that too, at a public library of all places, which should be a venue for open debate. But
00:06:11.720 clearly, that wasn't the case here. What, what does this, what does this event tell us about
00:06:17.160 where we are at right now, the state of these culture wars?
00:06:22.120 Yeah, I mean, again, I think this is something that is disguised by this hiding behind policies,
00:06:29.160 that this is actually a very political decision. I mean, it really is, as far as I'm concerned,
00:06:33.720 a culture wars decision that's been made here. And I think anybody who doubts that needs only to look
00:06:41.720 at the fact that this very, very same library, the London Public Library, they host drag queen
00:06:48.360 story hours, you know, they're very, very happy to run events like that, where a drag queen comes in, 1.00
00:06:55.160 and I would argue, essentially preachers gender ideology to children who are far too young to be
00:07:01.720 able to offer a reasoned critique, or even know what it is they're being subjected to. Now, I could
00:07:08.520 understand, I wouldn't agree, but I could understand if a public library said we're funded by taxpayers,
00:07:14.680 we think it's important to remain politically neutral. So we're not going to get involved.
00:07:19.160 So they would say no to me. And they would also say no to the drag queens, you know, and I wouldn't 0.99
00:07:25.160 agree with that, I think, in the interest of free speech and facilitating debate, they should have these
00:07:29.880 people there. But I would agree with it, you know, I could understand why you could make such a claim.
00:07:35.960 I think either you say if you're a taxpayer funded public body, you either say political neutrality
00:07:41.640 means no one is speaking, or you say everyone is speaking, and everyone has equal rights to speak,
00:07:48.280 you know, the drag queen can have an hour, I can have an hour. Whereas instead by saying the drag queens 1.00
00:07:53.640 can speak, they can talk about gender ideology, but I can't talk about sex based rights and censorship.
00:08:00.280 They're essentially taking a side in what is a very heated, I would say probably the most important
00:08:08.200 debate of our time, the library is very publicly taking one side of that debate. And not only are
00:08:15.880 they taking one side, but they're kind of trying to pretend that they're not by just resorting to
00:08:21.320 pointing up policies and documents. So it's cowardly, and it's biased, and it's one sided. And it's very
00:08:27.560 definitely the culture wars. But as always, the people who, who I think launched the culture wars,
00:08:34.200 they then sit back and deny that they're doing any such thing.
00:08:37.560 Yeah, I mean, this is a perfect segue, actually, to talk about your book, which I, you know, I've just
00:08:43.080 started reading it. And, you know, and I want you, I would like you to tell us about the impetus behind
00:08:50.760 your book, How Woke Won, The Elitist Movement That Threatens Democracy, Tolerance and Reason. 0.77
00:08:56.520 I'd like everyone listening to get your, get a copy of the book. It really is, you know, quite,
00:09:03.080 quite the, quite a riveting, riveting read so far. What is the main argument you're making in the book,
00:09:09.320 Joanna? And why do you think this book was necessary?
00:09:12.040 Yeah, so the argument I wanted to make was really just point out how pervasive this woke thinking is
00:09:20.440 now amongst an elite section of our society. So I think this is the case really across the globe,
00:09:27.800 that the people who are most powerful in our cultural institutions, so across the media, across
00:09:35.080 universities, schools, libraries, we now see museums, art galleries, all the cultural
00:09:41.480 institutions in our society, they've been essentially captured by a group of people who all share the
00:09:47.880 same political outlook. And it's this very elitist, but very kind of backward, I think very regressive
00:09:56.520 ideology that tries to present itself as being just a kind of nice variation on political correctness.
00:10:04.680 But it's actually anything but, you know, my big concern about some of these movements
00:10:10.040 is that it's actually rehabilitating sexism, racism, homophobia, you know, all of these
00:10:17.960 things that I've been involved in fighting against all my life, and now coming back under this kind of
00:10:26.440 guise of niceness and kindness. And they're coming back with the people who are running these
00:10:33.160 institutions, who are then ruling out all debate and all discussion on what it is that they're actually
00:10:38.520 doing. And I kind of wanted to write a book just to expose what's going on, trying to point out some
00:10:44.920 of the people in charge themselves, look, you are in a powerful position, because don't they try to deny
00:10:49.960 it, I think they often try to present themselves as victims, when they're actually very powerful people,
00:10:56.360 and try and point out some of the problems with this ideology that has become so dominant in our society.
00:11:03.560 Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, as you point out, you know, it's one of the deep ironies is that,
00:11:11.560 you know, of the people who are putting out this woke agenda out there, you know, are some of the most
00:11:17.960 privileged members of society, whether they're in politics, culture, academia, or business. And I believe in
00:11:27.480 your book, you say that this is a way for them to insulate their privilege, while appearing virtuous. Can you
00:11:34.760 explain? Can you explain how this works exactly?
00:11:38.200 Well, I mean, just thinking of an example off the top of my head, so walking around in Toronto today,
00:11:43.800 you know, I was a bit lost and found myself in the financial district. And the only way I knew it was the
00:11:50.200 financial district is because the lampposts have got little flags, which kind of tell you, you know,
00:11:55.000 this is the financial district. The reason why I only knew because of that was because the windows
00:12:01.320 of all of the kind of bank fronts, the financial centers, shop fronts, if you like, are all covered
00:12:08.040 in rainbow flags. You know, so clearly that everyone's gearing up for Pride Month. And these are,
00:12:15.560 you know, forget even culture for the time being, you know, these are the financial, this is the
00:12:20.360 financial district. These are economically, incredibly powerful, wealthy institutions,
00:12:27.480 employing high paid, wealthy, elite people. And they're absolutely bedecked, not just in rainbow flags,
00:12:35.000 but you know, it's the kind of the pink and the blue and the brown to be the kind of the ultra,
00:12:39.560 ultra inclusive pride flag. And you just think, you know, if this movement was truly radical,
00:12:48.360 if it was something that was truly going to upturn the kind of present social status quo,
00:12:57.400 it wouldn't be being adopted by banks and elite institutions. And it wouldn't be so readily and so
00:13:04.200 easily taken on board by all these elite institutions. And the fact that that they can take this on board so
00:13:11.000 so easily so and so desperate, almost to be seen to be having these rainbow flags and to be bedecking 0.76
00:13:18.520 themselves in this sets alarm balls ringing with me and it says this is not all it's cracked up to be.
00:13:24.040 So why this issue? Why is much of the Western world, and especially here in Canada and in the US,
00:13:35.880 you know, what is it about this particular issue about trans, the trans agenda that has gotten every,
00:13:44.280 you know, every one of these elite institutions on board? Why are people so passionate about it when
00:13:50.600 there's tons of other things that you could be fighting for? You know, there are so many legitimate
00:13:57.000 issues out there that require attention. But why this? I just, I've been trying to grapple with this
00:14:05.880 question and I'm really, I don't really have an answer to it. No, I agree. I mean, I think it's a
00:14:12.760 really fundamental question. And I wish I could say I had the definitive answer. I'd be lying if I said I
00:14:19.720 do, but I think for me, you know, it gets to the most fundamental premise about what makes us human
00:14:29.640 and on the basis on which we structure our society. So what I mean by that is that being kind of male
00:14:36.920 or female is absolutely the most fundamental characteristic that cuts across social class, 1.00
00:14:43.160 it cuts across racial lines, you know, it cuts across every other part of our identity. You know,
00:14:49.880 it's something that parents often learn when, you know, the mum's still pregnant, you know,
00:14:55.160 it's the first thing that the doctor says when we appear in the world. So, you know, it's absolutely
00:15:00.440 the most crucial thing as to what makes us human. And beyond that, it forms the basis for how we organize
00:15:07.240 society. You know, a lot of civilized societies have kind of girls toilets and boys toilets in schools,
00:15:13.800 you know, changing rooms, prisons, hospitals are often segregated along sex based lines. 0.98
00:15:22.840 But also it gets to the very heart of a family life, you know, families are still,
00:15:29.000 and probably be criticized for saying this, but it's just a truth that families are still most often
00:15:36.360 a male and a female parent, and they raise children acting as mum and dad become role models for the
00:15:43.640 children become sex based role models, you know, daughters kind of grow up seeing mum and emulating
00:15:49.480 mum, boys grow up seeing dad doesn't mean obviously they become carbon copies. But this is this is the
00:15:55.480 most fundamental part I think of what makes us human of how we organize society, how we organize
00:16:00.760 family life. So I think if you've got some kind of political project, which wants to completely
00:16:05.880 upturn everything we take for granted about humanity, about society, you know, you really want to kind
00:16:12.920 of have a blank piece of paper and start from scratch, then actually going for what we mean by human sex
00:16:19.640 is not a bad place to start from their point of view. And, you know, that I think that's probably one
00:16:26.520 reason why this has become such a central issue.
00:16:31.480 And that too, really in the West, right, and even within the Western world, it's a few countries,
00:16:40.280 you know, and so I wonder what's happening, like, you know, if you take countries like India or China,
00:16:46.680 China, is this is this issue really resonating there in the same way? I mean, they're not
00:16:51.240 are these cultural wars taking place? They're not to my knowledge. And but this is all we seem to be
00:16:57.320 talking about here, especially here in Canada. So is there something happening here that is uniquely
00:17:03.960 different in terms of identity, maybe lack of institutions, maybe I, you know, I'm just trying
00:17:12.200 to come up with, you know, some explanation for why it's so big here and not as big outside the Western
00:17:19.240 world? I mean, I think people like say who want to challenge the family want to challenge the social
00:17:25.400 structures that we have have latched on to this issue. And I think in them doing that, it's become
00:17:31.480 almost a litmus test, it seems to me. So where you stand on this particular issue, really says the extent
00:17:39.960 to which you are old fashioned, you could be written off as old fashioned for still saying
00:17:44.440 you believe that a woman is a biological human female. You know, it's, are you with us? Or are 0.59
00:17:52.120 you against us? And this becomes the ultimate test, it seems to me for where you stand, not just on on
00:18:00.600 this particular issue, but across a whole range of issues, it becomes a kind of sorting hat, you know,
00:18:07.080 for which side of this culture war you land upon. And you can see it also becomes a way of compelling
00:18:17.080 people to fall in line. So again, something else I noticed just walking around Toronto today,
00:18:21.400 in the public in the station, and many of the public places, they have sculptures or artworks,
00:18:28.360 and then they have a little piece of writing about the artist. And they always say, you know,
00:18:32.520 the person's name, and then immediately in brackets afterwards, she, her. And I've not noticed that in
00:18:37.960 England quite so much, but I definitely noticed it in Toronto. You know, and I think, again, it's,
00:18:45.480 it's this test that you, you go along with you subscribing, you can use it then to compel, you
00:18:51.640 know, bosses can use it to compel workers, you know, you must display your pronouns on a badge,
00:18:57.640 you must put your pronouns in your signature, which sends a message that, you know, you can't assume
00:19:03.080 someone's gender, they have to fall in line with this. And it would be, you know, it would be 0.98
00:19:09.000 unthinkable for a boss to compel their workers to wear a crucifix, for example, or to have to wear a
00:19:16.200 turban or some other kind of religious symbol. And yet, it's seen as quite legitimate for bosses to
00:19:21.800 compel workers to have to wear a pronoun badge or include pronouns on an email signature. So I think
00:19:27.400 it serves a lot of advantages for the people who are in charge of society or in charge of these
00:19:32.920 cultural institutions to really go for it with this issue. Yeah. You know, we frequently encounter
00:19:41.320 criticisms of woke narratives, particularly around gender from the small C conservative side of the
00:19:48.520 aisle. Roughly speaking, people who uphold traditional values when it comes to the definition
00:19:55.960 of what a man or a woman is. But it's also interesting that there's criticism from the left
00:20:02.840 as well, at least from two different quarters. You have the feminists and you have the Marxists. 1.00
00:20:09.560 Some feminists on the left are highly critical of the current gender narrative that endangers the 0.99
00:20:16.200 position of women by denying who we are. And then the Marxists would argue that debates about gender 0.86
00:20:24.280 and sexuality take away from discussions of class struggle and allow the woke elite to retain
00:20:31.560 all their privileges. What do you think of these criticisms? In some sense, you think that these are
00:20:39.720 allies in the I mean, do you have some sympathy for these criticisms coming from the left?
00:20:46.680 Yeah, no, completely. I do. And I think it's really, really important that these are heard.
00:20:51.720 I know that Britain has a reputation internationally for being and, you know, I'm sure your listeners will
00:20:58.520 have heard of this kind of turf island is the nickname, which kind of makes me laugh. But I'm also very,
00:21:04.520 very proud of that. And I think Britain probably far more than Canada and America has seen pushback
00:21:12.040 against a number of these policies in various different areas, which doesn't mean to say for
00:21:15.960 one second that the battle's won or that, you know, this is all over, or that there aren't still
00:21:21.480 victories being scored by the other side. But there is, I think, a lot of opposition to
00:21:26.920 gender ideology in the UK. And I think the reason for that is because it is not a party political
00:21:35.960 issue. Most, I would say, of the opposition to gender ideology in the UK does come from the left,
00:21:42.840 particularly comes from feminists. On the point you're making about Marxists, you know, 1.00
00:21:48.760 one point in my youth, you know, I would have called myself a Marxist as well. And one of the central
00:21:54.520 tenants that I took from Marxism was a belief in material reality, you know, in contrast to the
00:22:01.000 critical theory I was getting when I was at university at the time, you know, an actual belief
00:22:05.800 in the existence of material reality was an important principle of Marxism. And you don't get much more
00:22:14.680 real than biology, as far as I'm concerned. So, yeah, I think these criticisms, I think it's vitally
00:22:20.360 important that they heard because I think, I think the problem in some other countries is that when
00:22:24.280 the only criticism of gender ideology comes from the right or small c conservatives, even, it becomes 0.67
00:22:32.200 far too easy for this to be then written off as a right wing kind of cause, a right wing cause celeb.
00:22:39.080 And that, I think, silences other critics who don't want to, people who are, you know, perhaps a
00:22:46.840 little bit cowardly or, you know, just a bit nervous about being associated with that label of being
00:22:52.840 right wing. Yeah, no. And, and, and, you know, I wonder what the, you know, final question for you, 0.92
00:22:58.760 Joanna, what, what is the best strategy for those of us who want to restore common sense and tolerance
00:23:05.800 for different points of view? You know, how do we push back against this, you know, incredibly corrosive
00:23:12.600 and damaging narrative of woke narrative, which marginalizes and cancels anyone who disagrees with
00:23:18.360 them? You know, what is the way forward in this fight? Well, to come kind of full circle from where
00:23:24.280 we started this conversation, you know, I do think free speech is, is absolutely the most vital principle
00:23:30.120 because, you know, this is the way that the woke cultural elites win is by trying to put a discussion
00:23:37.480 completely beyond debate. And the more we insist that these things are not put beyond debate, that
00:23:43.400 we do have free speech, that we are allowed to talk about these issues, it allows us to shine the kind
00:23:48.840 of the spotlight of, of, of a disinfectant, you know, on this issue and actually let people open it up to
00:23:57.320 democratic accountability, let people in, let people have a say. And, and the more you do that,
00:24:04.680 the more you let kind of ordinary people to use a horrible phrase, have a say on these issues,
00:24:09.720 the more the elites come up against a big, big shock, which is that people are not on board with
00:24:14.600 these ideas. You know, and this is why I kind of tied with the title of my book a lot, you know,
00:24:19.720 How Woke Won, because it's won in the sense that it's been taken on board by a cultural elite,
00:24:25.080 the people running our institutions, but I really don't think it's won in the sense of being taken on
00:24:30.200 board by a majority of the population. And I think the problem is the cultural elite want to keep the
00:24:35.560 majority of the population out of the discussion, they'd like just to rule us out of the picture
00:24:41.160 altogether. So I think the more we insist on free speech, the more we insist on democracy and
00:24:46.680 democratic accountability, then the woke cultural elite will have to take account of the fact that
00:24:52.760 they've not they failed where they failed is in convincing the regular people on the street,
00:24:58.760 but their views are right. And that's the irony, if you like about the censorship that they're
00:25:03.240 enforcing. They're not convincing anybody by this censorship. They're just putting the topic beyond
00:25:09.800 debate, which doesn't actually win the argument for them in the long run. It just means the debate
00:25:14.920 can't be heard out right now.
00:25:16.760 So do you find yourself generally optimistic about this fight? I mean, you know, has wokeism
00:25:24.520 peaked as such, and that the pendulum is going to be shifting back? I sometimes feel very pessimistic,
00:25:35.240 and I'm not seeing that at all. But there are days I feel optimistic about it. What is your general sense?
00:25:41.320 Yeah, no, absolutely the same. I change hourly, you know, sometimes I feel very optimistic,
00:25:47.400 sometimes I feel very pessimistic. And it's very, very hard to say who's one. The only thing I would
00:25:51.960 say, you know, was that if woke people were truly confident in their own arguments, they wouldn't be
00:25:57.160 resorting to censorship. You know, I see censorship as a sign of weakness. Like I say, it means they
00:26:04.040 perhaps win the battle in the short term, but they don't win the war that way. You know, if they were
00:26:09.000 truly confident, they would say, we have the best arguments, you know, we will have this debate with
00:26:14.760 anybody who wants to come because we are so confident that we can beat you hands down, you
00:26:21.000 know, we can have these arguments and we can win because we're so persuasive, we're so convinced
00:26:25.640 we're right. Every time I hear about someone being no platformed or, you know, articles being pulled
00:26:31.560 from newspapers or some type of censorship, it actually does make me, you know, it's infuriating, 0.96
00:26:37.560 first of all, but then it makes me think, well, you know, you clearly you are so cowardly, you know, 0.85
00:26:42.840 you didn't dare let people have that argument out in public, because you know, that your own 0.77
00:26:49.160 arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. And so I guess in a funny kind of way, that does actually make
00:26:54.760 me a little bit optimistic. Well, yeah, I'm hoping that the that there is some common sense that
00:27:03.560 is restored in the debate. And, and, and I hope that happens sooner rather than later. But Joanna,
00:27:11.320 thank you so much for joining me for coming on the show and for sharing your thoughts with us. And
00:27:19.080 again, I apologize that on behalf of those people who canceled you, this is not the Canada that,
00:27:28.280 you know, I fell in love with when I came here many years ago. And it's certainly changed since
00:27:35.160 I've been here. And it's unfortunate what happened to you. But I hope that you've also received a lot
00:27:41.240 of support in the wake of this, of you being canceled by London Public Library. And I wish you all the best
00:27:49.000 and, and, and, you know, good luck with your talk on Friday. Thank you very much. Indeed,
00:27:54.600 it's been a real pleasure speaking with you. Thank you.