Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2024

The Current Transcript for November 8, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I know it is a tense time between Canada and India, but violence and intimidation and protesting each other's places of worship is never appropriate.

MATT GALLOWAY: Tense is one way to put it. Relations between the governments of Canada and India already in freefall, took a nosedive on Thanksgiving when the Prime Minister accused his Indian counterparts of supporting a campaign of violence here. In the wake of that accusation, there have been violent confrontations in Ontario and British Columbia between members of the Sikh and Hindu communities outside places of worship. In 30 minutes, what's behind those protests? How the diaspora here is responding and what it will take to turn down the temperature. Also this morning...

SOUNDCLIP

NICK LEIGHTON: We're climbing. It does exist. There is a button. It does work. Technically, you can recline if you want, but in etiquette world, you know, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

MATT GALLOWAY: The busy travel season is approaching and airlines would like you to mind your manners, please? One has even gone so far as to shame those who try to board the plane before their zone is called. With a loud, buzzing alert. In an hour, The Contemporary Etiquette Guide to Flying. Plus, the Rogan Effect, how ultra-popular podcasters like Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman eclipse mainstream media in the U.S. election, and perhaps in elections to come elsewhere. But we begin with calls by some Canadian mayors to invoke the notwithstanding clause to clear out homeless encampments. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

Ontario mayors on encampments

Guests: Patrick Brown, Marianne Meed Ward

[Music: Theme]

MG: In almost every city in Canada and in some smaller towns, too, you are likely to see people living outside in tents. It is a symptom of a housing and homelessness crisis and it's been going on for years.

[Sounds of protesting at homeless encampments]

MG: Many encampments are in parks and sometimes police are ordered to clear people out.

[Sounds continue]

MG: That was three years ago in Toronto as police cleared tents from a downtown park. Ontario big city mayors say there are currently 1400 encampments across that province, and those mayors are calling on higher levels of government to help them with the crisis. All of them agree that they need more funding and more mental health and addiction supports. But some are asking for more, including use of the notwithstanding clause to remove encampments from public parks. This is a request that is being watched by communities and leaders of those communities across this country. Marianne Meed Ward is the mayor of Burlington and the chair of the Ontario Big City Mayors. Patrick Brown is the mayor of Brampton, Ontario. Good morning to you both.

PATRICK BROWN & MARIANNE MEED WARD: Moore. Thanks for having us.

MG: Thank you for being here. Mayor Meed Ward, tell me what's going on in your city when it comes to people living outdoors.

MARIANNE MEED WARD: We certainly have people who are living in tents at various places. We don't have the scale of encampments that are present in cities really large and small across the province, rural, northern, big cities, small cities. And we're fortunate in Halton region that we have been able to offer people a bed. And, you know, the recent court ruling said that you can't just clear out encampments if you have nowhere for folks to go. And that's a compassionate response. So we have a team of people, mental health workers, social workers that go out and visit with people who are living in tents. We offer them services. We let them know that it's not safe or ideal for them to continue living where they are. They don't always take our services, but we do have a place for them. That being said, our shelter system in Halton is 140% right now. So, we are oversubscribed. We are doing everything we can, but we need help from the federal and the provincial government.

MG: What's been the response from people in your community? We'll get into more of this in detail. But just briefly, Mary Mead Ward, what's been the response from people in your community to a very visible sign of homelessness?

MARIANNE MEED WARD: Well, people are worried for, first and foremost, they're really compassionate and worried for the people who are living in tents. They, they want help to be provided. They ask me regularly, what am I doing to help people who find themselves in this situation? They also are feeling unsettled for themselves. And when they see folks pitching a tent near their property, they wonder if they're, you know, do they have a propane tank? Is the tent going to burn down? Is that person going to be, you know, are they going to behave in a safe manner? And, and so it is really unsettling for everybody. And it's both, there's concern for people in those encampments, in tents, for their well-being, but there's also broader concern for the entire community.

MG: Mayor Patrick Brown, what does it look like in Brampton when it comes to encampments?

PATRICK BROWN: Yeah, it's, it's challenging. And so, you know, there's a lot of worry about the inability for municipalities to be able to deal with this growing challenge. As always, when it comes to funding and support, it always gets downloaded to, to cities. And this is something that we really haven't had a compassionate response to. We're allowing people to die on our streets every single day. I believe it's 21 or 23 a day. Addictions-related deaths in, in Canada in locations like encampments. And, you know, I can tell you in Brampton, in Peel Region, everyone in an encampment is offered a shelter bed. Part of the challenge, though, is that in our shelter system, there's a prohibition on drug use. And so, we really struggle with the ability to bring individuals in from encampments. Usually there's an intertwining with severe addiction issues. Fentanyl is a, is a major killer in our, in our region and it's something we really struggle with.

MG: And so same question to you, Patrick Brown, that I asked to Mayor Meed Ward, which is what's the response been from, from members of your community, from your constituents, the people who live in Brampton and Peel Region to, as I say, a very visible example of homelessness?

PATRICK BROWN: Anger that in a country as prosperous as Canada, we can have people living in dangerous and precarious conditions. You know, I would note that for the last year, Brampton has been removing some encampments under the context that we've had encampments that were in flood plains where there was propane tanks that the fire department felt was a significant risk to the nearby area. And so we have had some dismantling of encampments. We know this is, I would say, a grey area for the municipal ability to remove encampments. But out of an abundance of caution and safety, you know, we have been.

MG: Mayor Meed Ward, as the head of the Ontario Big City Mayors Caucus, do you feel like cities are able to handle this issue?

MARIANNE MEED WARD: We're absolutely not able to handle it on our own. And the OBCM and we are 29 mayors of the largest cities in Ontario. We represent collectively more than 70% of the Ontario population. So, it's municipalities over 100,000. And we have, we started the Solve the Crisis campaign. There's a website, Solvethecrisis.ca in August and said, look, we, we can't do this on our own anymore. Our shelter system that, that we fund with provincial dollars is oversubscribed. Municipalities are contributing money to build supportive housing. One of the best examples is in London, Kingston, Ontario has done some terrific work as well. But this is simply not something that was ever intended to be funded through the property tax base. And we don't have the resources, but we are digging deep into our pockets and into our property taxpayers' pockets to, to do something, because it's simply not okay to say, well, this isn't our jurisdiction, it's not our lane. So we're just going to, you know, let this unfold. As, as Patrick said, people are dying on the streets. We're not going to do that. But we are stretched. We're stretched thin. We don't have the resources and the expertise. Our hospitals are becoming the new shelters. Our police officers are becoming mental health workers. It wasn't how any of that was supposed to be intended. And for the dollars to build supportive housing, you know, the money that is spent to house somebody, let's say, in a hospital room overnight who's having an acute mental health crisis or is overdosing. We could help far more people if we directed it to supportive housing and preventive action.

MG: Patrick Brown, I can hear you agreeing in the background.

PATRICK BROWN: Yeah, absolutely. You know, the resource strain this puts on, on cities is extraordinary. And just to give you the Peel context, just with the Peel police and I sit on their, their board, in the last two years, we've spent 30,000 police hours waiting in the hospital for someone who is struggling with addictions on the street. We've used up 150,000 police hours dealing with encampments and individuals struggling with, you know, obviously a severe case of addictions. And in some cases, it's the same individuals again and again. We had one case locally that we had to send a police officer to 53 times. This is not humane. This is not compassionate that we're allowing this to happen in Canada. And sadly, I don't think it's unique. And in Brampton or Burlington, I think you're hearing these, these horror stories across the country.

MG: And so in the wake of that, about a dozen mayors are asking the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override a recent court ruling that would restrict municipalities from removing encampments without providing shelter options. One of the mayors who signed that letter is the mayor of Guelph, Cam Guthrie. He spoke with CBC's Power and Politics about why. Take a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

CAM GUTHRIE: Where is the rights of the mom that wants to go to the park, or the elderly lady that wants to sit on the bench in our downtown core that's overtaken by encampments to enjoy our downtown? Where is the rights of other people, too? And this is where the friction is and where we need guidance and clarity around it from municipalities as we offer a pathway to health and shelter for people, but also try to keep safety and welcoming spaces clean and clear for everybody. I think that's a fair and reasonable position and most people would actually agree with me.

MG: Patrick Brown, you signed that letter. Why did you do that?

PATRICK BROWN: Well, first of all, there's a divergence of opinion, and Marianne does a great job trying to bring all the mayors on the, on the same page on these issues. I wasn't at the meeting where we had this. I sent a representative, Rowena Santos, who is also an FCM and a councillor in Brampton to attend on my behalf, and we did support that motion. We're in a little bit of a different position because we have been removing encampments, but we do realise that they could be challenged, there could be injunctions and making sure that cities have additional tools I think is important. I go back to my premise: It's not right to allow 23 Canadians a day to die in precarious conditions like encampments. We just can't accept that as our reality, I think right now. You know, my, my position, I'm sure my, you know, similar perspective with other mayors who signed this this letter is, you know, the premier said put it in writing. And I think many of us are just so frustrated at what, what has become a broken status quo. There's inadequate funding for mental health support. There's inadequate funding for shelter.

MG: But how does, how does signing a letter that would ask the Premier to override the charter in some ways with, with the notwithstanding clause address that? And one of the reasons why the notwithstanding clause is required is because of a ruling in Waterloo and Kingston that restricted cities from evicting encampments on constitutional grounds. The judge said that a lack of shelter space means that the bylaw, the ability to remove those folks would infringe upon their charter rights. So in signing that, Mayor Brown, what are you hoping to achieve?

PATRICK BROWN: Well, hopefully it really draws more attention to a crisis that has been largely ignored. And so I think the concern is that decision in Waterloo could become precedent elsewhere, inhibit a municipal ability to deal with not only a safety concern for the individuals living in encampments, but for the surrounding neighbourhood. You know, obviously, we have a huge number of criminal incidents around the encampments as well. And so, I think there's a plethora of challenges, and this is a plea for help.

MG: Mayor Meed Ward, you did not sign the letter about the notwithstanding clause. Why not?

MARIANNE MEED WARD: Well, certainly I understand the frustrations and the concerns that Patrick and Cam and others have outlined related to this issue. It is a humanitarian crisis and it's affecting both people in encampments, but also people living near those encampments. The question is, what is the best tool to resolve that? And I remained absolutely convinced that the best tool is for governments to provide supportive housing, provide mental health supports, addiction counselling, and that is the basis of the Solve the Crisis campaign that, that OBCM did lead. And that is the consensus from our mayors that that was, that was the right approach. We launched that back in August. That is the solution. And when you look at the ruling, the ruling didn't say you can't clear out encampments. They said you can't do it if you don't have somewhere for folks to go. So it to me, it's not a solution to simply invoke the notwithstanding clause to clear out an encamp--. Where are you clearing folks to? Where are they going to go? A neighbouring park, a neighbouring municipality. All we do then is shuffle this problem around rather than actually solve it. So , I, I...

MG: What would you say, what would you say to the comments that Cam Guthrie made, though, specifically? I mean, I think everybody would agree that the, the long-term solution is housing. But his point was that people want to be able to use those public spaces comfortably. And he, he made the point in that comment that he feels that most people would agree with him. Do you think he's right that most people would agree with him?

MARIANNE MEED WARD: I think people are expecting that we do something to ensure that the folks that are living on the street and on benches and in tents have a place to go. I think that's what we agree on, that that we're a compassionate and humanitarian country. And it, it is, it's not just a long-term solution. We, we do have, as I said, we are oversubscribed in our shelter system. We make room. We also have relationships with local hotels here in Halton where we can provide a bed for somebody immediately. And we do. And so, you know, I understand the, the concern around long-term housing takes a little bit longer to put together, but we do have short-term solutions. I've had folks reach out and say we have modular home solutions that, that kind of scenario is playing out in municipalities that have really large encampments. So, we have the ability to solve this now. We have the ability to solve it for the short, medium and long term. But I think it's a distraction for us to fight about the notwithstanding clause when we know what we need to do.

MG: Mayor Brown is there, and one of the reasons why we wanted to talk to you both about this is because, as I say, people across the country in cities and towns are watching this to see what happens here in this situation. Do you think there is a way to strike a balance in sharing those public spaces between people who are living encampments because they don't have anywhere to go, because the shelters are full, and the neighbours around those parks where people have set up tents?

PATRICK BROWN: Well, you know, I have to say, how about one of the shelters not full? How about, we've just increased, increased our capacity. And so, we are offering shelter beds. This sort of blurs into another conversation, which is what they're doing in B.C. now. They're about to embark upon involuntary treat.

[Cross-talk with Patrick Brown]

MG: Do you believe that people, if there are shelter spaces are available, that people should be should be forced to go into those shelter spaces?

PATRICK BROWN: So, right now we're offering a shelter space and we've got a challenge where people in, using opioids in encampments are refusing to go to the shelter that prohibits drug use. And so in that instance, yeah, I think the city has an obligation to make sure we don't have dangerous criminal activity in a public space. Imagine the child going to that park and accidentally seen, you know, having an encounter with fentanyl. That's not safe for the community. We have an obligation, responsibility to deal with this.

MG: In the meantime, winter is coming. I mean, it's now the 8th of November. And so I'll ask you both just in the last minute and a half or so that we have Patrick Brown. First, what do you think this year will be like for people who are living outdoors in your city?

PATRICK BROWN: Precarious. And it's worrisome. And it's why I think there's not one single tool in the toolkit. I think mayors like myself are asking for numerous tools, more shelter support, more mental health funding, additional tools to deal with, with those with addictions who are unable to accept help. And so, there's not one magic solution.

MG: Mayor Meed Ward, what do you think this winter is going to be like for, again, the constituency people, as you said, who, who find themselves in a situation where the shelter system is at 140 or some per cent capacity and people are still living in tents?

MARIANNE MEED WARD: This is a humanitarian crisis. And if we saw this unfolding in another country because of a civil war or a tsunami or earthquake, we'd, we'd be sending in teams of people to, to help people and to rebuild. That's the kind of approach that we need to take here. And that's why the Ontario Big City Mayors has called this a humanitarian crisis. That's exactly what it is. And we care for the people that are in those tents, but we also care for everyone living in our community that is watching this unfold.

MG: This is a familiar story across the country and people are watching what's happening in Ontario to see how this unfolds. Thank you both for being here.

PATRICK BROWN & MARIANNE MEED WARD: My pleasure. Thanks, Matt.

MG: Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown and Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward. She is also head of the Ontario Big City Mayors Caucus. As I mentioned, this is a story that's playing out in big cities and small towns and everything in between right across this country. Your thoughts on what you've heard this morning in terms of dealing with the encampment crisis and addressing that crisis, you can email us Thecurrent@CBC.ca. Want to tell you about a story that's coming up Monday on the program. In honour of Remembrance Day, we will meet some Canadian veterans who have retired from military service and are trying to find their way through the often difficult transition to civilian life. And they're doing this with the help of a program at the Cordon Bleu Cooking School in Ottawa.

SOUNDCLIP

PAUL FULLER: The day. My name is Paul Fuller. I'm a student on the Basic Cuisine course at Le Cordon Bleu. I'm a retired colonel from the Canadian Armed Forces, with 32 years of experience. I did two operational tours, 1 in 95 in Bosnia, Kosovo, Venus and 2008, I went to Afghanistan. In high school actually, I was always interested in cooking and wanted to become a chef, so I saw the opportunity to further my passion. We've learned during our course discipline, you know, wearing the uniform like the [inaudible] system. So just like us, you know, with ranks. So we follow orders of the people above you. They tell you what to do and you execute them in your best possible means. Following orders is the same thing in the kitchen than in the Canadian Armed Forces. But also we have a, we can show initiative. If we see something is wrong, we need to speak up to improve things. And my aim is to work part-time in old age home like we have the Veterans House residence here in Ottawa, Perley. So that's something I'll be looking into to give back to the community.

MG: Monday, hear how learning to cook is helping some veterans find purpose and solace. And then later on in the morning, tune in to our CBC Radio or Remembrance Day special featuring the ceremony from the nation's capital. I'll be your host, along with World Report's Marcia Young and our special guest, the host of Ideas, Nahlah Ayed, talking about her new book that tells the story. And it is a remarkable one of a Canadian couple who worked undercover in France during the Second World War. You can hear that at 10:55 a.m. in most of the country, 11:55 a.m. in Atlantic Canada, and 12:25 p.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador. Your CBC News is coming up next. And then...

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 3: The people outside, they started protesting and they went wild. [Music: Theme fading in] These incidents, like not unite the community, they divide the community.

MG: Tensions in Indo-Canadian communities boiled over this week with violent protests between six separatists and Hindu nationalists outside temples in British Columbia and Ontario. Coming up, we'll talk about what it will take to bring the temperature down and how the diaspora is responding to these protests. That's coming up in six minutes. My name's Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Sikh-Hindu tensions flare

Guests: Yudhvir Jaswal, Satwinder Bains

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

[Sounds of people shouting in foreign language]

MG: The Ontario cities of Brampton and Mississauga were the sites of violent clashes this week between Sikhs and Hindus. Police have charged three men in the wake of the violence, and there were similar incidents in British Columbia, in Surrey, and in Vancouver. Police there made three arrests, but have not yet laid any charges. On one side of these protests are supporters of Khalistan, a proposed independent Sikh homeland in India, and the other, those who back India's Hindu nationalist government, which opposes the Khalistani movement and characterises its activists as terrorists. In a moment, we will hear from Satwinder Bains, who's an expert on the Khalistan movement. She's at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia. But first, I'm joined by Yudhvir Jaswal. He's group editor of Y Media. This is a publication that covers news on South Asian communities in Canada, as well as international news. Yudhvir, good morning.

YUDHVIR JASWAL: Hi, Good morning. How are you?

MG: I'm well. Thank you for being here. I want to begin by having you describe the scenes at some of these protests. You were covering them in Brampton and Mississauga. What did they look like?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: First things first. I must say this. The clashes were definitely not between the Hindus and the Sikh community as it's portrayed in some of the media outlets. What exactly happened was, we all know in the background of the Hardeep Nijjar murder, and after that, our Prime Minister announcing in the Parliament and later in press conferences and RCMP also announced that, yes, there could be. They're alleging that there could be possible links to the agents of the Indian government, though the Indian government clearly denying any role in that. But after that, it has led to protests against the consulate officials here in Canada. Now, the consulate officials, they were supposed to come there and they came there in the temple, their Hindu Sabha temple in Brampton, to issue life certificates, which is a process required for issuing life certificates to those who want their pensions and for other reasons. [MG: Right.] Now, there are protesters outside this Hindu Sabha temple who are saying this, that we were not protesting against any community. We were not protesting against the religious plays, but we were protesting against Indian consulate officials. So, the tensions were already high and the emotions were high. And there was some issues there and things got flared up.

MG: The videos you mentioned, I mean, these have circulated on social media and beyond. They were, they showed very violent clashes. You just had people being attacked with sticks. There were reports of other weapons there as well.

YUDHVIR JASWAL: You're right. They attacked them with sticks. That definitely should not have happened. And yes, there are also questions now being raised. Why would you even protest outside a religious place? As a matter of fact, I've spoken to many who support the protest against Indian culture, but they're saying, yes, we agree the protest should not be done outside a religious place. Mayor Patrick Brown is also proposing this, that he will completely ban any protest outside a religious place.

MG: Patrick Brown is the mayor of Brampton. I want to get to his comments in a moment, but go back to, to the visit by these consular officials. They are at a Hindu temple in Brampton. And as you said, they're processing documents that people need for pensions. Why would they be there? Why would they be doing this work at the temple rather than in an official consular building.

YUDHVIR JASWAL: Just to facilitate so that, you know, people don't have to travel all the way up to the consular, consulate office in downtown. And this has been happening for a while. As a matter of fact, this was not the only place. They do this in Surrey as well. They do this here in Brampton as well. And, and they were actually supposed to do now in another Sikh temple as well. But just yesterday evening, the announcement came that it has been cancelled now for now. They said, okay, fine, they could carry on this process. But for a few months, I doubt they will do this. But now, it has been cancelled.

MG: Is the fear or the suspicion that those consular officials are not just doing consular business, that they may be spying or they may be, that they may have something else that they are up to?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: I do not have a clear evidence that there may be some, but, but there are allegations. And yes, there are concerns from a minority. Yes, there are concerns.

MG: You said right at the very beginning of our conversation that you were, you wanted to distinguish between what's happening and the broader community, saying that this is not a clash between the Sikh in Hindu communities. Why are you so specific on that? Why did you say that?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: The way things are portrayed in the media as if this was a fight between the Hindus and Sikhs. There are millions of Hindus and Sikhs living across India, right across India. If you go right across India, you will see millions of Hindus and Sikhs living side-by-side. And in Canada, this is one of the finest things that I've observed. And, and they all live together peacefully. So, there is nothing between Hindus or Sikhs or for that matter, even Hindus and Muslims or any reason for that matter. It's a clash of ideologies. One group they want a separate state in India and India would not allow that. That's only true.

MG: How has that changed in the wake of the killing of the British Columbia Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June of last year? How have those relations in this country between Sikhs and Hindus changed?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I...

MG: You don't, you don't think the relations have changed at all?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: Not at all. There's a very, very small minority, those who want a separate state in India. They were always not happy with India. And definitely there were already people who would not allow them to do that. So, the fight with them has been there. It'll go on. Of course, the challenge is now, it's, it has affected and, you know, we saw these dark days from 1978 to 1998, prominently in Punjab. I've lived through those 20 years. And the common Punjabis suffered a lot than the community suffered across India because of this clash. And that's why I think the community is going to suffer here as well.

MG: This is I mean, we're seeing these, these protests and the attacks and conflicts here in Canada, but what's going on has spread beyond this country's borders. The prime minister of India, Narendra Modi, was speaking about the protests, saying, in his words, these are deliberate attacks on the Hindu temple. He said he expects the Canadian authorities to uphold the rule of law, added that any attempts to intimidate Indian diplomats in Canada were, in his words, equally appalling. How have his comments, the comments of the Prime Minister of India impacted the communities here?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: I don't think it was a deliberate or any planned attack on a Hindu temple. No, I think just in the heat of the moment, things did happen that I've already mentioned. It was wrong. Protesting outside of religious place, that itself is wrong. We should have designated places for protest.

MG: How concerned are you, though, that the Prime Minister of India is weighing in on this and they're not just weighing in, but suggesting to your point that these are deliberate attacks?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: Prime Minister of India, he should be concerned. That's fine, but he should not really give a verdict. That's my issue. When leaders start issuing verdicts and since you're talking about leadership, I think there are a lot of challenges India is facing. They should be focussed more on their challenges and our leadership here in Canada. I think just by condemning the attacks and then not really doing much about this thing, I know the mayor has announced, which is welcome, but then what is our federal leadership doing about this? Federal leadership, our provincial leadership, those are the people who have resources. We have time, we have protection. And that's the responsibility we in the media are taking the leadership. We are talking to the Sikh leadership on the [inaudible] Council. We are in discussion. I've been discussing on phone with the Hindu Federation. They are doing it by themselves. Peel police is actively participating. But if I may question what is our federal and provincial leadership? What steps have they taken? Have they come out? Have they organised any press conference? As a matter of fact, when we asked them. I've asked many cabinet ministers, they hesitate, they're reluctant to give any answers. Then where is your leadership?

MG: What would you want from the federal leadership?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: Come out, first of all, do a proper press conference. Do a proper press conference that, yes, what steps are you taking? If you don't want to support designated areas, that's fine for protest. But what are you doing to avoid this conflict? I mean, it's not about two groups. I think what we've seen so many well, in clashes. I mean, the schools are being hit. The businesses are being hit, hospitals are being targeted. Highways have been blocked. Religious places are being targeted. And this is, this is not the first issue and this will definitely not be the last issue. I'm telling that unless our federal and provincial government, they come out, they ban all these protests, at least on all sensitive areas, first of all, once and for all, and create designated spaces, the time to act is now.

MG: We're out of time. But let me ask you two quick things. One is, in the absence of that leadership from all levels of government that you're pointing the finger, particularly at the federal government, what are you most concerned about as these clashes continue?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: I'm not just quoting from this, that the federal, provincial, municipal, they all have to sit down together and do something. Second, what I am more concerned, this is, this is the number one issue for Canada. I said it to at least 50 different leaders from, from Judith Grove to Michael Ignatieff to develop it to our Prime Minister. Former Stephen Harper has introduced him up into the current Prime Minister. I have discussed with every, I've said this every time. This will be the number one challenge for Canada. It's we have a very diverse community. We are proud of our multicultural system, Great Britain. How are we integrating them? I'm very concerned because as the escalation with social use of social media, fake flyers and so many fake news going on, the challenges are going to increase. And this will be the number one challenge for Canada because we've seen clashes in different parts of the world. How do we solve them? We bring our Canadians together by integrating them. We have so many different, you know, South Asian Heritage Month, Sikh Heritage Month, [inaudible] Heritage Month. But how are we integrating them? Why should, we should have proper ministry. They should work throwing money on multicultural you know, programs will not help.

MG: And would you speak with just finally, when you speak with members of the community, you speak with people across the diaspora about these protests. What do you hear from them?

YUDHVIR JASWAL: I would say 99% of the people I speak with and even on my radio show, 99% of the people or even more, I don't have the exact number, but even more would say we do not want challenges or foreign conflicts to be even discussed here. More and more people tell me Yudhvir, on Y media, we only want two issues. People are worried about, you know, the future of their kids here. They want, they do not want to discuss these issues at all. They don't. Most of them. They're asking me, who are these people who have so much time to go and do these violent protests? Who are these people? We don't want to do that. We don't have time.

MG: Yudhvir Jaswal, thank you very much.

YUDHVIR JASWAL: Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Thank you so much.

MG: Yudhvir Jaswal is the group editor of Y Media. We reached him in Mississauga, Ontario.

Yesterday, Indian officials cancelled several consular events in Ontario in the wake of those protests. As we mentioned, there were also clashes and protests in British Columbia this week. Satwinder Bains is director of the South Asian Studies Institute at the University of the Fraser Valley, and she's in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Satwinder, good morning to you.

SATWINDER BAINS: Hello, Matt. Good morning.

MG: When you and I spoke last fall, you said on this program that you were worried about rising tensions within the Indian, Indian diaspora here in Canada and where those tensions might lead. So given that, how surprised are you to see these clashes in Ontario and British Columbia?

SATWINDER BAINS: I want to say I'm always surprised because I'm an optimist and I always have hope that we will resolve our issues in more meaningful, in a more meaningful manner, in a more building solidarity with each other. So I'm always surprised, but at the same time, it's hurtful to see how these protests have been kind of projected out in India by the politicians and by the media in the sense that they're showing sectarian violence as something that's come out of this. And like the previous speaker, I believe that that probably is not the case. I don't think it was targeting faith groups against each other. I think it was an unfortunate issue of placement. As the consul general, people from the consulate were at the Hindu temple. And then, of course, anger flared from there.

MG: Can you explain why pro-Khalistan activists would object to these visits to places of worship by Indian consular officials? There was a request being made or there were requests from a number of different groups saying that. And then the World Sikh Organization of Canada suggested this, that the organised, these are his words, the organised forays of Indian diplomats into Canadian communities appear designed to incite conflict and must cease. Why are people, those activists, so concerned about those government officials being in those places of worship?

SATWINDER BAINS: As you know, Matt, soft diplomacy has kind of failed in Canada with the Indian government in the last few months. And I think that there is a sense that the Indian government is playing a role at the gurdwaras, at the Hindu temples, not by inciting hatred. I don't think they're doing that. I think they feel that they're canvassing the communities and finding people perhaps who would take sides or perhaps they want to, I wouldn't want to use words like infiltrate, etc. Those are very powerful words, but maybe make some inroads into the communities. On the negative side, I think soft diplomacy has a lot of a big role to play in all countries, in all parts of the world. And I think the consul general is fulfilling that role by assisting seniors and others in these places. You know, for the Sikh and Hindu communities, the temples and the gurdwaras are community places. We don't have other community places that we gather at. So, the consul general is taking that opportunity to go there. And I think the protest is against that, that they're going into places of worship with government agendas and perhaps they're afraid of those government agendas. They don't want to see afraid perhaps, but they don't like those government agendas. And I think they're protesting that. So, I would say that the consul generals of [inaudible] India has to find other places to perhaps do the diplomacy work. Maybe the gurdwaras and temples are not the appropriate places, but there is a lack of other places as well to reach a large community group and it's an easy access. But I think there are also underlying issues that I think people are afraid of.

MG: Why is it that you think activists within the Sikh community, are particularly feeling sensitive right now?

SATWINDER BAINS: As you know, this period of time is a commemoration of 1984 and everything that happened in India in November. So, this is a very sensitive time for people and very emotional time for people. And I've said this many times that perhaps we are not able to move forward because there has been no resolution.

MG: Can you just explain for people who don't know about 1984, just very briefly what happened [SATWINDER BAINS: Of course], but also what is the resolution that people in the community might be looking for?

SATWINDER BAINS: Of course, 1984 is a very important year in terms of history for Sikhs. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of the time, had wanted to rout out terrorists who were holding, you know, in the, held up in the gurdwaras in India. So, she attacked the largest gurdwara that for anyway for the diaspora and for Sikhs in India is a very important site of religion and worship and went in and closed the city off and closed all media and attacked those people that were holed up in there. And then from there, it escalated where she was killed. And then there was pogroms held all over India, especially in Delhi, where Sikhs were targeted and killed. And so it's a very, very emotional and sensitive time. And the issue of resolution is that the people who did that work and killed people at the time and incited violence and then acted on that violence were never held to justice. And it has taken, it is still today outstanding issue for Sikhs, and Sikhs in the diaspora who fled India at the time, who were afraid for their lives and live in Canada now and who have moved away from the homeland but have come to another country, continue to harbour their emotional pain. And this pain has never been resolved by the government of India. And I think it just continues to haunt us and it continues to play a role in this idea of Khalistan, which is a free state inside of India from...

MG: That idea of Khalistan and the tensions that exist were exacerbated in the wake of the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was shot dead last year. Gurkeerat Singh, of the Sikh temple in Surrey, where Hardeep Nijjar was shot, spoke with the CBC's Meera Bains about the aims of the pro-Khalistan protest. Have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

GURKEERAT SINGH: The Sikhs are not protesting against a faith or any specific type of group. Our, our protests are against India, and the Indian diplomats who have now been, now been labelled people of interest here in Canada for their for their ongoing violence against Sikh activists.

MG: That is obviously not how Hindu protesters see things. Do you think that the message that he is talking about, is that message lost when the protest is happening outside of a Hindu temple? And as the CBC has reported, the people at the protest or some of the people at that protest are holding cardboard cut-outs depicting the assassination of the former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Does that, does that bury the message that he's, he's talking about there?

SATWINDER BAINS: I agree with you. I think the message is very badly crafted. And I think that this moment and I said that last year too, Matt, that maybe to you, Matt, that maybe that was a turning point after Hardeep Singh Nijjar's murder, that there might be a place for to have conversations and to build bridges and to find ways to move forward. I'm sorry to say that that probably hasn't happened. And there's a call to leaders from both within the community and for politicians, as the media has mentioned earlier, to come forward now and use other means to get your messages across to each other and to find solidarity with each other on the issues, which are, I think most people would agree with, that no one wants violence. Both Hindus and Sikhs, I think would agree to that. But the message is definitely lost, especially when in the public arena it is covered in this manner. The average Canadian doesn't understand the nuances of what emotional baggage people are carrying. And a long, long history, as Yudhvir has mentioned, of Hindus and Sikhs living side by side in India. But having, still having clashes, there is communal violence and yet there is a marginalised group. Hindu, Hindus are the largest group in India and Sikhs do feel persecuted there as well. So these stories have, you know, stayed one -sided. People have aired their stories, but they haven't had a joint discussion. And I think there has been a call to leaders from the Hindu and Sikh communities to sit down. People are tired of this. And in the public arena, as Yudhvir has mentioned, we have things to do. We have a country to build. We have work to do. We've come as citizens to this country, and want to contribute to this society. However, if these issues are there, there are other means that we need to use. And I agree with you that I think the message is lost and those other means are not being harnessed. And perhaps this is the clarion call to people to say we need to use other means of protest, are not working, and protest is okay. A protest, I agree with you, a peaceful protest is a right of Canadians. However, when there is so much emotion within those protests and people use things like, you know, burning flags or using cut-outs, you know, it doesn't help the message. And I think there is a message here that we can share with each other and find maybe common solutions. Violence does not beget violence, whether it's on by pen or in paper or by standing up and doing protest. I think there's come a time when we need to make some sort of decisions. As academics, we need to come forward perhaps with a statement that says, you know, we need a better process and we need to hold our leaders accountable to that process, whatever that process looks like, it has to be a joint process.

MG: Who has to take the lead in having those conversations? You've called them difficult conversations but necessary conversations between communities. Who has to take the lead to make sure that those conversations actually happen so that people, I'm not saying that they resort to violence, but that they in the absence of those conversations, that's what they see.

SATWINDER BAINS: Well, logically, it would be the leaders of these community groups that need to come together.

MG: Do you see any evidence that that is likely or that people are interested in that?

SATWINDER BAINS: It seems like it. I've been watching these last few days and it seems like people are talking and there's been a joint effort by those groups to say this was not a sect, this was not sectarian violence. And I'm, you know, emboldened by that and I'm happy by that. However, there needs to be conversation also within, as Jane has mentioned, the groups that are, you know, not sitting at the in the protest, the ones who are watching from the side, for them to have a platform to speak about their frustrations. People, as I said to you last year, are afraid to speak because you have to be in or you have to be out. You can't be in the middle. You can't say, I agree with you, but I disagree with this. I agree that you have an issue, but I disagree with you, with the tactics you're undertaking. That difficult conversation is not happening. So, I wouldn't say it's only the leaders of the Hindu temples and Sikh gurdwaras that need to come together. I think there are people outside of that sphere who are not leaders but who have a stake in this, because as Canadians, we all feel these are discussions that have not found resolution and keeps coming. It's like that wound, that open wound that just keeps bleeding and oozing. And there comes a time when you say you have to find some balm for it because it is not going away. This is now how many years later, after '84. It's not going away.

MG: In the absence of that, how raw are relations between friends and neighbours and co-workers? Not, not at a high level, but just at a community level. And in the, [SATWINDER BAINS: No. I, I...] In, in the community itself.

SATWINDER BAINS: I'm happy to report, Matt, that at the community level, people are friendly and like all Canadians in a peace loving. I don't see these kind of flare ups, you know, on the side of the road or in my neighbourhood. I'm happy to say people are not doing that, and I'm glad to hear that that's not happening. That seems to be at a different level, and I think that level needs to hear from the bottom level as well at all levels to have these open discussions. So, we are going to take some sort of steps. I think we all need to come together. It's not a one-sided issue. It's not. And I also feel it, it because and you're so far away physically, geographically, but at the same time, through media and through age of information, it is right at our doorsteps. We need to find ways to have diplomacy and ties with the country so they can understand what we're going through. You know, Prime Minister Modi is saying these attacks are not useful. I agree with him. However, he needs to put something forward to say what, what else can we be doing? What, what should we be doing? I think at the higher level, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of India need to, I'm sure are having these discussions. But as an average Canadian citizen, you know, we're not privy to that and we need to know what should we be doing on the ground.

MG: Satwinder Bains, good to talk to you again. Thank you very much.

SATWINDER BAINS: And thank you, Matt, for taking this on.

MG: Satwinder Bains is director of the South Asian Studies Institute at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Well, coming up after your regional update, as we get close to a very busy travel season, we will talk about airplane etiquette.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We want to contain ourselves within our bubble. And so if you bring something in very smelly, you know, if you bring in a whole can of tuna, [Music: Theme fading in], that's not great because that smell will leave your bubble and that is rude.

MG: An etiquette expert walks us through the do's, don'ts and absolutely not's of air travel and what it is about airplanes in particular that leads so many of us. I'm not talking about anybody in particular here, but just leads so many of us to behave badly. That's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Airplane etiquette

Guests: Nick Leighton, Rebecca Jennings

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. Picture this. You have made it to the airport on time, through security. You are now at the gate. Finally, that magical moment of boarding is about to begin. And in a flash, hordes of your fellow passengers are descending on the gate. Forget about zones or priority boarding. Everybody's there at once. It's chaos. That scene is no stretch of the imagination these days. In the airline business, it's known as gate lice when people just kind of hoard at the gate. Now, apparently, American Airlines has had enough of that. Three U.S. airports will pilot a program where an alert will beep loudly if a passenger scans their boarding pass before it's their turn to board. Passengers at Toronto's Pearson Airport had mixed thoughts on the name and shame system.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I think, yeah, it could be a little embarrassing for the person, but I think it might be like the only way to get people to actually, like comply if they're called out.

VOICE 2: I've never tried to cut the line, but I think this technology would ensure that other people would have a second thought if they wanted to cut the line. So, I think it's a good idea.

VOICE 3: You know, public shame is never a good way to tackle a problem. It makes the people angry. And do we need more angry people at the airport? I don't really think so.

MG: For more on this new system and air travel manners in general, I'm joined by Nick Leighton. He's an etiquette expert and co-host of the podcast, "Were You Raised By Wolves?" Nick, good morning.

NICK LEIGHTON: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. What do you make of this, this idea that you go to the gates to try to board, it's not your turn and there's a [imitates beeping noise] and you are publicly named and shamed. Will this bring more order to the boarding process?

NICK LEIGHTON: I mean, something has to. But I mean, my first thought is what has taken so long? Why has it taken this long to get to this point where we can use technology for this? I mean, I feel like we should have done this from the beginning.

MG: Do you think that public shaming will be effective in terms of curbing behaviour?

NICK LEIGHTON: Well, I mean, is it public shaming? I mean, I guess it's a little bit, but I think it will help. Yeah, because I certainly would think I would look twice at my boarding pass to make sure that like, this is my boarding group to not hear that buzzer. But gate agents have always had the power to boot you if you're not in the right group. This just gives them a tool to play good cop, bad cop where the machine can now be bad cop.

MG: As an etiquette expert, how do you understand why people attempt to jump the line and not just wait their turn? Flying recently and the agent at the gate was saying, We're boarding by zone, we're boarding zone one first, then two, then three. Work their way all through this and said, that's how numbers work. As we go through the numbers and you follow the [NICK LEIGHTON: Uh-huh] numbers, how do you understand why people don't follow those numbers and just hoard at the, at the gate?

NICK LEIGHTON: I mean, how do I understand why people are rude in this world? I mean, where do you want to start? But I think when there are no consequences, people's natural inclination is often just to take advantage of that. And that is what we have seen. There are no consequences to bringing in a roller board luggage that is too big. There are no consequences to doing all sorts of things. And so when there are no consequences, then why should you change your behaviour? You know, it feels very zero sum up there. And I think people have just gotten used to just taking advantage. And I think this might be a little bit of a correction which is needed.

MG: So, if the buzzer is not the thing that's going to lead to that full correction, what else? Just on this last point here, what else what else do you think airlines could do to make the boarding process, getting on to the airplane, a bit more civilized?

NICK LEIGHTON: Well, here's the thing. I think it's in the airline's financial interest to actually not make it civilized. You know, they want to make it a little unpleasant because the more unpleasant it is, the more likely we want to pay to get out of that unpleasantness, which is what we do. It is why we pay for early boarding. It is why we pay for upgrades. It is why we pay for all of these things. And if they just made it totally pleasant for everybody in every boarding group. Well, what financial incentive is there for us to try and get out of that? So, I think there's a little of that happening, which is not exactly etiquette approved, but that's sort of the world we're living in.

MG: You have done, what, more than 200 airline etiquette-related episodes of your podcast?

NICK LEIGHTON: I mean, who knows how much etiquette content we have on airlines? It is a perennial topic. [MG: But what...?] We have not solved the problem.

MG: I was going to say, why is it a perennial topic? We'll talk about some specifics, but what is it about the I mean, maybe it's that people don't want to be there or they want, they just want to get through the process. But what is it about airlines that leads us to behave badly?

NICK LEIGHTON: Well, I think what is interesting about air travel is that it brings people together from different etiquette backgrounds. All etiquette is local. You know, Paris, Texas and Paris, France have very different etiquette. And both are correct in their respective locations. But an airline brings people together who are operating from different etiquette playbooks. And so my idea of personal space, or my idea of what is appropriate to eat on an airplane might be very different from yours. And we add to that people who are tired, sleep-deprived, maybe a little cranky, hungry, stressed out, there's anxiety. And then, of course, it's a recipe for etiquette disaster. So I think this is just the inherent nature of air travel. It just brings people together who have different etiquette rules in their heads.

MG: So, it's heading toward a pretty busy travel season. We thought we would ask you beyond the boarding process about some of the worst travel behaviours that people perhaps have seen. I'm going to start with this. You're sitting , I mean, in one of those rows that it's three across. It's a very crowded plane. Somebody in the middle or maybe the window seat is standing up, kind of over top of you. And they want to move. They want to get off, they, they want to get past you. What is the best approach, if you are there on the aisle, what's the best approach to deal with it?

NICK LEIGHTON: Oh, people try to get off the plane like as soon as the tires hit the runway.

MG: Yeah, we have stopped. And you're not even supposed to undo your seatbelt yet and people won't get out.

NICK LEIGHTON: Yeah, I experienced that recently. And I said to the gentleman, it's like I unfortunately have nowhere to go. I cannot go anywhere. There is nowhere for me to go. And you could just say that in a nice, polite way. But if somebody is so insistent and just getting past you, getting out of that middle seat, getting ahead of you in that aisle, then just let them. I mean, is that 20-second delay on you going to make a difference in your life? Is that the hill you want to die on? So, you know, sometimes it's just better to let people have their way, even if it's sort of obnoxious. But yes, generally speaking, we want to just let people ahead of us go first. That is the general etiquette rule, which hopefully we all agree on.

MG: Do you recline your seat?

NICK LEIGHTON: I do not. Because for me, the difference between that inch difference makes zero impact on my comfort. So, I am not a recliner, but reclining, it does exist. There is a button. It does work. Technically you can recline if you want, but in etiquette world, you know, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Like, you can not hold the door open for somebody at Tim Hortons, you're allowed to do that. But like, is it polite to hold the door open? Yeah. So yes, you can recline, but is the person behind you 6-foot-5? You know, should you... Are we in the middle of meal service? Are they using a laptop and are you going to recline real fast where you might snap their laptop? You know, there's, there's some considerations involved.

MG: Well, it sounds like you're actually thinking about other people, not just yourself.

NICK LEIGHTON: [Inaudible] So straight, I know, weird. Right? If only, if only that were a thing that people thought about.

MG: Okay. What about not using headphones in public spaces?

NICK LEIGHTON: No. I'm going to stop you right there. [MG: Okay.] No.

MG: I didn't even finish [NICK LEIGHTON: No.] there's, there's no [NICK LEIGHTON: No] there's no justification whatever whatsoever for playing whatever it is you happen to be playing. Your podcast or travel [inaudible] or whatever without your headphones.

NICK LEIGHTON: Here's the one exception, here's the one exception to all etiquette: Health and safety always trumps etiquette. So, if there is a health and safety reason why you need to be doing something, then do it. Have at it. No etiquette questions asked. So if there is a health and safety reason why you need to have your phone on, then okay, then do that. Otherwise, no. We have decided as a global society that we are not interested in hearing what is coming out of your phone. So you got to wear headphones, especially in an airplane. I mean, what a bonkers concept to like be blasting something from your phone.

MG: So headphones are one thing. What about something like this?

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: [Sounds of people singing "Cruel Summer" by Taylor Swift]

MG: She might be on the plane. And passengers feel like this is the opportunity for them to live out their fantasy of being a pop singer [NICK LEIGHTON: Wow.] Maybe they get the, you know, the PA system going to their benefit. Is that something that you are in favour of?

NICK LEIGHTON: I'll have what she's having. Wow. I mean, I think that's charming for a hot second, but, you know, how long is this flight and how close am I to this person? I mean, the etiquette rule is, you know, we want to be mindful of people around us. You know, we just want to acknowledge that other people exist. And so, you know, how mindful are we being when we are blasting our karaoke, you know, in a small metal tube? You know, I think that's a very good question here. So, I don't think I love that.

MG: Being mindful can, can come in and not, a number of different circumstances in a number of different scenarios. Some of that is about what you're hearing. Some of that perhaps is about what you are seeing somebody else do, what you might smell when it comes to the food they're eating. This is a TikToker who's going through airport security.

SOUNDCLIP

TIKTOK VOICE: I don't like to drink water in airports, can't get water through security. But you can bring coconut water on the airplane in a coconut, you can bring two carry-on bags and a bag of all food onto the plane. The food bag doesn't count as a carry-on, so you can bring three bags if one of them is all of your food that you brought that's animal-based. Pack number three, prepare food beforehand. Bring your food on the plane. I have grass-fed beef and a coconut. You can bring on the plane organs. And I got some honey and yoghurt.

MG: So this guy is bringing a bag of whole coconuts on the plane with him. And you see at the end of the video, he has actually I'm not sure how he got into the coconut, but he's drinking out of the coconut. He's sitting [NICK LEIGHTON: Okay] on his plate eating organ meat, apparently. [NICK LEIGHTON: Oh.] How should people approach those who bring their own food on, on a plane?

NICK LEIGHTON: Wow. Coconuts. I mean, I guess that's a loophole to the liquids rule. I mean, is it? [MG: Appare, apparently so.] [Cross-talk] coconuts? Okay.

MG: If you believe TikTok.

NICK LEIGHTON: I mean, I guess I do today. I mean, one of the etiquette principles on airplanes or in general is this sort of fiction. You know, a lot of etiquette requires us to buy into a fiction that like something is not happening. And on an airplane, the fiction is that like, 'Oh we are not jammed up against other people right next to us,' and we just pretend we're alone, like, we pretend that we are not with all these other people. I mean, this is why you're allowed to start eating as soon as you're served. You do not have to wait for your row to be served. This is not a dinner party. We are not dining with these people. And so, you know, one of the fictions is we also need to stay within our bubble, you know, our little bubble of noise, our little bubble of smell. You know, we want to contain ourselves within our bubble. And so, if you bring something in very smelly, you know, if you bring in a whole can of tuna, which I just saw a pop up on my social media, that's not great because that smell will leave your bubble and that is rude.

MG: You could have that, that, I don't know where you store the coconuts. You might just throw them on your lap or something like that, but they might be in a, in an enormous box that you're trying to cram into the overhead bin. You see these over--, because it costs money now to check luggage. People bring, you know, shipping containers, it seems like, to try to put into the, into the carry-on bin. Is this an adequate faux pas, or is that just economically like a smart thing to do? Because you are saving money if you can figure out how to get it into that bin?

NICK LEIGHTON: Well, I mean, it would be nice if everybody followed the rules and brought luggage that is exactly IATA-approved sizes and all of that. But, you know, if the airlines aren't enforcing it, then, of course, people are going to try and push the boundaries. And then it does sort of become the chaos that we're all familiar with. So, yeah, it would be nice if people just followed the rules. Unfortunately, people who do are often left holding the bag and are sort of the suckers. And so, we just need more enforcement from the airlines. Passengers can't enforce this against other passengers. So, the airlines really have to really enforce the rules that they have set to, you know, try to make this less chaotic.

MG: Bare feet on a plane?

NICK LEIGHTON: No. Except for that health and safety exception, which I discussed earlier. But yeah, in general, I would love for your socks to be on, if possible. And I don't know, it doesn't actually really affect my life, but I would rather not see you walk to the bathroom in socks. There's just something about that which catches my eye, which I don't care for. And, you know, we all know what is happening in there. So, I don't love the idea that you're stepping in wet puddles [MG: Ew] with your socks. But, but, yeah, I think, you know your feet, you know if your feet smell. And so, you know, if, if you take off your socks and it's under the seat in front of you and no one can see or smell them then like, you know, it's, it's the tree falling in the forest, you know. Do your feet make a smell if no one knows? You know, who knows? But in general, yeah, I think we want to keep our socks on at least. [MG: What do you...?] And certainly want our shoes.

MG: What do you make of the fact I mean, a lot of this behaviour that we're talking about, we're talking about in part because people have, have filmed other people doing it. Right. And then there's been posted up on social media. What do you make of the fact that that, is there an etiquette kind of approach to filming and posting videos of your fellow travellers online?

NICK LEIGHTON: It's, it's technically considered rude, you know, to film people, especially at their expense is not kind. And I think that golden rule of: Would you want to be filmed? I mean, who among us is at our best when we are travelling on an airplane? Who is camera ready? Who is feeling perfectly relaxed? You know, not, none of us are. And, you know, I would hate to be filmed in any of these moments. And so, yeah, it would be nice if we did not document all of this, you know? So, I don't love it. But it is the world we live in. And so, I guess because we live in that world, we just want to make sure we're really on our best behaviour at all times. And even if we are feeling frustrated, or if we do feel some injustice, we just want to be mindful like, 'Oh, this might be filmed. So let me just proceed accordingly and not do anything that would get me cancelled.'

MG: The documentation could lead you to believe that we are ruder as a society now than we were in past. Are we less polite? Have we lost a sense of etiquette, do you think? Or is it just because this is being documented that we think about it differently?

NICK LEIGHTON: Yeah, I don't think things are worse. I think we just are more aware of it. I mean, going back to 1922, Emily Post, you know, one of the original etiquette experts in North America, she was talking about train travel and she actually was talking about how you don't want to assail the nostrils of fellow passengers with strong odours of any kind. I mean, this was happening in 1922, you know, more than 100 years later, it's the same problem. We have solved no etiquette problems. So, you know, I think some things are just human nature. It's just kind of who we are as a species.

MG: And so as the host of a podcast that I mean, as we say, tries to make the world a nicer, more polite place, what should we think about what's the golden rule when travelling to not fall prey to some of the things that we have spoken about this morning?

NICK LEIGHTON: I think you just have to have a good sense of humour about travel. And I think you just have to approach it with sort of the idea that, yeah, this is a little unpleasant. This is not the glamorous chateaubriand served tableside, you know, Pan Am Clipper flights of yore. I mean, we just don't live in a world of glamorous travel anymore. This is just sort of, you know, a bus that flies. And so, we just have to acknowledge that, yeah, it's going to be a little unpleasant. We can tough it out, pick your battles, decide what hills you want to die on, and know that it'll be over soon. And I think, you know, if we kind of approach it with that sense of humour, then we can endure.

MG: And you are on that bus with other people. And so think about those other people when you're acting.

NICK LEIGHTON: Other people exist. Yeah, I guess that's the take away.

MG: Other people exist. Nick, thank you very much for this.

NICK LEIGHTON: Thank you. This is a treat and a pleasure.

MG: Nick Leighton is an etiquette expert and co-host of the podcast, "Were You Raised by Wolves?".

[Indie music jingle]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. My name is Matt Galloway. In the wee hours of election night, one of Donald Trump's key supporters walked up on stage and thanked a surprising group of people.

SOUNDCLIP

DANA WHITE: I want to thank some people real quick. I want to thank the Nelk boys, Adin Ross, Theo Von, Bussin' With The Boys. And last but not least, the mighty and powerful Joe Rogan.

That's Dana White, head of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, or UFC. You may recognise some of the names he mentioned there. They're all online media personalities. They each have millions and millions of followers, mostly American. But Canada got a shout out to thanks to the Elk Boys, a group of Canadian pranksters. Here is their endorsement of Trump.

SOUNDCLIP

ELK BOY 1: We just met the president of the United States, the leader of the free world. I'm not American boys. I can't even vote. I'm Canadian. You guys should go out and vote. The election's tomorrow.

MG: What ties these different figures together, apart from endorsing Trump, is their poll largely with young men. And one of the big stories coming out of this election is how that group of voters showed up in a big way for the Republicans. Rebecca Jennings is a senior correspondent covering online culture for Vox. Rebecca, good morning.

REBECCA JENNINGS: Good morning.

MG: We heard Dana White name some names there. When we are talking about these podcasters and influencers who are shaking up the political ecosystem, who are the big players?

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, I think they kind of named them, right? It's like Joe Rogan, obviously like the king of this kind of content that appeals to young men who are, you know, just asking questions and are curious about, you know, alternative media. We have Theo Von, he's a podcaster, a former reality star, just like kind of a comedian guy. Adin Ross is, you know, a Twitch streamer. The Nelk for boys are these kind of YouTube pranksters. They're very similar to like the Paul brothers, Jake and Logan Paul, who people are probably also familiar with. They're very into like boxing and pranking and these kind of just like outlandish, distasteful videos where, where they kind of like poke back at, at mainstream culture.

MG: How popular I mean, Joe Rogan is the most popular podcaster in the world. Beyond that, how popular are these people?

REBECCA JENNINGS: I mean, these are all really, really, really recognisable faces to, to most young people. They are influencers with millions and millions of followers on many different platforms. They are like kind of omnipresent online figures. So yeah, they're very popular. But I think to a lot of people that are not in those same algorithms like older people or women, they might have no idea who these people are. And because your algorithm looks completely different.

MG: What is it that ties them together? Because they're all doing different things, right? Like, the material that they are producing, the content they're producing is not the same across the board.

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, totally. I think what ties them together is that like, these are young men, with the exception of Joe Rogan, who are like they're often in groups of men and they're just like having fun together. And I think that pull is really, really strong for a lot of men who feel kind of lonely and left behind. And, you know, they are not explicitly political people. I think a lot of those, those men would kind of not really consider themselves very political or with the exception of like their Trump endorsements, but like mostly they make content that's about, you know, video games or sports or pop culture or anything like outside of politics. But then, you know, these kind of issues like leak into their, their content.

MG: Is the audience not exclusively men, but is it mostly men? There was polling that was done before the election and people are, you know, kind of sifting through the details of the exit polls showing that men and women 18 to 24 were more likely to identify as conservative. Are women listening to those podcasts in numbers?

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, I think it's possible. But I think generally with at least these kind of guys, like these are very much targeting, you know, teen boys and, and men in their 20s. Like, this is kind of the demographic that Trump like, pretty like, targeted with his media campaign when he went on all these podcasts and, and YouTube shows where, you know, he talked to these kind of guys that like, are reaching this audience that the mainstream media just isn't.

MG: Why do you think Trump seemed to resonate so much with these figures?

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, I mean, I think they share a lot of the same values. I think influencers in general kind of behave like small business owners who like as a group, kind of love Trump, you know, because, you know, they're entrepreneurs and I think they see themselves as like people who, you know, built their platform all on their own. You know, they, they really look towards these kind of expressions of wealth. They love like, you know, Rolexes and Cybertruck's and they love like, energy drinks. And these are things that, like, are kind of, like, conservative coded, at least in this current moment.

MG: What do you mean conservative coded?

REBECCA JENNINGS: I mean, I think they speak to this like aesthetic of masculinity that's very popular right now. And, and I think that there's a widening gender gap in terms of voting and in terms of like identifying with along the political spectrum.

MG: Many of these podcasts and these shows had Donald Trump on over the course of the campaign for interviews. What do you think it is that they give Donald Trump that the mainstream media doesn't?

REBECCA JENNINGS: I think they give him kind of like a cool factor. I think while the Democratic Party has these A-list celebrity endorsements, I think they're finding that those kind of endorsements just don't, like, they don't move the needle in the way that these kind of influencers reach people who otherwise might not have voted. Like, if you're a person that cares about who J-Lo's voting for, you probably already going to vote. But if you're someone that you know was just watching your favourite influencer do a show and Trump's on there and you kind of like heard them talk a little bit about this, maybe that motivates you to vote and you otherwise wouldn't have.

MG: Let me ask you more about that moving the needle idea. Have a listen to Jake Paul. He made his name doing these prank videos on YouTube. He's now a boxer, as you mentioned, has a huge online following.

SOUNDCLIP

JAKE PAUL: We need to change from Kamala Harris to the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Kamala Harris is Vice President, currently in the office and hasn't done anything while she's in office. Basically no accomplishments.

MG: What is your sense? Again, the data is just coming in now, but what is your sense as to how much those endorsements, the appearances by Donald Trump on podcasts, like on the Joe Rogan podcast, how much that actually moved the needle, how much that influenced the turnout from young men in this election?

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, I think that's kind of the million dollar question. Like all we have right now are exit polls which like, you know, aren't super reliable, but like it did show that like more 18 to 29 year old men voted for Trump, like 49% to 47%. And, and there was just like a huge gender gap among young people. And I think when, when we see that young people get most of their information on social media and those, those groups of people get, have such different like, just algorithms when they look at their phones, I think that, that's kind of a good downstream effect of like what they're watching on their phones and how they're behaving at the polls.

MG: Kamala Harris was on an incredibly popular podcast, Call Her Daddy. Why wasn't that able to move the needle in that same way, do you think?

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, I think that's such a great question. I think because like so much of like, you know, left-leaning content on social media just like, isn't very political. And I wouldn't even say Call Her Daddy is particularly left-leaning. It's just more about like, you know, celebrity, you know, interviews and things like that. But I think with that one, it was a little bit too little too late, I think. You know, there just isn't that kind of left-wing content creator network that the right-wing has for a lot of different reasons. But I think because, you know, Call Her Daddy was one show and, and I think there is there is, you cannot replicate that on the left. You cannot replicate that power among young men and young people.

MG: There's an ongoing kind of autopsy of the Democratic campaign right now as to why it failed. And one of the concerns that people have raised is that the Democrats missed the influence of that ecosystem. She was offered a spot on Joe Rogan on the podcast and didn't appear. Was that a mistake, do you think?

REBECCA JENNINGS: I think that was absolutely a mistake. But I also think that, you know, there was issues where, you know, Joe Rogan wouldn't travel to her or she could only do an hour. And so, I but I do think ultimately it was a mistake. And I think one ca--, one case study would be like Bernie went on there many years ago and everyone thought that that was like a huge mistake, you know, that he was like, you know, flirting with the enemy. But like, I think we can look back now and as that, like, as a really smart move.

MG: So, talk more about that, that idea of flirting with the enemy, because to a lot of people, this is like a new media ecosystem that exists on the right. And the assumption perhaps in past is that you can't go on those podcasts because you're platforming something that, that people may not feel comfortable with. Is that an argument that will that will float in the wake of this election?

REBECCA JENNINGS: I think what Democrats have to learn is how to build coalitions among people that you don't agree with everything on. And, and but you can agree on one certain thing or something. So, I think if you're trying to pass certain measures or build support, you have to sort of talk to people who are not entirely ideologically, like, similar to you. And I think the left has had a really, really tough time with that. But I do think that, like, there are lessons to learn there.

MG: It's interesting because it's not traditional conservative media, though. It's not Fox News that we're talking about her Newsmax or what have you.

REBECCA JENNINGS: Right. It's people that like people that make their money online who for the most part do not consider themselves particularly political or right or left who can be swayed. And I don't think that the Democrats have done a good job swaying those people who are entirely persuadable.

MG: Is this a uniquely American trend, do you think, or are we seeing similar things unfold in other countries? I mean, there are elections that are happening this year right around the world. And there will be an election in this country sooner rather than later, many people believe. And so, are we seeing this beyond the United States?

REBECCA JENNINGS: Yeah, totally. I mean, as you mentioned, like the Nelk boys are Canadian, but also like the seeds of this kind of like more explicitly like Manosphere Movement, Jordan Peterson, also Canadian. Andrew Tate has like part British. I like these, these things that have really world wide audiences. And we're also seeing how this kind of conservative bent among young people is not just an American thing. It's a, it's a worldwide thing. And so, you know, like any response is not, you know, only America's problem.

MG: And in some ways, you ignore that influence of that media ecosphere at your peril.

REBECCA JENNINGS: Right. Oh, absolutely. And I think, I think we're learning that lesson really, really quick.

MG: Rebecca, thank you very much for this.

REBECCA JENNINGS: Thank you so much for having me.

MG: Rebecca Jennings is a senior correspondent covering online culture at Vox. That is The Current for this Friday, the 8th of November [Music: Theme fading in]. It's been quite a week. Q's up next on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Hope you have a great weekend, and we will talk to you on Monday.

[Music: Theme]

Friday, November 8, 2024 Full Transcript

Social Sharing