Episode 3: Constructive Criticism

Priscillia Kounkou Hoveyda is a human rights lawyer who has a decade of experience working with UNICEF other UN agencies and NGOs in the US, France, DR Congo, Mauritania, Nigeria and other countries. Her work has focused on strengthening national policies for the most vulnerable populations around the world, including working on child protection issues in emergencies. She has led the release and reintegration of children associated to armed groups and forces, incarcerated children as well as survivors of sexual violence. She is also a writer and one of the co-founders of the Collective for Black Iranians.  She joins us from California, USA.

She speaks to us about :

• double standards in law

• power inequalities in securing funding

• the white / western savior industrial complex

• questioning the relevance of big HQs

• advocating governments

• being declared persona non grata

• applying a constructively critical lens

• hierarchies amongst staff

• activism as a way of life - and much more!

Transcript

Intro: Now, of course, some people may say, but how can we collaborate to work in conjunction and in partnership with countries that have such strong stances that are against international laws or minimum standards and so forth. And I think what's really important is to invite people who have this kind of questions and concerns to ask themselves, but what would happen if we don't have a dialogue?

Safa: Welcome back to the Rethinking Development podcast. My name is Safa, and I'm your host. Thank you for joining us as we speak with and learn from practitioners of all career stages and organizational affiliations around the world. In our conversations, we aim to rethink ethical behavior and best practices through the lived experiences and personal reflections of different practitioners. Our guest today is Priscillia Kounkou Hoveyda. Priscillia is a human rights lawyer who has a decade of experience working with UNICEF and other UN agencies and NGOs in the US, France, DR Congo, Mauritania, Nigeria and other countries. Her work focuses on building international and national policies for the most vulnerable populations around the world, including working on child protection issues in emergencies. She has led the release and reintegration of children associated to armed groups and forces, incarcerated children as well as survivors of sexual violence. Priscillia was born in France from a Congolese father and Iranian mother. She's also a writer and one of the co-founders, with five other black and Afro-Iranians, of the Collective for Black Iranians. She holds dual international law and business degrees from Sorbonne Law , EISSEC Business school and NYU Law. Priscillia, thank you so much for speaking with us today.

Priscillia: Thank you so much for having me.

Safa: It's our pleasure. To get started to begin with, could you tell us a bit about what drew you to initially studying and practicing law and what was the context or background specifically choosing law as a career path and one tool for social justice work?

Priscillia: When I was about 12 years old, in one of the many trips to my mother's home country, but also my country Iran, I was biking in the northern part of Iran, a region we call 'shomal', and another friend of mine who was another younger girl was also biking, and she immediately said "movazeb bash, movazeb bash", be careful, be careful, let's hide. And so we hid behind bushes, because we couldn't bike as, you know, women or rather, that was the perception that society sometimes had of us, and we had to hide behind bushes for it. And you know, I also was from an Congolese father and I am Congolese as well, therefor I also grew up in Brazzaville, and I saw and witnessed other injustices that just didn't make sense even as a child to me and as I then later in my life moved to France, I continued witnessing inequalities in the inner cities where I continued growing up, I witnessed inequalities where I realized nothing or not enough was being done about it. So from a very young age, being a part of situations of injustice, and as a black woman, an Iranian Congolese woman, as a mother, as a human rights lawyer, you know, it's it's truly at the heart of everything I do, to stand for social justice, to stand for what I believe are human rights. And it's what led me to study law, it's what led me to then specialize more in human rights and international law and then more specifically in children's rights and women's rights in the most remote parts of the world.

Safa: In one of your earlier work experiences, you were working with the International Center for Transitional Justice as a Legal Researcher, and you conducted research on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Could you speak to us a bit about that experience and just generally, your thoughts on how sometimes international law is used or not used to seek justice? And the ways in which sometimes laws are not implemented or selectively implemented or the loopholes that exist, all those types of considerations that come up in terms of legal work sometimes.

Priscillia: It is such an excellent question in that you're asking me to be critical already, that's I think what should always be at the center of the work that we do, is always be constructively critical. The work at the ICTJ was so many moons ago, so I'll do my best trying to recollect the memories. They do absolutely fascinating work. They have their HQ in New York and I was not a fresh graduate but almost, from NYU Law. What I had always asked myself and would ask in classes, whether it was at Sorbonne or at NYU, or even in EISSEC Business School in France, was why were the international laws and convention why were they written and ratified in places like Geneva or in Paris or you know, for most of them? Why are most of the international laws coming from, it seems, western civilization when it comes to its ratification, when it comes to the names that were given to conventions and treaties? It's always been a push and pull for me, it's always been some sort of a conundrum for me, as I could see a lot of urgency for putting in place and launching this very complex thing that the international legal machine is, this very complex machine that the international court systems are but then it's always seemed that it would only go after or focus on certain regions of the world, as if almost other parts of the world were almost exempt from the international laws and regulation that maybe sub-saharan parts or southern countries all over the world had to abide by and were actually held responsible to and liable for. You know, this kind of almost double standard is probably, I mean, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say, a complexity that a lot of students and human rights attorneys have to grapple with. When you are Congolese and you are Iranian, and as much as you are also French, you want these different institutions and countries to do better at protecting individuals rights and children's rights and women's rights. You also want it to be done equally in the same ways for all the countries, irrespective of their economic power, or their economic models or their political setups. So unfortunately, in the international field, I don't believe personally that we are there at all. And we still do see the international mechanisms specifically going after certain parts of the world and certain leaders, and not all of them equally and fairly. So we definitely have a lot of work to do, a lot of improvement to make when it comes to applying a critical lens that's neutral, impartial and independent, as we are supposed to be applying.

Safa: Eventually you transitioned more into international development and humanitarian aid work and you began to work with the International Rescue Committee in DR Congo as a Grants Manager. Could you tell us a bit about that role specifically and maybe some of the experiences you've had or observations you had with the politics of funding and grants and the challenges that exist in terms of relationships with donors or fundraising processes?

Priscillia: Yes, the IRC, the International Rescue Committee was doing this huge program in the easter part of the DR Congo. It was very interesting for me, obviously, being Congolese, even though I am from Brazzaville, so the neighbouring Congo, but I do have relatives and family in both Congos and I had already traveled and was very familiar, obviously, with my culture. And being in this particular role as a Grants Manager was very interesting exposure to who were the donors and who were the deciders, almost- I mean, not almost, to be totally transparent, I think donors have a lot of power in deciding how programs should be ran. And I actually believe strongly in the fact that we should leave to the governments, to the people, to the locals, the region and only once that has been exhausted, then look into the outside. So oftentimes, because of this tension between having donors who are European donors, French donors, German donors and so forth, who have very generous envelopes, but also had that very strong will of wanting certain programs to go a certain way, based on whether it is in their political interest, economic interest, but also sometimes unfortunately, but also very understandably, a lack of knowledge of the reality of the regions where we were implementing our activities. So it's it was interesting, because very early on, it introduced me to the power inequalities in securing funding to implement in places of the world where the realities were completely different from the realities that the donors were coming from. So yes to partnerships and collaboration, south to south, but also worldwide and north to south, but a collaboration that should always center the voices and the people that we are saying that we're serving.

Safa: You mentioned this lack of regional knowledge by some colleagues and the powers of donors and the power dynamics in terms of designing and permitting which programs are run. One concept that sometimes used to discuss these dynamics is the white savior complex. And in your experience, what have been your observations with that reality in terms of organizations you've been with, or your colleagues or just generally the way that white savior complexes play out in the type of work that's done in the sector?

Priscillia: Yes, the white savior industrial complex, actually, I prefer the western but also the white savior industrial complex, because you could be just from the west coming to parts of the world that you don't know and you may not necessarily be white and still have that savior complex, but that's more semantics. I have definitely witnessed this, more than I wanted to - I never wanted to witness it, I've definitely seen it at play. Unfortunately, there isn't enough conversations, I've never been a part of a conversation about such important topics in all the different organizations that I was a part of. And I think that as we are evolving as a society, as we are modernizing as a society, hopefully, or at least we should be wanting to go towards these steps of better understanding each other, we also must, as organizations, be better at self criticism in a way that's constructive. We have so many instances, and you know, I'm here to share my personal opinions, not the opinions of any of the agencies I've worked for. But let's take the example of Peace Corps. I'm not a Peace Corps volunteer, I've never been, I know wonderful people, some of my best friends were Peace Corps volunteers and it launched their career, but one to not go through Peace Corps and never ask themselves as to whether or not there is a western savior white industrial complex involved in the situation. Same with nongovernmental organizations, same with UN agencies, same with all the different organizations that I worked with, who were not national, who were not from the countries that I was working in. I constantly, constantly, even as a black woman, ask myself, am I also applying or perpetrating this savior complex? Because they believe that nobody is exempt from it. And I think it's so central not to be motivated by this false belief, almost godly belief, that we can go and save people. But to better combat that or how to better address it is to begin having conversations about it, making sure that even if it does make certain people uncomfortable, because they feel that maybe we're pointing fingers at them or so forth, it's only uncomfortable conversations that actually lead to real change of the way we think and the way we operate. If the conversation makes everybody comfortable, then we shouldn't be having it.

Safa: Mm hmm. Definitely. Later on, you moved on to working with UNICEF, and at the beginning you were with UNICEF in New York at their headquarters. And I remember once when we had met a long time ago, you had mentioned that you had observed a big difference between the work culture that existed at the headquarters versus a country office. Could you speak to that observation a bit, and maybe what you were referring to more specifically?

Priscillia: That particular thought has developed so much over the years, so it's great that you remember this conversation. I've become a firm believer that all organizations should have the most minimal presence in HQ, and all these kind of western presence should be diminished to the maximum and that presence in the field should be increased, but through the representation of the people from the countries. So yes, I did work in HQ for two years and as much as I always saw and recognized the value of the work that's being done by any HQ, I also am very critical about how big sometimes these operations can be and how often times, in these big operations, also in the field, we often have positions that don't make any sense and often have a way of going about things that are archaic. In HQ but also just in general, in all these organizations, there is a culture of meeting, having all these different meetings and the meeting to prepare for the meeting to prepare for the meeting that just quite frankly, maybe worked 50 years ago, I don't know, I wasn't around, but we must rethink the way we're doing it. We must not be afraid of looking at new, fresh ways of approaching sustainable social change. We are in a culture in the development world where it's not well perceived, it's not well received to be critical. But I actually think it's the most important thing - I think I've said it enough in this interview. I think if you asked me to name, how many countless meetings I've attended, and how many inefficient use of our resources I've witnessed, the conversation would be going on for a very long time. So the relevance of HQ is there, there is a relevance for HQ for any organization, but the way we work, especially in emergencies, and how much we're actually allocating for people who may go to the field once in a while... (questioning) the relevance of such a big presence that costs so much money, you know, has been pertinent for the longest time.

Safa: Just building on that, sometimes organizations and agencies, they work in countries with governments that are not democratic, but they still need to work with each other. And when it comes to working with children and child protection issues, there's a real sense of urgency in terms of protection and trying to protect children from harm, trying to take them out of dangerous situations. How has it been to specifically be working for children in your work and how is that motivation maybe different when you're trying to address the well being of children?

Priscillia: Yeah, that's a very big question. I think I could write 400 pages about it. The way the UN approaches its work I've always found very fascinating in that it that works with national governments and national ministries and the parties that are present in the countries that UNICEF operates. And I think it's such a great way of approaching the work that we are about to do in a country that is not ours. When it comes to working in emergencies, whether it's child protection emergencies, or other forms of emergencies, the governments, as much as it's possible, depending on how much of a government there is - because sometimes in emergency situations it’s a little more gray - the programs are designed together. We follow their lead and see where we can come compliment or add. So, the work varies depending on where you work and what's the reality of the country. I've worked in an Islamic Republic, for example. And there my work focusing on children was children incarcerated, children living in the most remote part, and who were forced to marry, children who had undergone FGM, female genital mutilation and so forth. So different ranges, different forms of children's rights violations and all the time in partnership and under the leadership of the relevant ministries and authorities. I would then begin co-designing, with the different ministries, kind of the response based on the different type of child protection issues that the country was facing. In my particular scope of work, for instance, when it comes to juvenile justice, in this particular Islamic Republic, I was involved in a lot of work around Sharia law, and sometimes, you know, we disagreed with the governmental counterparts on how some children rights should be considered or approached. So we always have the opportunity of discussions, conversations, dialogue. But obviously we are in the country that's hosting us. And even when I'm traveling, as a traveler in my private capacity, I always see myself as a guest in the country. So we always have to follow the lead of the government. But that's not to say that obviously, we are also advocating, we're also pushing, so that if the envelope is not protecting children's rights enough for women's rights enough, we continue pushing using the international conventions and regulations that these particular countries may have adopted and ratified, and that therefore makes them accountable and liable to follow all of the minimum standards of protection, child protection. So in this particular case, in a given Islamic Republic, you, for example, have Zina, which is, to simplify it, in this particular country, the crime of having sexual relationship outside of marriage. Oftentimes, in these particular countries, it's the women who are being prosecuted and incarcerated for Zina, for having had sexual relationships outside of marriage. So maybe for those who are not from Islamic Republic, you can picture it as having a boyfriend and maybe you're 20 and you're not married and you're having a boyfriend and your neighbours denounced and the authorities have the power to arrest you for Zina. So in these particular instances, agencies are not going to say, well, this is their laws, so let's just let them do it the way they want to. No, we discuss - how can we not do this, number one? And how can we find some sort of common ground based on all these different conventions that were ratified, these different treaties that were adopted, that clearly indicate that the minimum standard is that not no one shall be arrested, unless there is absence of consent and so forth. So you know, it's very delicate to navigate between international law standards and minimum standards, and then the reality of the places that we operate in. But it is these dynamics, all these different back and forth and push and pull that I've always been fascinated by, especially when done from a place of independence, neutrality and objectivity and critical thinking. We would find ways to support the women, the girls and also sometimes the boys who were going through these processes and we would work with a team of lawyers to support the legal advice being given, making sure that if they couldn't access legal advice, we were there to support them through our implementing partners so that they have access to the best legal advice that can enable them not to be sentenced. While in the meantime, we continue the advocacy and the push for the respect of the international minimum standards that shouldn't lead to these kind of sentences or arrests. Now, of course, some people may say, but how can we collaborate or work in conjunction and in partnership with countries that have such strong stances that are against international laws or minimum standards and so forth? And I think what's really important is to invite people who have this kind of questions and concerns to ask themselves but what would happen if we don't have a dialogue?

Safa: Right, that's a very powerful question. You know, on the podcast we often speak about the importance of building trust and listening actively and sincerely and community led processes and approaches. In terms of these delicate negotiations and navigating these advocacy processes with different partners, what have been your experiences with the maybe frequency or sincerity in which these types of participatory processes are used, bottoms up approaches are used, not only in relationship to government counterparts, but also civil society partners, grassroots partners?

Priscillia: Building trust is indeed at the heart of the work. Building trust and a partnership that's that's based on a transparent communication, a constructive way of communicating. I think, for me, what I've learned throughout the years, is truly that being consistent and constructively transparent with partners, all partners - as young people would say today: the consistency of showing up, the consistency of following up, the consistency of cultivating that relationship and the consistency of showing that we have common goals, we do have shared goals, we do have a common interest of alleviating poverty, or let's say minimizing risk or the protection of children in times of war, so let's just all gather around that common interest and that common goal, be transparent about the challenges ahead of us and also be intellectually honest about how we can all best contribute to it in ways that enable the betterment of whatever complex situation we're being faced with. So, you know, its also such a big word when we say trust, it's something that people work on securing in their personal lives, with their partners, with their friends, with their parents that we're never sure we really have, but we really try as much as possible to secure, even with people we have known for the longest time. So as you can imagine, in the professional sphere of the development world and also more so in a situation of crisis, of emergency, that trust becomes even more important. And also, as I'm sure you can imagine, because it's a situation of emergency, you are dealt with much less time to be able to build that trust , you arrive in a country, as you know, the new XYZ taking over whoever it is who has left, who hopefully, you know, has done incredible work so that you can then take over on that, but that's not necessarily always the case, different ways of approaching different problems. And you know, you usually have, based on your assignment, you are here for a year, for two years, based on your type of contract, - what truly helps development is when the organization manages to be the one that has that relationship of trust with the government so that it doesn't trickle down on the individuals who come and go because of the high turnover. So if in the given country, that particular organization, say ActionAid - I've never worked for them, I'm just bringing them as an example, if they've had 40 years of, you know, more or less upstanding trust and confidence relationship that they have been able to cultivate with different partners, whether it is in the government or in the civil society, but also very importantly in the communities, then the individual staff who come and go can continue to honour that relationship of trust and confidence that has already been established throughout the decades. Unfortunately, it's grayer than that. Obviously, oftentimes, based on the different political shifts that the country where the offices are has undergone, and the different types of leadership that the counties also have known, that relationship of trust and confidence would be there to some extent or not. So the challenge is not just as an individual coming as staff, consultants or whatnot to come and build trust, but it's also whatever has the organization been able or not so much been able to create with the different stakeholders.

Safa: Absolutely. You know, your use of the words being consistent and transparent, that really resonates. But as you say, the challenge of inheriting the reputation and the relationships of the colleagues who were there before, can also sometimes be a big challenge and maybe not a smooth transition. In your own work, later on with UNICEF in Nigeria, you had an experience of becoming persona non grata. And as many of the listeners and colleagues in the sector know, that just refers to the process of being asked to leave a country by the government due to a variety of different reasons. Could you speak to that experience that you had a bit and maybe how it has impacted your motivation to continue working in the sector on these issues?

Priscillia: The experience of being declared persona non grata, or as they had described it in one of the many articles written in the national newspaper in Nigeria, being declared enemy of the state by the chief of the army, to be more precise, was extremely isolating. Not just as a as a woman, but also as a mother. I was very quickly, you know, facing my own decisions of the work that I had decided to do and why I was doing it. The work I was doing there was concentrated where the humanitarian crisis had been taking place, which is in a different region of Nigeria than where I was living with my family in the capital city to be more precise, which was thriving with literature and music, you know, a wonderful place to be at. And I would travel maybe once a month, or once every two months to the most remote parts where the conflict was still ongoing and where children's rights violations, unfortunately, were taking place. And as much as to many people it may sound like you know, something really noble to do, for me, it always felt like a responsibility because of the way I grew up, the war I've experienced as a kid in Iran growing up in Tehran - and then later, you know, being from Congo and a lot of listeners hopefully are familiar with the history of Congo and the history of resilience of countries like Congo and Nigeria. My commitment to the work has always been there, and for me, it has always been a question of, if I don't do anything, then what kind of world am I leaving to my children? Especially to my two daughters, as well as my son. That's what the PNG statement kind of came and shook for me, significantly, at that time. I believe it was poorly managed. And I think it is perfectly fine to be honest about it, because I think it shows that there is area for improvement, for things to be dealt with in better ways, in ways that potentially are smoother for all parties involved, hopefully. And that poor management only added to the stress and to the anxiety and to the trauma that an experience like this one had triggered. Now, it's interesting to hear about other colleagues who have been PNG'd, or who are a part of organizations who have been PNG'd, it's also has been very interesting for me to develop friendships with different colleagues, who have worked in remote places where there has been wars, where there has been a lot of violence, colleagues who have worked in refugee camps, the same way I have, and have witnessed realities that most of the world hasn't seen or can't even believe exist. And I think that in general, in our field, we approach the way it impacts us, not just a staff, but as human beings, way too lightly. And I'm not sure where it comes from, maybe that's the way business used to be done in the 1920s. But I think that today, all organizations, whatever field they are working in, have the responsibility to ensure the well being of their staff, not just their physical well being but also their mental well being. I believe there's so much more room for improvement in the way we're doing it, especially when it comes to female staff and the female staff from minority groups all over the world, whether they're black female staff or whatever it is based on their countries.

Safa: In better supporting staff, especially women of color, there are countless cases unfortunately of abuse of authority, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, just generally different micro but also very tangible and big ways in which abuse and lack of accountability manifests within organizations. And often there's a lack of independent investigation, there's impunity. Sometimes there's also negative backlash and consequences for survivors or people who are publicly speaking about or experiencing these issues. From your own perspective as a lawyer, humanitarian, a woman, a mother, what do you think about this type of work culture and the prevalence of these issues within the sector and within organizations?

Priscillia: I think the prevalence of these type of issues within the sector is the biggest alarm that we must change the way we are working. And it's the biggest sign that it's okay to want to change if it is to do better, if it is to become better. The simple fact that there is a prevalence of abuse in this field is absolutely unacceptable. It is unacceptable in any field, but in a field like ours, I personally believe it becomes even more unacceptable. Our mandate is to be - I don't like the term serve, because I feel like I am the one who is who is also growing and benefiting from all the work and it's it's almost neocolonialist to say serve, it's almost a relationship of somebody who's a little higher than the other. And you know, even in our language, not just the abuse or the fact that there are cases of abuse, whether it's sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or abuse of authority - I have witnessed and been on the other end of abuse of authority several times in my career, and I'm not the only one. There are many other ones. But this culture of silence that exists in our field, where it's not okay to say something where it's not okay to complain, even the term that it's perceived as a complaint instead of it being perceived as a criticism that can help us do better, you know, is another show of what we need to rethink, of the way we need to rethink the way we're working. These organizations are mainly ran, mainly dominated by white western men. And that was the case when all these organizations first started, for historical reasons that we all know. There's been progress, but clearly, we're not yet there. The way we approach the work that we do, the way we communicate about the work that we do, the way we're structured, the way the environment and the toxicity that exist at times, way too often, is clearly a relic of the past, of the way of living of societies that the younger generations no longer want to be a part of. I can see graduates right now who are looking into working in development, who feel way more empowered in speaking up and speaking up for the truth, even if it means within your own household. So the fact that we don't have independence investigation bodies, we do not have recourse to independent investigation bodies - so this means that if an offence happens in your home and somebody from your home - okay maybe it's the annex to the home - is going to be investigating it. By all standards, by any standard, especially for the lawyers and the legal experts, but also anyone who has a certain level of critical thinking, it just doesn't make sense. And it's okay to see that it doesn't make sense because guess what? We can change and do better.

Safa: Speaking about that culture of silence and the systemic abuse of authority, cases of sexism, racism, experience of discrimination in different ways that exist, a lot of the time the word culture or the way things are handled leads back to the leadership or the management of an organization and there's a lot of criticism related to the lack of leadership or lack of integrity of leaders, the lack of leadership skills that individuals have when they're appointed to these positions, or even the politics behind being appointed to these positions, there's a lot of issues related to it. But generally speaking, what have been your experiences in terms of managers and the leaders you've had, and just generally, even at more senior levels, the type of behavior and the comments and activities that you've experienced?

Priscillia: I mean, you know, I like to give really visual examples because I think it brings people there or takes them back there. The way in UN agencies that we approach hierarchy, needs to stop. It is not okay that the head of the office has the bigger office. Why? Are we in like a 16th century feudal time? Everybody should have the same kind of office, you know what I mean? It doesn't make sense that because you're higher up, you get access to more privileges. This is the system of an unequal society. And it's okay to say so, because we get a chance to rethink, we can do that, like we don't leave the way we used to, it's totally fine to accept that we can do better. And so that is a very simple visual example, the big office for the big boss. I mean, I thought we were here to make a difference in the world. Why does it matter? It's almost as if there is reverence or there is a lot of reverence also.You know, the way we communicate in emails, don't copy this person, don't copy that person or that person, it's not your grades to go and talk to this person in that grade. If we want to work towards an egalitarian society, shouldn't we make sure that we have one at home, as well? And as much as we do want to operate where there are functions and there are positions and obviously there must be some level of like, you know, this is senior, this is this, this is that - there is still a way that we see in younger companies , that we see in startups, I'm not reinventing the wheel. We see it in many tech companies, you know, that deal with their own problems, I'm not saying they're the models to follow. I'm saying let's look around us and see what we can take that will enable us to be more transparent, have a better system of accountability, to be more equal, to create an environment that's healthier for all staff involved, regardless of gender, regardless of citizenship, regardless of color of the skin, regardless of sexual orientation. Talking about sexual orientation, let's take certain human rights issues and be really intellectually honest and constructively critical about it. We push for certain human rights issues more than we push for others, we sometimes often wait too long on civil society, outside of the UN agencies, on people to push things forward so that then we can come and say, now it's okay to talk about Black Lives Matter. Now it's okay to talk about same sex marriage. And again, this is not to talk about the national governments. I'm talking about us, as organizations and UN agencies. When a staff joins an organization like the UN, or an NGO, we're joining also their certain way of thinking we're agreeing that there is a certain minimum standard that human beings are entitled to. If you look at the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or if you look at the Geneva Conventions, we're all born equal, free of discrimination, etc and we all know these - well, supposedly, we're supposed to all know them. Well, guess what? Not everybody knows them. And for me, it's unacceptable that we work for institutions like these ones that fight for rights, but then not know what rights it is that these organizations are fighting for, and then kind of pick and choose which ones we agree on, in the way that we then lead our lives. So all these inconsistencies and you know, the way we promote senior level management, where it's simply an email that says, you know, such and such person becomes such and such director over there, this director becomes director over there. Where is the transparency and the competitive processes that we are supposed to follow in this? And why is it a problem for us to even bring that up, because it's a reasonable point to bring up that any person that has a minimum level of sensible intelligence can say well shouldn't it be an open, transparent competitive process so that we're sure that we're not just turning in circles here? We need fresh takes, we need different ways of looking at it. We need to evolve the same way the society is evolving. And you know, there is so much that can be done so that the beautiful mandates that all these different organizations and UN agencies have can fully blossom and be there for what they were supposed to be there in the first place. But the systems we've put in place, are not transparent enough or competitive enough, or celebrate hierarchy in ways that reminds us of, you know, the feudal system with kings and queens.

Safa: I think that's so powerfully and also beautifully said, and it's so important to really highlight how the systems that we talk about actually manifest in such tangible ways, like you said in our language, in the office layout. There are so many ways in which it happens on a daily basis, in very tangible and often very unfair and even violent ways. But there are different ways and different tools, strategies that people use to advance social justice, to fight for social justice and you yourself, you've worked as a writer, you're also co-founder of the Collective for Black Iranians - could you speak to the other ways, outside of humanitarian aid work, outside of being a lawyer also that you think are valuable and important strategies to use to fight for social justice and the way you're doing that?

Priscillia: I really see my activism as a way of life. That means that everything that I do is in a way an act of revolution. The simple fact that I'm even here having this conversation between two women that, you know, who's Iranian, who's lived all over the world and myself, this is in and in itself an act of revolution. So I definitely never thought that activism was a nine to five kind of job. And actually, I never thought that it is a job. For me it's, I don't like to say calling because it has a little bit of religious connotation which I'm not, but it's truly something that you have to be committed to and it has to make personal sense for you as well. And that's why, in all the other things that I do, in my mothering in my writing, in my filmmaking, in my activism, grassroots activism, I continue, quote unquote 'working'. So the Collective for Black Iranians is one of the endeavours that I have started, thankfully, with five other brilliant minds who are black and Afro Iranians based in Canada, France, Germany, and the US , with truly wanting to ensure that the Iranian identity takes into consideration and celebrates its black and Afro Iranian voices and is more accepting of the beautiful diversity that the Iranian identity actually has, including the Iranian diaspora identities all over the world. That activism also manifests itself in my mothering, as I said, like in the way I raise my children, they are home schooled now, obviously with the pandemic, but that's something that my husband and I always want to do. We also make sure that what we teach them is also through the point of view of who they are, and not only through the POV of who they are not, which is what a lot of schools will teach them. As these little children who have lived also all over the world, who are Black, who are African, who are French, who are American, who are Sierra Leonean, they have a very global perspective already for their age that we want to continue to honor as they grow up. So the activism is literally everywhere, in what I buy - as I mature, I try to become more of that complete individual who is more consistent and puts more intention in everything that I do, making sure that I support smaller businesses, black owned businesses, go to places that are not necessarily the more touristy, make sure I buy things that are sustainable, you know, all these different things. Not to say that I'm this perfect individual, I am so far from it, but I try as much as I can to bring it into my life and writing has definitely been one of the most cathartic and also fulfilling ways of doing it because of the way arts can change the way people view things. And as much as my work in the development field has enabled me to, hopefully, touch people's hearts as much as they've touched my heart, again, because I don't believe it's a relationship of me giving, saving, or any of us doing that, it's truly a mutual give. Development has enabled me to do that in those ways, but what I've been trying to focus on more, moving forward is doing it in ways that also can reach maybe more people and in ways where I have more freedom and independence in the messages that I want to give across, where I'm not so constrained by systems that have been infused with realities and values that I don't necessarily share. So as much as I continue trying to work within the system to change it, I'm also making sure that others who like me or maybe not so much like me, but not too different, will feel ways of relating to what I'm saying or the stories that I carry, and can also hear them. I write for TV, I create shows, I work on documentaries, and it's something that's that's been happening in the last three years when I decided to give more time to writing as a way of social change and as a way of social justice, arts as a way of activism. So hopefully I'll be able to, you know, in my next decade of life, to continue balancing these two with, hopefully more focus on the arts.

Safa: Wonderful. Yes, as you say, you know, art can change the way people see things. And there are so many different opportunities for activism in everything that, we do every day. So, Priscillia, thank you so much for speaking with us today.

Priscillia: Thank you so much for hosting this. I think it's such an important platform, I do really hope that everyone is able and find it in themselves to share their thoughts so that we can continue, you know, operating, working thinking in a world that's just a little bit better, you know, for the future generations.

Safa: Yes, I hope so. Thank you so much for your courage and your generosity, sharing everything you shared with us today. I really appreciate it.

I also want to thank our listeners, thank you for tuning in. We invite you to join in on the conversation!

You can do this in a number of ways.

Number one, you can send us a short voice message sharing this specific ethical issue that you've navigated in your career, you can visit our website and hit the send us a voice message button for more details on how to do that.

Or number two, you can email us a short letter to your younger self sharing what you wish you had known when you first started working in the sector or tips about some of the things you've learned over the years.

You can also keep up to date with our latest episodes and offerings by signing up for a newsletter listening and subscribing to our podcasts on your preferred podcast player and following us on social media.

On our website, you can also find a donation link where you can choose either a one time donation or reoccurring monthly donation option to help us cover our production costs. Thank you again for tuning in. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you all next time. Until then, take care.