INTRODUCTION

• Participants begin to formulate Remedial Action Plans to handle threatening situations in a manner that respects freedom of expression and preserves safety.
• Participants can consider the list of skills and tools they generated and refined during the Skills Brainstorm activity in Learning Path 3, if applicable.
• Encourage participants to write down their plans. They may use their Faith for Rights notebooks, if provided. 
• The optional questions under the Discussion Questions tab may be used to guide the process. 

ACTIVITY

• Identify the Problem: Participants identify areas of conflict related to incitement of hatred within their local communities.

For instance, members of their faith group might misunderstand a custom or tradition of another religious group. 

• Recommend Corrective Actions: Participants next determine what types of remedial, or corrective, actions could be taken to improve the situation.

In this instance, a faith leader might invite a representative of another faith group to speak to the congregants about differing customs or traditions.

• Assess the Resources: Participants consider how the skills and tools generated during the Brainstorm Activity in Learning Path 3 could be implemented within the Remedial Action Plan.

For instance, if one idea was to attend a conflict resolution training session, the faith leader might use communication techniques learned in the training when approaching a representative of another faith group for the first time. 

Participants also consider additional resources that may be necessary. 

• Set Goals: Participants determine what they would like to achieve by implementing their Remedial Action Plans.

For instance, an end goal may be to hold an annual interfaith worship service. 

DISCUSSION

• Participants share their ideas with the group to determine the most appropriate ways to refine and to implement their Remedial Action Plans. 

• Participants may also share resources available in their faith communities or provided by a government agency or nonprofit organization to mitigate situations related to discrimination and incitement to hatred.

One example is a massive open online source (or MOOC) offered by universities. Some MOOCs are available under the Resources tab.

Another resource is the website Stop Funding Hate (also under the Resources tab).

CONCLUSION

• Participants may commit to put into action one element of their Action Plan and to share their progress with the participants in a future session. 

These optional questions may guide participants as they formulate their Remedial Action Plans.

• What is a problem or source of conflict related to incitement to hatred that can be improved?
• What past actions have worked to mitigate the conflict?
• What past actions have failed to mitigate the conflict?
• What skills or tools are necessary to mitigate the conflict?
• What additional resources are necessary to mitigate the conflict?
• What risks should be considered when implementing this Remedial Action Plan?
• What should be the first step in implementing this Remedial Action Plan?
• What adjustments might need to be made throughout the process?
• What is the end goal in implementing this Remedial Action Plan?

• University of Geneva, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) (in French)
• University of Groningen, Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
• Stop Funding Hate, videos about the effects of advertising and social media on promoting or stopping hate speech. (The videos’ average run time is 2 minutes.)

Streaming from the Internet

Internet connectivity is required to stream the Stop Funding Hate videos. 

If it is not possible to screen these videos during the session, participants can watch them on their own prior to coming to the session. Facilitator may suggest a particular video or encourage participants to choose on their own. (Videos average 2 minutes in length.) During the session, participants may summarize the videos’ content before beginning their discussion. 

Flexibility in Choosing Activities

While facilitators have flexibility in choosing peer-to-peer activities for Faith for Rights sessions depending on the needs and interests of the group, some activities complement or build on another activity within the suggested Learning Paths.

In Learning Path 3, Remedial Action Plans builds on Skills Brainstorm by incorporating the skills and tools generated during the brainstorm session into an action plan. Facilitators may choose to do these two activities in tandem although it is not required. Learning Paths are suggestions and can be adapted as a Faith for Rights group sees fit. 

Additional Tips for All Peer-to-Peer Activities 

• The #Faith4Rights modules are flexible and require adaptation by the facilitators before their use. Case studies related to peer-to-peer exercises in the 18 modules need to be selected by the facilitators from within the environment where the learning takes place. The #Faith4Rights toolkit is a prototype methodology that requires contextualization, based on the text of the 18 commitments, context, and additional supporting documents.
• Not all issues raised need to be resolved. This would be an impossible and even a counterproductive target. The aim is rather to enhance critical thinking and communication skills, admitting that some questions could receive many answers, depending on numerous factors.
• Tensions may occur during discussions related to “faith” and “rights.” Most of these tensions are due to human interpretations. Learning sessions are spaces for constructive dialogue in a dynamic process where tensions can be reduced with the help of clear methodologies, including pre-emptive situation analysis and evidence of positive results in areas of intersectionality between faith and rights.
• When preparing the sessions, facilitators need to factor in the profile, age, and backgrounds of participants. Focused attention on the learning objectives can transform tensions into constructive exploration of new ideas.
• Meaningful engagement requires democratically pre-established rules. Facilitators should dedicate time with participants to elaborate these rules together at the outset and act all along the training as their custodians.
• The time frames suggested in this #Faith4Rights toolkit are merely indicative. Facilitators may adapt them freely to suit the needs of their group of participants. The key balance is between respecting the overall time frame while not cutting short a positive exchange momentum.
• To ensure optimal and sustainable benefit, facilitators may create a “training notebook” for participants during their peer-to-peer learning sessions. It would contain a compilation of templates to help participants keep track of what they have learned throughout the program and eventually use this notebook as their personalized follow-up tool.
• When technically feasible, facilitators are also advised to project the module under discussion on screen in order to alternate between discussions thereon and showing the audio-visual materials listed in each module or any other items selected by the facilitator.

• “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.” (Ancient Egyptian Middle Kingdom)
• “Repay injury with justice and kindness with kindness.” (Confucius)
• “What is hateful to you, don’t do to your friend.” (Talmud, Shabat, 31,a)
• “Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.” (Buddha)
• “By self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.” (Mahābhārata)
• “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18)
• “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)
• “Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.” (Baha’u’llah)