Thoughts: How does a society eliminate bigotry? Through courts and media, for example. Not waiting for it to “happen naturally”. Two case studies.


eBooks, Books, and more from Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (click on icon):
Guidebookcover.jpgjapaneseonlyebookcovertextHandbook for Newcomers, Migrants, and Immigrants to Japan「ジャパニーズ・オンリー 小樽入浴拒否問題と人種差別」(明石書店)sourstrawberriesavatardebitopodcastthumbFodorsJapan2014cover
UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
“LIKE” US on Facebook at
If you like what you read and discuss on, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
Donate towards my web hosting bill!
All donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!

Hi Blog. One of the age-old debates about how to eliminate racial discrimination in Japan is a matter of process. Do you wait for society to soften up to the idea of people who are (and/or look) “foreign” being “Japanese”, or do you legislate and force people to stop being discriminatory? Critics of anti-discrimination activists often recommend that the latter apply the brakes on their social movement and wait for society in general to catch up — as in, “You can’t force people by law to be tolerant.”

Well, yes you can. History has shown that without a law (be it a US Civil Rights Act, a UK Race Relations Act, etc.)  and active media campaigns to force and foment tolerance, it doesn’t necessarily occur naturally. As we have seen in the Japanese example, which is approaching the 20th Anniversary of its signing the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination without keeping its promise to pass a law against racial discrimination.

I submit to Readers two interesting case studies of how tolerance towards a) same-sex marriage, and b) transgender issues have been promoted in the American example. The speed at which LGBT tolerance and legal equality in many areas of American society has been breathtaking. Why have walls come tumbling down so fast? One case is with the US Supreme Court, which earlier this year found itself in a position to rule same-sex marriage constitutional because any other position would have been bigotry. Excerpt from a National Public Radio interview, dated July 2, 2015, on Fresh Air with Terry Gross:


Was This Past Supreme Court Session ‘A Liberal Term For The Ages’?
NPR Fresh Air July 02, 2015

Full transcript at
GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you’re just joining us, my guest is Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times. And we’re talking about the term that just wrapped up. Now, we’ve been talking about the marriage equality decision. And something that you wrote I found so interesting about this, which is that a lot of law firms wouldn’t touch the anti-marriage equality side. Why not?

LIPTAK: Among a large number of Americans, and certainly Americans on the coast and certainly Americans who come from, call it elite backgrounds – you know, from the fancy colleges and law schools – and certainly what Justice Scalia in a memorable phrase called lawyers who work in high-rise buildings, this issue is done. There’s only one side to it, and the other side is pure bigotry. So that told you something about where at least the legal culture – the mainstream legal culture – was on this question. And, you know, that’s a contrast to, say, Brown V Board of Education, where the leading appellate lawyer of his day, John Davis, one of the founders of the prominent New York firm Davis Polk, argued in favor of segregated schools – or at least that the court should not stop them. So that was a change in the culture that was yet another indication that the court was going to come out the way it did.

GROSS: And it sounds like it was a business decision too – because you write that a lot of law firms were afraid if they took the position against marriage equality that they would lose clients, and they would have a difficult time attracting good lawyers to their firm. Those are business decisions.

LIPTAK: So that is absolutely true as a factual matter. The firms would say this is a matter of principle for them, and they didn’t take account of business realities. But we do have, you know, one example from just a few years ago, where quite possibly the best Supreme Court advocate of our day, Paul Clement, agreed to represent Congress – shouldn’t be a particularly controversial client – in defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples. His firm essentially fired him for agreeing to represent Congress in trying to persuade the court to uphold a duly enacted law signed by President Clinton. So that tells you that this is – this is something where the firms were not inclined to take these cases.

GROSS: So do you think that the marriage equality decision lays the groundwork to opening up gay rights in other areas where it is still in question?

LIPTAK: It’s a huge and important and transformative victory. But in some ways, it’s symbolic and partial because much of the nation still doesn’t have laws against discriminating against gay and lesbian people. So in much of the nation, you can get married in the morning and fired in the afternoon from your job for being gay – and then denied housing because you’re gay. So the court decision only does so much and is limited to marriage. And unless legislatures act to impose general laws against sexual orientation discrimination, the work of the gay rights movement is not yet done. It’s a funny thing, that you get to marriage first and job discrimination later. […]


COMMENT: The point is that the proponents of marriage equality (sic — note the terminology) managed to frame the debate in such a way that eventually there was no choice but to support one side (people arguing formerly-normal positions even lost their job), and nobody COULD support the other side without looking bigoted. And that came through in the formal interpretation of the law.  In Japan, however, as proven time and time again by the bigots who cloak their bigotry in nationalism and “culture” (see here and here for example), bigotry is still a tenable position.

The other item of interest is from Entertainment Weekly (which may seem to some a laughable source, but they write very good articles on the power and flow of media). Consider the process they describe in their special LGBT issue that came out last June:


The transition will be televised
Subtitle: In an era of increasing inclusiveness, TV proves once again to be media’s most effective agent of social change, this time by sharing rich stories about the transgender community
By Mark Harris
Entertainment Weekly Magazine, June 12 2015 (excerpt)
Full article at

A sports figure comes out as transgender, and the general public is riveted by her story, which is met with everything from bigotry to curiosity to empathy. All at once, the subject seems to be everywhere from op-ed pages to dinner-table conversations. Transgender stories – this time fictional – start to gain a toehold in popular culture. The highest-rated sitcom on network TV takes some tentative steps toward exploring the fluidity of gender identity by having a gay cross-dressing performer as a recurring character. A popular medical drama wins an Emmy nomination for a two-part episode about a doctor who undergoes gender-reassignment surgery.

The year is 1976. Transgender Americans are, for the first time, having a moment. And then interest subsides. The caravan moves on. And the moment is over. How did it take 39 years for us to get all the way back to the starting line?

Minority representation on TV has always come in phases. Phase 1 is absence – or worse, stereotype. In Phase 2, minorities appear briefly, usually to teach majority characters life lessons or allow them to demonstrate tolerance, and then recede again. In Phase 3 – where we are now – they finally start to get their own stories told. Phase 4 – the characters stick around just because we’re interested in them – is on the near horizon. Phase 5 – we don’t have to write stories like this anymore – is farther off.

It’s not a shock that most of the trans narratives we’re seeing in 2015 are filtered through (or at least share screen time with) the perspective of non-transgender characters. Transparent and Becoming Us are as much about the kids as the parents, and as refreshing as it is to see trans characters woven into the ensembles of Orange Is the New Black and Sense8, there’s no escaping the fact that a large part of why they’re there is specifically to promote understanding – they’re a vehicle for communicating. That’s great, and essential, but it shouldn’t be confused with the finish line—which would be a pop cultural world in which trans people are simply part of the fabric and not used as devices. If you doubt how hard that goal is to reach on TV, consider that gay people, who outnumber trans people by roughly 10 to 1 in the national population, are still struggling for that kind of representation, and that a host of ethnic minorities (particularly Asians and Latinos) continue to fight for the day when they can turn on the TV and routinely see people who look like them.

In that regard, who’s behind the camera may matter at least as much as who’s in front of it. It’s not a coincidence that the most racially diverse prime-time lineup on any network – ABC’s Thursday-night roster of Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, and How to Get Away With Murder – is overseen by a black woman, or that Will & Grace was co-created by a gay man, or that fictional Ellen’s coming-out was tied to real Ellen’s desire to tell her own truth. There’s no substitute for having someone in the room to whom the subject matters – it’s a corrective, it’s an incentive, and it’s a truth detector.

The 1976 flicker of interest in trans issues didn’t last because it was, though well-intentioned, not strong enough to combat an immense set of prevailing prejudices. This time, it might take root, not just because attitudes have changed, but because the current approach is less touristic and more firsthand. One of the creators of Sense8, Lana Wachowski, is trans. Transparent’s writer-director-creator Jill Soloway has a trans father. If Sophia seems like an exceptionally multidimensional trans character, that’s in part because Laverne Cox is on the scene. As she has noted, “It’s really important that trans folks are in positions of power in terms of creating our stories. I think that’s vital.” Orange Is the New Black creator Jenji Kohan has argued that a good writer should be able to write any character with truth and depth, and she’s right. But it’s an important breakthrough that there are now a handful of people in positions of power with a deep and personal investment in making sure TV gets this right. Four decades ago, we got off to a false start. Now, better late than never, we’re off to a good one. ENDS


COMMENT:  The lesson here is that there are stages of “softening up a society”, but what’s crucial is that people who can best promote the tolerance, as in those affected by the intolerance, must be in a position of power within the media structures in order to get their message out.  As I have argued elsewhere, NJ and Visible Minorities are so shut out of Japanese media that they simply cannot do that.  They are seen as basically nonexistent entities in Japanese society both within and without (including outside scholarship on Japan).

All of these things will be discussed in greater detail in my forthcoming book, Embedded Racism:  Japan’s Visible Minorities and Racial Discrimination in Japan, out November.  Stay tuned.  Dr. ARUDOU, Debito

17 comments on “Thoughts: How does a society eliminate bigotry? Through courts and media, for example. Not waiting for it to “happen naturally”. Two case studies.

  • Jim di Griz says:

    In preparation of all the NJ workers Japan will need, Abe now plans to pass legislation to allow more intrusion into NJ lives, subject them to greater scrutiny and bullying from self-appointed ‘gaijin police’ Oyaji and busybodies, and expands the scope of the states right to arbitrarily decide which NJ are ‘undesirable’.

    If this kind of policy is required to convince J-voters and J-society that there are safeguards in place to protect then from an influx of NJ, then surely there will be no influx of NJ (and maybe that is the real goal here?).

    After all, you may be a law abiding, visa holding NJ, but the busybody across the street that you’ve never noticed, sees you having a few days off and decides you must have quit your job (after all, it’s not Golden Week or Obon, so in his mind, you should be at work!). Under the new law, there will be no ‘grace period’: if you cease doing your visa specified activity, you will be criminalized immediately! (and don’t think that busybodies won’t rat you out- look at how immigration was recently deluged with people ratting out zainichi Koreans after falling for a racist Internet post).

    Or maybe you’ll be stopped by that racist J-cop who neither knows nor cares about the law for carding NJ on the streets?

    In both of the above cases, these people could take it upon themselves to report you, and trigger an investigation that immigration officials in support of Abe’s new law themselves say ‘takes a really long time’. At the end of such a long period of stress for you, your family, and your employer, you could be arbitrarily criminalized and deported.

    I don’t need the stress. I wonder how many people will just say ‘screw you’, and go home, how many will hear of this and not bother to come in the first instance, and how many will have thier lives and health torn apart fighting this?

    What’s next? Maybe Abe wants us all to wear stars on our clothes?

  • How can Japan get rid of bigotry when 68% of the Japanese population polled by NHK, firmly believes Japanese are racially superior?

    It’s hopeless, really.

    産経新聞 2014.5.19 20:49
    天皇陛下を「尊敬」過去最高に NHK放送文化研究所調査 日本への「自信」も高水準


  • Loverilakkuma says:

    Fair contrast. But I’m not sure if the title “how does a society eliminate bigotry?” sounds right, even with two remarkable US cases, regarding the climate of ongoing problem deeply rooted in race. Here’s an interesting footage featuring Hillary Clinton and Black Lives Matter[BLM] activists. In a tense conversation between the two, Clinton gave them a fair but provocative answer to the effect of their actions: “you may change the system of law, but you can’t change the heart of all people.”

    Even with a couple of remarkable victories Brown v. Board(1954) and Civil Rights Acts(1965), bigotry has remained present within institutional structure of American society for years, and it’s recurring in media/public spheres. See some right-wing news media, whacky GOP politicians slashing funds for education, medicare, and social security, and billionaires owning and funding mainstream news media such as NYT, Washington Post, and LA Times for perpetuation of phony narrative[e.g., Public education is failing. Unions are killing jobs, “Teachers are lazy,” Opt Out movement hurts students]. And there is a growing trend of re-segregation in poverty-stricken areas across the nation–including Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, which catches the attention of both national & local media.

    Bottom line: implementing anti-racial discrimination law was a first-step. But that alone does not guarantee change in the attitude of entire public, since history shows that some people were[are] still able to find a way to perpetuate their bigotry as an act of defiance[What happened to white affluent community in southern states after US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision in 1954?]. It’s a matter of debate what and how BLM activists will put their ideas into actions for the spread of their distinctive movement across the nation. But, they are well aware of one undeniable fact. People need to keep their fight against bigotry and social injustice–even after successful installment of civil rights acts. Bad old habit dies hard. And that’s certainly an important lesson for Japan.

    — Of course. But none of your salient points raised above amounts to an argument against creating a criminal law against racial discrimination. Which is the point of this blog post — you have to deal with bigotry by making it illegal. That requires a law. A law not a panacea, as you mention, but it’s THE fundamental first step — you can’t do it without one. How you accomplish that (even in societies like Japan so hard-wired against one) is the point of discussion here.

  • It has been 50 years since the so called Civil Rights laws were passed here in the USA. I was a young man then. I’ve seen progress, to be sure. But institutional racism still exists and operates here. It’ll take 50 more years for the latter to change significantly…..50 years of court cases and new laws.

    So, yes laws are necessary. But then expect to still have a big struggle on your hands.

    — Either way.

  • We do NOT need to “change the heart of ALL people”. That impossible “ALL” word is an unneeded inherently-impossible strawman LoveRilakKuma.

    We do NOT even need to “change the heart of people”. That worthy goal itself is an unneeded inherently-impossible strawman goose chase.

    The surprising reality is: about officers-questioning-without-cause and staff-discriminating-based-on-race, the needed LAWS are written.

    The real problem WORLDWIDE is:
    * police officers refusing to ARREST THE LAW-BREAKERS who are officers-questioning-without-cause.
    * prosecutors refusing to PROSECUTE THE LAW-BREAKERS who are officers-questioning-without-cause.
    * and judges refusing to IMPRISON THE LAW-BREAKERS who are officers-questioning-without-cause.

    The real problem IN JAPAN is:
    * legislators refusing to OBEY THE UNITED-NATIONS-LAW about staff-discriminating-based-on-race.
    * police officers refusing to ARREST THE LAW-BREAKERS who are staff-discriminating-based-on-race.
    * prosecutors refusing to PROSECUTE THE LAW-BREAKERS who are staff-discriminating-based-on-race.
    * and judges refusing to IMPRISON THE LAW-BREAKERS who are staff-discriminating-based-on-race.

    Society does NOT need to “stop humans from subconsciously desiring to steal-from-other-humans.”
    Society simply needs to IMPRISON people who have been caught VIOLATING THE LAW about stealing-from-other-humans.
    The desire of humans to steal-from-other-humans will remain: the fear of IMPRISONMENT is what DETERS stealing-from-other-humans.

    Society does NOT need to “stop officers from subconsciously desiring to question-without-cause.”
    Society simply needs to IMPRISON officers who have been caught VIOLATING THE LAW about questioning-without-cause.
    The desire of officers to question-without-cause will remain: the fear of IMPRISONMENT is what DETERS questioning-without-cause.

    Society does NOT need to “stop staff from subconsciously desiring to discriminate-based-on-race.”
    Society simply needs to IMPRISON staff who have been caught VIOLATING THE LAW about discriminating-based-on-race.
    The desire of staff to discriminate-based-on-race will remain: the fear of IMPRISONMENT is what DETERS discriminating-based-on-race.

    So, although it would be nice if we could improve humanity’s internal thoughts, it is more important to simply IMPRISON all perpetrators of LAW VIOLATING ACTIONS.

    IMPRISONING all perpetrators of LAW VIOLATING ACTIONS is absolutely essential to deter stealing-from-other-humans, questioning-without-cause, and discriminating-based-on-race.

  • Jim di Griz says:

    @ John K #6

    Thanks for the BBC link!
    It’s good to see that the BBC is finally catching on to the fact that ‘Japan’ is a myth, but….
    Whilst the first of this guys ‘3 Western myths about Japan’ is true, his second isn’t a myth; the Japanese are ruled by a right-wing clique led by Abe who is a war crime denier and revisionist. He is dangerous.
    As for the third ‘myth’ (that Western men imagine Japan to be misogynistic), what proof does he offer that this is *our misunderstanding*?

    ‘corporate Japan chasing the under-deodorised male dollar (or Yen)’ as a description of AKB. Kind of proves the opposite of the title of the article.

    Logic FAIL.

  • Jim di Griz says:

    @ Anonymous #5

    I agree totally;
    Idiots are free to think any such rubbish as the wish, but writing, speaking, and acting in a discriminatory way should be punished by law.

  • Laws may not make people more tolerant in their hearts, but they do restrain the heartless. It doesn’t matter what racists THINK; it’s ACTING on those beliefs that must be squashed like a bug by the full might of the law. Case in point: are there any Japanese who have used anti-discrimination laws in the USA and EU to their advantage? So why no quid pro quo?

  • Baudrillard says:

    @ John K, are they myths? i.e. 1. Japan is inherently strange, 2. The Japanese are dangerous. Abe and his zeitgeist seems pretty damn strange for the 21st century and dangerous revisionism. As for 3. J-women are submissive, the article then holds up AKB48 as an example which according to the article itself, seems to prove the myth is reality.

    — This article is quite a digression from the blog entry, so bring it back on topic please. (Perhaps it’s my fault for approving the link in the first place.)

  • Baudrillard says:

    @ JIm, another nail in the coffin of Japan as a desirable destination. Abe is ANTI immigration in reality as less and less NJs want to come here (and work for a weak yen, compulsory shakai hoken, rising taxes etc), though this is of course in denial of having to build stadiums in time for 2020.
    Until 2012 or so, one of the attractive things about Japan was that if you lost or changed your job, it was not tied to your employer and you could then do something else on the visa. This also meant that if you were, e,g, trying to build an alternative career or your own business, Japan gave you the freedom to do so.

    Or, e,g, the freedom to work part time while you studied something.

    As NJs get zero benefits, this was never an excuse to loaf-but it did make Japan appear a pseudo western-style free job market. From what I understand this grace period was shortened to 3 months in 2012, but now this just seems that Abe is trying to force people to be tied to one employer.Or leave Japan;

    Sounds like the abusive trainee system was a tryout before imposing similar bond servant style arrangements on all NJs. What next? Surrendering our passports to our employers? Paying back fees for the honor of coming to Japan?

  • Loverilakkuma says:

    @Anonymous, #5

    >” We do NOT need to “change the heart of ALL people”.”

    That is what she(Clinton) said in the video, NOT my words. Also, it is second pronoun(YOU)–not the first(WE).

    You are free to express your opinion to argue for/against, but accusing me of straw-man in this manner, is non-sensical.
    It’s way beyond absurd.

  • LoveRilakKuma, when you posted Clinton’s admittedly “provocative” statement,
    a rude statement made to STOP people from demanding the end of discrimination,
    (and you posted it here at Debito’s, where we demand discrimination penalization)
    it is YOU yourself who tried to convince Debito readers that the statement was “fair.”

    Rebutting demanders-of-discrimination-penalization with “well, you can’t change all people’s hearts”
    is patently strawman because: the justice-demanders NEVER claimed one COULD change ALL people’s hearts,
    and thus there is no good-faith reason for Clinton and then you to use such a statement as a rebuttal.

    So I see two problems with your post: The first is that you called that strawman statement “fair.”
    The second is your all too often recurring theme of redirection, “Look, America is racist too, so…”
    This has been noticed and commented on by other readers here, who like me, wonder if you are a paid plant.

    Yes, yes, we know your story: Japanese DNA, you lived in America, you have suffered discrimination, and
    now living in Japan, whatever your conscious or unconscious goal is, please stop posting “America is worse” posts.

    Such posts are more at home at that ugly site with their similar claims of “Japan doesn’t need to penalize discrimination, because… blah-blah-blah” 🙁

    — I don’t think that “America is worse” is what he’s trying to say.

  • OK Debito, I simply think I have seen too often this defeatist misdirection theme of “Penalties don’t work, look at how America still has discrimination, link, link, link” used as a rebuttal to your logical demand of penalizing entry-denial-based-on-race.

    “EVEN with a couple of remarkable victories Brown v. Board(1954) and Civil Rights Acts(1965), bigotry has REMAINED present within institutional structure of American society for years…”

    My reply continues to be, “OF COURSE racism will remain, that will continue as long as races themselves exist. The point is: in America shop staff DON’T say ‘We deny entry based on race’ (as is done in Japan) because in America (and the rest of the first world) there are strong penalties which deter that action.”

    I understand the point of this thread, that both laws AND media social heart-programming are needed. Yes, both are needed. I myself recently wrote that song which attempted to heart-program the people to support enacting a law with strong penalties. I am simply saying that the LAW part is more important than the heart part. Meanwhile, someone else here is posting that the law won’t help much, since “you may change the system of law, but…”

    Oh well, I guess we should cancel our campaign for the penalization of entry-denial-based-on-race, because as trusted old poster LRK reminds us, even if Japan legislates that action, racism will still exist anyway, and as trusted new poster Miki reminds us on this same thread, it’s “hopeless”.

    That seems to be the message which I don’t like. “Improvement of Japan through laws and courts is hopeless, GIVE UP your campaign to make Japanese legislators enact the penalties demanded by the CERD about entry-denail-based-on-race, your campaign is hopeless, because even if you do enact such laws, racism still exists. Here are some stories about racism in America. And here is Clinton’s rebuttal to activists demanding penalties. I’m just posting her statement and calling it a fair assessment. I’m totally on your side but I simply don’t think legislation will improve Japan.”

    I dislike this theme, and it reminds me of the fact that it would be naive of us to assume that various Japanese government groups do NOT read this site, and that some of those Japanese government groups do NOT attempt to insert defeatist misdirection occasionally, using posters who gain entry with sufficient “I agree with this, I agree with that” sentences, while poisoning the well of consciousness by inserting within all those sentences of agreement “but look how America still has so much racism and how thus Japan legislating penalization won’t improve anything.”

    Want to be respected as a poster here? Strongly admit that Japanese legislators and Japanese judges penalizing entry-denial-based-on-race (as the 1995 United Nations CERD Treaty already requires) is a VITAL first step needed for the improvement of Japan. And don’t follow up with any qualifications of, “But…”

  • Loverilakkuma says:

    @Anonymous, #13

    Geez, you really have a serious issue on comprehension. Never have I argued that “Japan doesn’t need to penalize racial discrimination.” I made it very clear that establishing the law is the first step.

    And, contrary to your groundless assumption, I don’t have any serious experience of discrimination in the US. It doesn’t affect my life at all. I don’t hate the US just because of what is going out there. It teaches me the tons of important lessons that I would not be able to learn should I have remained in Japan in my entire life.

    What I argued in my posting is that people need to keep fighting against any form of discrimination even after that because the presence of criminal law against discrimination alone does not guarantee the eradication of bigotry. It can impose some sort of punitive accountability on people at the consequence of their misconducts–but it cannot totally control one’s behavior. Despite the existence of criminal laws against discrimination, bigoted people are willing to continue their bad old habits at their own risks. Or changing the strategies to execute their message by adjusting their moral compass(or bias) to the new standard to perpetuate their discourse of bigotry.

    Yes, the laws need to be toughened against those who should be held accountable for the consequence of assault, homicide, neglected, and police brutality based on race/gender/ethnicity, and those who tolerate such actions. That should not be compromised by the nexus of pseudo-reformers like ALEC and/or right-wing think-tanks(i.e., Japan Conference, National Fundamentals for Japan Institution).

    Ongoing racial issues in the US–and some other countries–are living evidence of such needs. This has nothing to do with if you like the country or not.

    As for Japan, I think the biggest challenge is how we can persuade the general public that racial discrimination is criminal offense—not a misdemeanor, not a lame excuse for unwillingness to communication with NJ based on race, culture, ethnicity,
    or minor civic violation that can be easily resolved with out-of-court settlement for petty cash or hush money. At what moment do they realize the magnitude of misconduct that will cause significant injury to one’s life? I think Zainiches and migrant workers are the ones we see the merit on criminalizing discrimination since they have their own history of social injustice (e.g., lynching of Korean residents in the aftermath of the1923 Great Kanto Earthquake; labor exploitation under technical-trainee visa).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>