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 2020

The Current Transcript for February 21, 2020

Host: Matt Gallaway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

My responsibility is public safety, but my government's responsibility is the quality of all Canadians lives. And we know the impact that this is having on people. We have reached the point where those barricades should be coming down.

MATT GALLOWAY: More than two weeks in, are we any closer to resolution to the standoff that has led to protests across this country in support of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and their opposition to a pipeline on their territory? The Mounties have said they'll pull back. The barricades remain. And the premiers have said enough is enough in. 30 minutes, Public Safety Minister Bill Blair on what happens next. And then after that.

SOUNDCLIP

There's lots of examples of philanthropies who have written big checks and had a lot of clout in terms of how certain public policy issues unfold.

MG: How big of a check? How about 10 billion dollars? In an hour, a look inside Amazon boss Jeff Bezos's big gift to the fight against climate change and what kind of influence that kind of money brings. We start, though, in Germany, where Muslims are in mourning. Many are worried about the latest resurgence of the far right. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

Suspected far-right attack in Germany

Guests: Abdassamad el Yazidi, Marcel Dirsus

MG: People were relaxing to shisha bars in the German town of Henau, outside of Frankfurt, on Wednesday night, and then a man walked in and started to shoot. Nine people were killed at those scenes. Authorities say they're treating the attacks as domestic terrorism. The shooter had posted a lengthy manifesto on social media prior to the attacks, which authorities said showed a, quote, deeply racist mindset. At least five of the victims had Turkish backgrounds. Several were Kurdish. One man, identified only as Mohammad B, spoke from his hospital bed about what happened.

SOUNDCLIP

[Via translator] I hid behind the wall and that's when I was shot in the shoulder. Then I lay down on the floor and someone else lay on top of me. And then someone else on top of them. We lay all over each other. The guy under me, had a hole in his neck. He said, Brother, I can't feel my tongue. I can't breathe. I said to him, Brother, say the final prayer. He then called out everyone, say the final prayer. And then it was quiet. Nobody answered.

MG: Vigils were held in cities across Germany last night in how now the crowd in the main square shouted Nazis out. And the German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier also spoke.

SOUNDCLIP

[German speech]

MG: Germans are grieving, he said, but quote, We are one in our grief and united against hate, racism and violence. Abdassamad el Yazidi was also at that vigil. He's secretary general of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany. Mr. el Yazidi, good morning.

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: Good morning, sir.

MG: What went through your mind when you first heard about this attack?

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: It was a shock for me, I have been in Genève and the conference, you know, and got the information and after I came back to Germany, I landed in Frankfurt. I went directly to Hanau and I saw the two shisha bars. What happened there. It was it was horrible to see what the far right hate speech has occurred in Germany in the in the last year. We in the Central Council of Muslims always have been saying that every terrorist attack begins with a word, with words, with speeches and the anti Islamic speeches in the parliaments and outside of the parliaments and in some media groups in the social media. Was so so horrible in the last month, so that we are not really surprised that this happened in Germany now. And now in the time that all Germans, Muslim, Christians, Jews, other religions and also people with bandages. And we stayed together to say no for this hate speech, to say no for the Islamophobia which is occurring in Germany.

MG: You had said that Muslims in Germany are feeling, and these are your words, highly insecure, abandoned and frightened. Tell me more about that. What is it like to be a Muslim in Germany right now?

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: Yes, in the past, the German Muslims feel themself as part of this country, as part of this society and community. But this has been changed in the last years. In the last month when people are calling us, is it still safe to go to the Friday prayer, to the mosques? They are asking us when women are wearing hijab attacked in the streets. What can we do? Why the police, why the government is not stopping this? They don't feel safe anymore. And this is what this kind of terrorists want to have in Germany. They want to have a climate of fearness, a climate of hate. They want to get Germany back to timeframe where there have been [unintelligible] in Germany and where to this black timeframe with which we fought that we have it backwards of course.

MG: You also said that Muslims feel abandoned. How seriously do you think that the German authorities are taking this far right, anti-Muslim hate?

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: I can feel example our chairman, Mr. Ayman Musique, since years he is receiving letters, emails and in the last time we received some kind of [unintelligible], [unintelligible] in our offices there they are writing bad things, terrible things. And always we spoke to the police that we spoke to the government that we need that such persons who are there, who are representing the Muslims in Germany, that they have to be saved, that there have to be a police and a control for them. This does not happen. The government just had their eyes on some kind of Islamistic extremism. But they have been blind on the on the right side of their head. And this has to be stopped. Now we are seriously attacked. It's not just the Muslim which have been attacked now in Germany. It's Germany themself. It's our conscious country. It's our democracy which has been attacked by this Far-Right terrorists.

MG: Jorg Meuthen, who is a far right German politician and member of the European Parliament, tweeted, This is neither right nor left terror. This is the delusional act of a madman. And any form of political exploitation of this terrible act is a cynical mistake. What is your response to what he said?

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: My response is let us check what Mr. Meuthen and others in the [unintelligible] if he had said. When some kind of other extremists, when some extremists from that from the Islamists milieu has done something. They are always saying that Germany is getting back to black times. And now he is trying to give the responsibility out of him and saying that that he is not responsible. He is. When we check the speeches of him and his colleagues in the parliaments, how they speak to Muslims, how that how they say that this religion is not a religion, it's just ideology, how they are misusing their parliament positions to support this kind of far-Right ideology. It's not acceptable that he will go one step back. No, he has to stay for his responsibility. And there he has to work with his party friends to change what he has built together with [unintelligible], that and others in Germany.

MG: You talk about the fear that that Muslims feel worrying about going to Friday prayers, worrying about whether it's safe to wear a headscarf. What would it take for Muslims to feel safe within Germany?

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: First, I think we need we need signs from the government when he signs from the security organizations in Germany. This has not been in the past, but it's not the first time. In the past we had situations where womans has been attacked and where mosque has been being attacked also. And nothing happened.

MG: But the German president spoke at that vigil last night and said that he stands on the side of people who are threatened with hate and violence. Is that not enough?

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: This was a good sign and it was also a good sign that he came to Hanau immediately. Our chairman, Mr. [Unintelligible], has been with him in the same plane, and he came with him to Hanno. And it was a good speech for him. But here also we have to say that one of the main problems in Germany we have is that Islamophobia is the anti-Islamic hate speech in the parliament. And no one of the speakers yesterday, Mr. Steinmeier had used the word Islamophobia or used the word anti-Islamic hate speech. And this is the main problem we have. We have to use the right words. We have to say that here are some groups which have a big hate on Islam and Muslims. And we have to say that Muslims in Germany belongs to our community and belongs to our country and that the government is saving them. Here we need still more than words. We need some actions from different sides.

MG: Abdassamad el Yazidi, I appreciate speaking with you this morning. Thank you.

ABDASSAMAD EL YAZIDI: Thank you very much, thank you.

MG: Abdassamad el Yazidi is secretary general of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany. He was in Frankfurt, Germany.

SOUNDCLIP

Racism is a poison. Hatred is a poison. This poison exists in our society. And it is to blame for far too many crimes already We all vehemently and decisively confront all those who are trying to create division.

MG: German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaking Thursday after the shooting in Hanau. There are some people who see this deadly attack as part of a worrying trend in Germany and in German politics. Marcel Dirsus is a political scientist at the University of Cairo. Marcel. Good morning to you.

MARCEL DIRSUS: Thank you very much for having me.

MG: We just heard from Angela Merkel. How are the countries of their political leaders responding to these shootings?

MARCEL DIRSUS: There's shock. Politicians are generally shocked at what has been happening because this is not an isolated attack. This is just the latest attack in a whole string of attacks by right wing extremists.

MATT GALLOWAY: I spoke with my last guest about this tweet from the federal spokesperson for the far right party AFD. The alternative for Germany. The tweet says that this wasn't left or right wing terrorism, that this was something beyond that. And to suggest that it's that is a cynical effort to bring politics into this. What's the response to that tweet being?

MARCEL DIRSUS: Outrage, I mean, people have been outraged about that tweet. They are right to be because the far right AFD, the alternative for Deutschland, has been instrumental rising terror attacks and crimes for the last couple of years and it's very much on brand for them. But now that somebody on the right wing of the political spectrum commits a terror attack, they say, or, you know, this is not about politics. This is the work of a madman.

MG: How does this, in speaking further about what you just described, how does this attack and the apparent motivations that police are describing to fit into the larger political climate that's in Germany right now?

MARCEL DIRSUS: These attacks have to be seen in the context of a resurgent far right within the country. So what you have in Germany now is a situation in which the Far Right AFD is the largest opposition party in the Bundestag, the federal parliament in Berlin. And they also in the vast majority of state level parliaments. Now nationally, there are only polling at about 14 percent. But there are some areas in the country where they are very strong. So Thuringia know, for example, which is one of the states of eastern Germany. They are polling at about 25 percent. So a lot of people say that these kind of attacks are related to the overall strength of the far right, because the far right whips up hatred against migrants, against refugees or against anybody else that they deem to be insufficiently German.

MG: Where is the support for the party coming from?

MARCEL DIRSUS: Well, that's open to debate in Germany. I think there are multiple factors. You see that the party is particularly strong, as I mentioned, and parts of eastern Germany. And a lot of people think that this is about inequality. It's about people feeling left behind. And people having the sense that the established mainstream parties are simply not taking their concerns seriously. But at the same time, there are also people who would argue that if these only as strong as they are, because a lot of people, particularly in the east, oppose Angela Merkel's migration policies.

MG: But what are the conditions? Describe the conditions in those parts in the former east that would lead people to put their support or at the very least, have their heads turned by a party like AFD.

MARCEL DIRSUS: So even decades after the country can unify, there are still significant differences between eastern Germany and western Germany. Eastern Germany is poorer. Unemployment is higher in eastern Germany. It's much more difficult to find a job. A lot of the educated people have moved away and a lot of people, even in eastern Germany, feel that they had to be not being taken seriously, and particularly after you had the financial crisis there was the sense that the state couldn't do as much as it used to do, because the state simply said, look, we don't have the money to provide the bus services with the same regularity that we used to. Or maybe the next doctor is a little further away than you used to be. But then all of a sudden during the migration crisis, you had the state stepping in and really providing for a lot of people that were not from the country. And I get the impression that a lot of people, particular in eastern Germany, feel that they've been left alone, but other people are being helped.

MG: And into that vacuum steps a party like a F-D to, as you say, whip up a frenzy of concern and also generate support for AFD's politics.

MARCEL DIRSUS: I mean it's very it's very easy, of course, to just blame people, you know, from abroad, even people who look different from you or people who pray differently from you for things that are incredibly complex. And I think that's what the AFGE is doing.

MG: People have been talking about this and it's not just around this attack, but other attacks that have happened in the very recent time. And perhaps a little bit further back, we'll say that this is sort of a normalization of far right politics. Is that how you see it?

MARCEL DIRSUS: Well, I mean, terror attacks, obviously, terror attacks like these obviously taken very seriously. But there is concern within the country that the far right is being normalized. So all the mainstream political parties at a national level refuse to cooperate with the far right in any way. So they will not vote for them. They will not form coalitions with them, which are inherent to the political system. But at a state level, there are some people within the centre right parties who say that the party should consider working with the AFD. And if that were to happen, there would be a real normalisation of the far right and of their policies.

MG: I mean, the German electoral system is also one that uses proportional representation. As you mentioned, AFD has just, what, 14 percent support. But does that system change the impact that a party like after Hefty could have?

MARCEL DIRSUS: Yes, I think they have an impact beyond getting seats because they do a lot to set the agenda. So even though they might just be polling at 14 percent, you know, all similar. They have an outsized impact on the things that people are talking about, on the policies that are being pursued. And they make it very difficult in some parts of the country to form a stable government because the centre right and all the other parties, like I said, currently refuse to cooperate with them. But if this party have 24 percent, you need to build coalitions outside, you know, the sort of without these 24 percent. And that makes it significantly more difficult. And then there is the concern, well, if you don't build a stable government, then those that end up strengthening the AFD because you're not actually solving people's problems if you don't have a stable government.

MG: People will draw, when they hear of the rise of the far right in Germany, parallels to German history and its own history with nationalist politics leading up to the Second World War. Are those parallels valid? Are they justified?

MARCEL DIRSUS: I think it's good that people are concerned and they should be particularly concerned because the far right that we see in Germany is not softening. In some ways they are radicalizing. And it's also with regards to the way that Germany remembers its history, because the way that we remember the Nazi era was really at the core of modern German identity. And the AFD questions the way that we deal with that. So the co-leader of the AFD, for example, dismissed the Nazi era as a speck of bird poop in German history. And you know, he's talking about the Second World War. He's talking about the Holocaust. And he called it a speckled bird poop. And another prominent AFD politician said that the country should do a 180 degree turn from the way that it remembers and atones for the Nazi era. He called the Holocaust Memorial in the centre of Berlin a monument of shame, that kind of thing that other countries will never put at the centre of the capital. So when you hear that, you are right to be worried. So I think there needs to be a reorientation, you know, enough about the talk about taking this seriously and how shocking this is. And we actually need to start getting things done and focussing more on this.

MG: Marcel, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MARCEL DIRSUS: Thank you very much for having me.

MG: Marcel Dirsus is a political scientist at the University of Cairo. He was in Hamburg, Germany. The CBC News is next. And then coming up in about 45 minutes time.

SOUNDCLIP

Freedom is never safeguarded peacefully. Anyone who is depriving you of freedom isn't deserving of honour of a peaceful approach by the ones who are being deprived of their freedom.

MG: The civil rights activist Malcolm X was not one to mince words. He was killed as he was about to deliver a speech 55 years ago. But now the investigation into his death is being reopened, raising all sorts of questions about who killed him and why. We'll hear more about that coming up in about 45 minutes. Coming up right after the break, though, the minister of public safety joins me. Bill Blair will be here to talk about what the federal government is doing to bring down the blockades that are spreading right across this country. That's coming in about six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

'Time has come for those barricades to come down,' Bill Blair says of Wet'suwet'en blockades

Guests: Bill Blair, Rosemary Barton

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. And you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, donating huge sums of money to a cause seems like a perfectly selfless act, but there is power and influence that can come along without any accountability. When you give those big bags of money, we'll talk about all of that in half an hour. But first, speaking of accountability, the government's position on the continuing blockade.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Protestors chanting] Please stand with Wet'suwet'en. Please stand with Wet'suwet'en. [Unintelligible] RCMP.

VOICE: Violence is not welcome here.

What violence?

Violence is not welcome here.

It's bad for Canada.

You think so? You think my job is [unintelligible] this [beep] railroad? You're not.

You're violence is not welcomed here.

Excuse me. I'm just trying to remove some litter.

Your violence is not welcome here.

Can you do me a favour and help me remove some litter?

[Protestors chanting]

MG: There is some hope, perhaps, that scenes like that could soon be coming to an end. Blockades have sprung up across this country, disrupting the movement of goods and people and consuming candidates, political leaders for more than two weeks. The blockades are in support of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs who are opposing a natural gas pipeline in northern B.C. those chiefs are calling on the RCMP to leave their territory before they'll meet with federal ministers. Yesterday the public safety minister confirmed that the Mounties have offered to do just that. Bill Blair is that minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Bill Blair, good morning.

BILL BLAIR: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Did the federal government tell the RCMP to pull back?

BILL BLAIR: No, it did not. As a matter of fact, the rules are very explicit in this, that they're under no circumstances can I, or the government, direct the RCMP or the police in any jurisdiction in their operations.

MG: Did the federal government play any role in this decision?

BILL BLAIR: Well, as you are well aware, we have been engaged in this issue and working very hard over the past several weeks to try to bring about a peaceful resolution to the dispute that exists. The RCMP, I think, have been very responsible and responsive to the concerns that have been raised. They are not new to this. I will also tell you, I'm very well aware that the RCMP in British Columbia have been working very carefully and closely with hereditary chiefs in that area and have over the past several weeks been negotiating a peaceful resolution and enforcement of the injunction that the RCMP were tasked with enforcing there. This is part of an ongoing dialogue existing and taking place between the RCMP and the hereditary chiefs and the people of the Wet'suwet'en territory over a long period of time. I think the RCMP have listened and responsive and I think it's indicative as well their peace officers, Matt, and their intent and all of their efforts to date have been to resolve the issues in dispute in the most peaceable way pass.

MG: Are you comfortable with the actions that the RCMP took a few weeks ago when they tried to break up the protest? There are a lot of people who said that that was the flashpoint and that when people, when the RCMP came in heavily armed, that people took great offence to that. And that is what led to the situation we're in now. We are comfortable with how the RCMP deployed itself there?

BILL BLAIR: You know, let me let me explain the whole thing. The injunction actually was issued on December 31st. The RCMP then engaged in very extensive discussion and dialogue with the people in the region, with both their elected chiefs and their hereditary chiefs. There was ongoing discussion for almost 40 days before any enforcement action was taken. And, you know, there were a number of arrests made. But, you know, I think very in a very difficult situation, the RCMP managed to fulfil their obligations to enforce the injunction, but no one was injured. A minimal amount of force was used. And it was done in a very careful way. And I think when Canadians get an opportunity to understand exactly how the RCMP approach that, they will see that that their intent at all times was to maintain the safest environment for everyone involved, for the people in that territory, but also for the officers who were doing the job that the law required them to do.

MG: You see this offer by the RCMP to pull back as a breakthrough. Has there been any response from the hereditary chiefs?

BILL BLAIR: Not directly to me. I know there have been ongoing discussions between Mr. Miller, Mr. Minister Bennet with hereditary chiefs. But I but I think it's a very significant thing. You know, the people who set up the blockades in the towns and Agard territory and in other parts of Canada have really focussed on their concern about the Wet'suet'en hereditary chief's request that the RCMP leave that roadway where they had station themselves during the period of enforcement of the injunction. The RCMP listened and part of their work of keeping this a peaceful and non-confrontational resolution as they've been listening and responding and I think in a very appropriate way.

MG: When will the RCMP leave that territory? I mean, they've made this offer, but they haven't actually pulled back.

BILL BLAIR: Well, they have sent the message to the chief agreeing that they would do as as they had been asked to withdraw from the - there's a temporary station set up at kilometre 29 on the roadway that had been the subject of the injunction and that they have offered and agreed to move back. That process is now underway. And I think know that's again, it's being done in a safe and appropriate way. And I believe it is a breakthrough. I think, you know, this is what people said. They were concerned about the people and the law enforcement authorities are responsible for the area have listened. And based on their evaluation of the conditions that exist there, they believe it is safe to do so. And I think they're responding in an appropriate way. And I'm very hopeful that the people that asked for that would happen would recognise, first of all, that gesture and how important it is, but also would recognise the terrible impact that these disruptions are having.

MG: Given those disruptions in the impact that this is happening. There are people who have been calling for stronger action from the police. Have a listen to Peter Mackay. Conservative Party leadership hopeful. Here he is speaking in an interview on C-PAC.

SOUNDCLIP

What I would do differently is I would expect the police to do their job, and essentially that is to clear the tracks, to make sure that people, merchandise and services are moving. Well, it's not about ordering them. It's about letting them know that they should act within their jurisdiction. There are rights at stake here, and the rights are of every working Canadian who has the ability to move across this country. And that is being impeded by individuals who are acting against the law. And so the expectation should be and is that Canadians will have their police intervene.

MG: Bill Blair, you will have heard people say clear the tracks and ensure that the police are able to do that. Should police have responded more strongly?

BILL BLAIR: Let me tell you. I certainly have, I've done that job and I've been on those streets. And I remember vividly in 2009 when tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Toronto during the Tamil protests, during the end of the conflict that was taking place.

MG: And blocked a major highway in Toronto.

BILL BLAIR: And went up on the Gardiner, as you'll recall, and I recall vividly that there were voices like that calling for us to move in, to use force, to arrest people, to drive them off those streets. My job was to resolve that peaceably and to and to help those people, first of all, to respect their right to lawful peaceful protest. And at the same time, to work diligently to resolve that as peaceably as possible. And that's what we did. And notwithstanding, there were lots of people who were, you know, people, I think who've never stood on those lines don't really understand the role of the police is not to go in and use force to try to bring about the end of these protests, but rather to work diligently. And I'll tell you that currently right now, it's blockades across the country, Matt. The jurisdictions, for that isn't a federal jurisdiction. It's a provincial jurisdiction. OPP entitled to nagger. It's the sort of thing to go back in places in Quebec. And even where the RCMP are the police of jurisdiction, they're working under a provincial policing agreement and answering to the provincial authority and official provincial General's.

MG: But in the meantime, those barricades continued to stay up. The transport minister, Marc Garneau, was on as it happens last night. He said we need to bring those barricades down now. What happens if they're not brought down now?

BILL BLAIR: And can I tell you, I also believe the time has come for those barricades to come down.

MG: And if they don't come down what happens?

BILL BLAIR: We've been working to support the police and everyone's effort to resolve this peacefully. And that is our goal. But ultimately, the barricades must come down. We have to get those trains moving again. Canadians rely on it and people's lives are being impacted. You know, people are laid off from their jobs and can't support their families. That's a significant impact. And I will tell you, we are all seized by the urgency of the need to resolve this quickly. We have worked very, very hard over the last two weeks to resolve it peaceably and we've been supporting the efforts of the police. Ultimately, they still have the jurisdictional responsibility to enforce that injunction and bring those barricades down. Everybody's been working hard to do that as peacefully as possible. I think that the steps taken by the RCMP two days ago are very significant and do create a set of circumstances that allow for peaceful resolution of this matter. We need that to happen.

MG: But if the barricades don't come down, what will you do?

BILL BLAIR: Well, I think we will always consider, first of all, our commitment to reconciliation and to address the underlying concerns and injustices that need to be addressed, in that agenda will remain and we'll continue our commitment to continue to work on those issues. But we have tried very hard over the past two weeks to bring about the conditions that will allow for a peaceful resolution of these blockages. Ultimately, if that fails, the police have other resources available to them and other options in the use of their legal authorities to remove those barricades. I understand that the police have been patient and working hard themselves, trying to resolve this peaceably.

MG: Will you set a deadline for the barricades to be removed?

BILL BLAIR: Yes. And I will tell you the urgency of getting this done, I am strongly of the belief. This needs to happen quickly. And I believe those barricades should come down.

MG: So would you say a deadline for the barricades to be down?

BILL BLAIR: The difficulty of setting deadlines as is, is deadlines aren't necessarily helpful in a negotiation. I think everyone who is involved in this discussion has to understand that there is an urgency to a peaceful resolution, but it has to happen very quickly. The impact of these blockades is unacceptable to Canadians. It's impacting innocent Canadians across the country and it needs to inform both sides of discussions. And we understand that some of many of the concerns that have been raised by the people of Wet'suwet'en and on the blockades we've tried. And I think the RCMP have demonstrated a very professional approach to helping to resolve the issues in dispute. But there is an urgency to resolving this as quickly as possible , because these are unacceptable and need to come down.

MG: In the remaining seconds that we have. People outside of Edmonton showed up in pickup trucks and brought the blockades down themselves. Are you concerned that there will be more of that sort of activity?

BILL BLAIR: I'm always concerned about an escalation of tension and confrontation at these sites. And again, I know the goal of the police and certainly the goal of our government is to bring this about, bring about a peaceful resolution of of this dispute, to end those blockades, to get the trains moving again, and then to continue on our commitment to work with indigenous communities to address issues of reconciliation. We're committed to all of those things. And mostly we're committed to a peaceful resolution of this matter. But we've got to get those trains moving because Canadians are depending on.

MG: Bill Blair, good to speak with you.

BILL BLAIR: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Bill Blair, minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Rosemary Barton, who's the CBC chief political correspondent. She's been listening in. Rosemary, good morning to you.

ROSEMARY BARTON: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What do you make of what you just heard from Bill Blair, the public safety minister?

ROSEMARY BARTON: A couple of things struck me there. I think there was a small shift in language both from Minister Blair and from other ministers that we've been hearing for from over the past 12 hours or so when he said the time has come for the barricades to come down. That that's a very different kind of statement than what we were hearing much earlier this week, which was really just a a call for patience, although that continues. And it seems to me that that that shift in language, we should probably read that as to your point of is there a deadline as we are coming to the end of what the government has as a deadline, because they certainly have one. You know, Minister Miller has said that and others, they're not going to talk about it publicly because to Minister Blair's point, that probably won't help negotiations. But they certainly know that we are in the last days of this in terms of trying to talk it through. What that means in terms of how they actually solve it, I'm not sure. But I would say that they that they know that this is coming to a head.

MG: Is that happening now because the RCMP has offered to withdraw from Wet'suwet'en's territory?

ROSEMARY BARTON: Yes, I mean, I think that was a significant move. The government sees it as such. And now they hoped that the Wet'suwet'en see it as such and more importantly, frankly, that the Mohawk community sees it that way. You know, that has become sort of the flashpoint and obviously that the biggest issue that the blocking that has to come down right away. It's clear that the issues around what's happening on the wetsuit and territory are not going to be solved this week or next week. These are much longer, bigger, long issues. So the priority for the government is to get the blockade down if they can or if they feel that, if they can, you know, suggest that that they have complied or answered one of the Wet'suwet'en's demands or conditions, there's a hope that the Mohawk will see that and that they will be able to then pull away. The Wet'suwet'en, there's a few of those chiefs there today. They're meeting with the Mohawks. They arrived last night and this meeting, I mean, although all sides are saying it's really just a meeting to give thanks. I think the hope is that it's much more than that. That it becomes a way for the two sides, these two first nations, to discuss how to de-escalate this and for the Mohawks to say we've done a good job raising awareness and now we can let this go. That would be the hope, I think.

MG: One of the reasons why there might be that change in tone is because the prime minister is facing heat from premiers and territorial leaders over how he's handled this. There was a conference call last night. How did that go?

ROSEMARY BARTON: Yeah. So he spoke with them last night after they all convened the day before and expressed a lot of frustration, some coming from quarters that you would expect people that don't love the prime minister any way that the premier of Saskatchewan, the premier of Alberta. Last night's call, from what we understand, went fine, I would say. But the premiers did again talk about running out of patience. And I would say one premier in particular has become problematic. And that's that's the premier of Quebec Francois Legault who yesterday, not only wanted that injunction to happen, those injunctions were issued in St-Lambert to get the blockade removed there, but made it very clear that he's quite happy for the police, for the Surete du Quebec to come in and enforce that injunction.

MG: Let's have a listen. Here's what Francois Legault ago said yesterday about what's going on along Montreal's South Shore.

SOUNDCLIP

We all hope to have a peaceful solution, but right now, this blockade is illegal. It has a major impact on our economy, on life of people. Right now, some people are losing their job. So it's about time we have a plan to make sure that the laws are respected.

MG: Rosemary Barton, how does that complicate what the prime minister and his government are trying to do?

ROSEMARY BARTON: Well, I mean, it's the exact thing that that everyone else is trying to avoid. And it's a curious position from a premier in a province that that is all too familiar with blockades and injunctions and calling in the police and things going wrong. Oka happened in 1990. It went for 78 days and a police officer was killed. So it's a little curious that the premier seems so quick to go to that solution, particularly given that blockade has not even been up very long. I think, I don't think there's anyone, certainly no one that I've spoken to, that thinks that escalation will results in something good. There are too many historical examples of how these things have sort of spun out of control. That said, everyone is aware of the real impact starting to be felt, whether it be the layoffs or the people who can't get products and goods and the fact that this is probably gone on a little too long. That said, I don't think that this is winding down right away. And I think there will be a time, you know, a difference between when the government says we've run out of time and then when something actually happens. So I think we are days away still from a solution. But I would also say that the lack of patients is not just from premiers, not just from Canadians. It's also from inside the prime minister's own caucus. He's certainly heard from all of them on Wednesday. Real concerns about how this get solved. A lot of anxiety around that and trying to reflect back some of the concerns of Canadians. So that the pressure on him is really coming from everywhere. And the government still believes, as you heard there from Minister Blair, that the way out of this is to talk. Although that move of the RCMP, again, symbolically is is really significant, if they can actually convince the website enough that to this is a minority government.

MG: And the pressure comes not just from premiers across the country, but from the opposition as well. Have a listen to what Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party, said yesterday in Question Period.

SOUNDCLIP

He's anti-free market, anti energy activists have nothing to do with reconciliation. And it is completely injust for up to 1500 people to go without a paycheque because some people are breaking the law.

MG: Andrew Scheer has used the word weak a number of times to describe the prime minister Howard. I mean, that's a loaded word. Obviously, this is a political issue in a minority government. But how damaging is all of this to Justin Trudeau?

ROSEMARY BARTON: Well, it's obviously a test of leadership and it's a test of leadership for a prime minister that has now been tested on three major crises in the past two months. He is convening the incident response group, this group of ministers and officials that he gets around the table. He's doing that this morning to discuss the downing of the plane in Iran. Coronavirus. And this I mean, that's all still happening and it's all happen within two months. So there's a lot going on here. And there's certainly a test of how his government response to this and him in particular. But I would say that this one is probably more directly related to him or closer to him, because it is an issue that he has talked about so much that he feels so strongly about, which is reconciliation and trying to fix things with the the indigenous peoples of this country. So there is a, I think, a recognition that if this doesn't go right, you know, if they can't get this to where they want it to be through talk and dialogue, then there are some questions about what that means for the overall agenda of reconciliation. And I'm not suggesting it's dead or anything like that, or they can't proceed with other things that they're doing, important things that they're doing. But I do think that the goodwill of Canadians and indigenous people might run out if this opportunity, because it is an opportunity in some ways, doesn't actually bear fruit. And that is something that the prime minister will wear, if this can't be solved properly.

MG: Given that, are you surprised that he hasn't made an effort to go to northern B.C. and meet with those hereditary chiefs directly? And I don't know whether that invitation would be extended, but he's had ministers out delegated to deal with this. People say, if this is so important to you, why are you taking this on?

ROSEMARY BARTON: Well, listen, I mean, sure, I'm sure it's something that they've talked about and they've considered for now they're leaving it with the ministers. And I think the reason for that is, is pretty simple. If we get into a place where the prime minister is going off around the country every time there is a protest or a blockade around a project, that certainly sends a signal about how you get his attention and how you potentially deal with projects like this. You know, TMX is purchased and cleared, but there are many First Nations, four of them anyway, that are against that project. If they see that this is effective in some way, what's happening here, who's to say that they won't try the same thing and get the prime minister's attention that way? They're making another decision on oil sands, probably the end of next week. So you have to be careful. I think that how you leverage the prime minister's own credibility and capital here. But is it possible that at some point that becomes needed? You know, perhaps. But I think that that's not the first consideration for sure.

MG: Rosie, thank you.

ROSEMARY BARTON: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Rosemary Barton, the CBC chief political correspondent. She spoke with us from Ottawa. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name's Matt Galloway. Happy to hear your thoughts on this. It's been a story that we've been talking about certainly for the last few weeks. And you can reach us through the Web site. cbc.ca/thecurrent. Click on the contact link. While I have a moment, I wanted to tell you about something that's going to be on this program next week. You know, perhaps that plant based food, sort of plant based meats, he says meats in quotation marks, are everywhere these days from fast food joints to your freezer aisle. Is this a fad? Is it the future of food? We'll hear from Mark Bittman, the celebrated food writer. He has plenty of thoughts on the pros and cons of plant based meats, starting with how this stuff tastes.

SOUNDCLIP

No, it does not taste good. And it's not clear that it's good for you. Is it better for you than eating good beef? I'm not sure. I wouldn't, I wouldn't bet on it. Is it better for the environment? I think it probably is. Is it better for animals? Responsibly raised meat as a game changer from an animal welfare. I mean, if you believe that no animals should be killed for the benefit of humans, that's a very clear position. But most of us don't take that position. Most of us, in fact, eat animal products and wear leather belts and shoes and so on. The question many of us have is how are those animals raised? And that's a huge question. There's no denying it. But there's a big difference between raising animals that are being tortured every day of their lives in confinement, being fed on natural diets and including antibiotics and so on, and animals that are allowed to live relatively natural lives with, you know, an abrupt end. No question. I think we're ripe for this. I think that people are hearing the message that we should be eating more plants than we should be eating less meat. And I think those messages are both correct. So from that point of view, this is a success that everybody should be celebrating. But we should also be eating fewer hyper processed, ultra processed foods. And this doesn't take us down that road. This takes us down the road of eating essentially more junk.

MG: A man of strong opinions, Mark Bittman, on plant based meat next week on tTe Current. Coming up in about 90 seconds, two stories about power and influence. One, how huge donations can actually benefit the donor. And then we'll talk about the power and influence of Malcolm X. More than 50 years after his death, investigation into that death is being reopened. Tell me more about that coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. Stick around.

Jeff Bezos' climate philanthropy

Guest: David Callahan

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. And you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

VOICE 1: Jeff Bezos out with his next big idea, announcing a multi-billion dollar effort to fight climate change, calling it the Base of--

VOICE 2: Earth Fund to provide grants starting this summer to scientists, activists and NGO is focussed on climate change with a net worth of one hundred--

VOICE 3: One hundred thirty really billion, valuing today's commitment at seven percent of his riches.

MG: World's richest man meets world's biggest problem. That would be one way to look at the staggering amounts that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos pledged to his new Earth Fund this week by putting 10 billion dollars on the table. Jeff Bezos no doubt hopes to make a difference for the planet, but he's also drawing attention to what some people call big philanthropy. And the questions that raises. David Callahan is the founder and editor of the Web site Inside Philanthropy and author of the book The Givers: Wealth, Power and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. David, good morning. Thanks for joining us.

DAVID CALLAHAN: Great to be here. Thank you.

MG: $10 billion sounds like a lot of money. What did you make of this announcement from Jeff Bezos earlier this week?

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, that is a lot of money and it's especially a lot of money for the field of climate change work. The next biggest funder in that space is the Hewlett Foundation. It gives about 100 million dollars a year. So that 10 billion dollars is much greater than any amount of money we've ever seen go to fight that climate change problem.

MG: And so given the size of the check, is this something that you think climate change activists should be celebrating or should they be a little cynical, perhaps sceptical about this?

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, like a lot of this big philanthropy by these billionaire donors, it's kind of a mixed bag. You know, on the one hand, what's not to like about somebody like Jeff Bezos with a 130 billion dollars showing up and dropping 10 billion dollars to deal with climate change? On the other hand, that gives him a lot of power. As I said, he's now the biggest funder in that space. And with that money comes influence in terms of what issues get prioritized and how this fight against climate change unfolds going forward.

MG: Do we have any sense as to who is going to be funded, what research would be funded through an announcement like this?

DAVID CALLAHAN: It's too early to say. He did say that he planned to give money to NGOs and to scientists. And, you know, there are obviously a lot of groups already out there working on this issue, whether it's the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defence Council. And those organizations could use a lot more money to take on this problem.

MG: What sort of impact do you think it could make? I mean, as you say, there's nothing of this scale in the climate change file. If you give 10 billion dollars, what sort of impact could that have?

DAVID CALLAHAN: It could have a big impact. It could greatly scale up some of the leading advocacy organizations that are in this fight. That money could be used to back grassroots groups trying to build greater public will. It could be used to help shut down coal fired power plants, which is the kind of work that is costly litigation to try to take out fossil fuel production plants. And so it could have a huge impact when nobody knows as how quickly he's going to give away the 10 billion dollars and whether he's going to put more money into the cause over time.

MG: He, Jeff Bezos, isn't the only giant of technology to pledge to give away some, if not all, of his billions of dollars. Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, among others, have signed the so-called giving pledge that would make them compelled to give away a majority of their fortunes. That seems on the surface to be a great thing in terms of helping the world by giving away money that you've made. What are the pros and cons of that sort of massive philanthropy?

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, the pros are that you do want the richest people in America and the world to embrace philanthropy, to give away their money, to help solve some of the big problems we have. The con is that with philanthropy comes influence. And the best way to think of it is that this philanthropic giving is often another form of money in politics. Just like campaign contributions can buy influence and power for the wealthiest people, so can their philanthropy. It can be used to back think tanks, to back advocacy organizations, to back litigation. There's lots of examples of philanthropists who have written big checks and had a lot of clout in terms of how certain public policy issues unfold.

MG: So it's not as though they're just writing a check. You're suggesting that they write a. Check and then have some influence into where that money goes and what it's actually going to do.

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, yes. If you put a lot of money into a conservative think tank, that becomes a very effective and taking on a certain issue, say on tax policy, you can have a lot of influence in terms of how tax policy goes if you put a lot of money into climate change. Michael Bloomberg has put a lot of money into climate change. He's helped shut down hundreds of coal fired power plants, giving tens of millions of dollars to that cause. That's all great news. If you think climate change is a huge problem, then you want to see coal fired power plants taken out of commission. It's not so great news if you work in one of those coal fired power plants. And so I think that a lot of people are wondering, you know, who are these billionaires who get to have so much influence? Education is another issue. Lots of money behind charter schools and school reform efforts in the United States who are billionaires to be having so much influence over a public institution.

MG: Is there any accountability in that? I mean, you're not going to turn away, presumably a $10 billion check or however much money someone is going to be donating with that many zeros behind it. But is there any accountability in terms of how those billionaires are guided when it comes to where their money is going?

DAVID CALLAHAN: There's not a lot of accountability. No one billionaire donor who's been heavily involved in public education issues said, the great thing about me and Bill Gates is we can't be voted out of office. And, indeed, the lack of accountability is a strength of philanthropy. It means that donors can take risks. They can back ideas that the politicians would never get behind. They can think long term and look over the horizon, as opposed to worrying about the next election or worrying about quarterly results. That's all a good thing. The bad news that this lack of accountability is that when they screw up or if they're giving does damage to society, there's no way to stop them from doing more of the same.

MG: They also get to choose where their money goes. Jeff Bezos has said that it will go to helping to fight climate change. Are there causes and parts of society that might miss out when billionaires get to determine where their large donation will end up?

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, what often happens is that grassroots groups that are working in communities that are trying to build power are among the most marginalized people in society, get mere crumbs if anything at all from these billionaire donors. Remember, these are people, these donors who've been the winners in our new economy. They're the beneficiaries of trends like technological change and globalization. Many of them don't really want to challenge the status quo in any fundamental way. And they're giving reflects that. You don't see a lot of their gifts going to back labour unions or or advocacy groups that are really working to empower the poorest people in society.

MG: You mentioned Mike Bloomberg, who has given a lot of money away over the course of his time in business as a billionaire. He also happens to be running for the U.S. Democratic nomination. How does giving money away impact his candidacy, do you think?

DAVID CALLAHAN: It's problematic. Bloomberg has given many millions of dollars to mayors and cities around the United States. He's now getting endorsements from those same politicians. And people are wondering, hey, you know, was that the plan all along? Was he making these gifts, sprinkling money around the country in order to have some power in terms of being able to call it endorsements later when he runs for president?

MG: If you go back to Amazon and Jeff Bezos, he hasn't been very wealthy man. The wealthiest man in the world, apparently, but he hasn't given a lot of money away before this, has he?

DAVID CALLAHAN: No, he hasn't. And he's gotten a lot of criticism for not being a major philanthropist so far. He is sending on tens of billions of dollars in wealth. His philanthropy has been quite meagre to date. You know, a significant gift here and there, but nothing sustained or a large scale. So this is a big new departure for him.

MG: Does he need to give any money away? I mean, you could imagine somebody saying, well, he made the money. Why does he need to be involved in philanthropy? That's his choice.

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, exactly. He does have the choice not to give anything away, but at the end of the day, something has to happen to all of this wealth and many of these people who've assembled these great fortunes don't want to see much of it go to the government in the form of estate taxes. And so they would rather be in charge of giving away the money themselves. A lot of them also don't want to leave this problem to their kids. I mean, it's one thing to leave your kid ten million dollars. That's another thing to leave your kid 10 billion dollars.

MG: Amazon has faced all sorts of heat as a frontline documentary that aired on PBS just in the last couple of days about the way that it treats its workers, about its environmental impact around antitrust issues. What impact do you think those issues had or have had on Jeff Bezos, his philanthropy?

DAVID CALLAHAN: It's hard to say. It does not seem like a coincidence that Jeff Bezos has turned to large scale philanthropy at a time when Amazon is facing rising scrutiny and criticism. Like a lot of tech companies, Amazon is coming under fire from critics, for all sorts of issues. And it's coming under more scrutiny from regulators who are looking at whether this is a monopolistic company. You know, it's worth recalling that Bill Gates began his career as a major philanthropist in the year 2000 when he was right in the middle of an antitrust suit by the Department of Justice that was looking to break up Microsoft. And right in the middle of that legal fight, Bill Gates announced that he was giving more than 20 billion dollars to his foundation to take on issues of global health and development.

MG: There are a number of people, including Amazon's own employees, who have said that what the company needs to be aware of is its own environmental impact that has these huge data farms running its Amazon Web Services capacity in terms of its delivery service and what have you, that that is a huge impact on the environment. And if Jeff Bezos wants to truly address the issues of climate change, he needs to look closer to home. Is that fair?

DAVID CALLAHAN: Absolutely. One of the worst kinds of philanthropy that we see is when you have a donor who's giving money with the one hand to address a problem that he's helping create with the other hand, you know what? What is the point of taking on climate change as a philanthropist if you're not taking dramatic steps, as that CEO was, well, he's not the CEO of Amazon, but as the person who controls one of the largest companies in the world to reduce your carbon footprint.

MG: He also has a company that has extraordinary success and wealth and paid last year zero dollars in federal taxes. And that's not just last year. That's in the last two years. How common is it that philanthropy and commercial taxes would be in such stark contras. You're giving a lot of money away, but you're not actually giving it away in terms of tax collection?

DAVID CALLAHAN: Well, it's not uncommon at all. There's a lot of wealthy people who pay very few taxes. A lot of their wealth has been accumulate in stock gains and that those gains are not taxed. The valuation of their stock goes up. They get richer and richer. A lot of them pay no tax even when they engage in lots of spending for personal consumption because they borrow against their fortunes. And people look at that and say, well, hey, you know, if you want to make the world a better place, why don't you start by paying your taxes? And it's a legitimate criticism.

MG: And yet you can imagine people who would be listening, who said, come on. He's giving away $10 billion. He's giving it away to fight climate change. Those are insignificant issues and concerns. And you can be too cynical about this, given what he's doing and given the impact that it could have.

DAVID CALLAHAN: And I think it's completely understandable to not want to beat up too much on these philanthropists. As you noted, they don't have to give in. We can't have a situation where every time they do step forward to give, they get slammed for being hypocritical or not giving enough or giving to the wrong causes. We want these people to give and the more they give, the better. The giving pledge put together by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett is a great effort to try to get billionaires engaged in large scale philanthropy. On the other hand, we have to be aware that with that giving comes influence and that this is not strictly a positive thing. It is an exercise of power. And power deserves to be scrutinized.

MG: David, it's great to speak to you both. Thank you.

DAVID CALLAHAN: Thank you.

MG: David Callahan is the founder and editor of the Web site Inside Philanthropy and the author of The Givers Wealth, Power and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age.

[Music]

Reinvestigation of Malcolm X killing speaks to 'contradictory dynamic' many black people experience: scholar

Guest: Ricky Jones

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name's Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I don't advocate any kind of hate.

VOICE 2: But I've heard speeches it seemed to me that you were advocating what I would have to describe, I think, as violence to meet the serious injuries that have been done to you are people with which I totally agree.

VOICE 1: I don't call that violence. I don't in any way encourage black people to go out and initiate acts of aggression indiscriminately against whites. But I do believe that the black man in the United States, and any human being anywhere, is well within his right to do whatever is necessary by any means necessary to protect his life and property, especially in a country where the federal government itself has proven that it is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of those human beings.

MG: It was 55 years ago that iconic black rights leader Malcolm X faced a grilling on CBS's Front Page Challenge. Three weeks later on the 21st of February 1965, Malcolm X was gunned down. He was about to deliver a speech at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. in the more than half century since questions about his assassination and who was really responsible have grown. And now that case is being reopened. The Manhattan district attorney's office says it will review the investigation into the killing. And the move came on the heels of a Netflix documentary that uncovered new information, raising the prospect that two of the three men jailed for the crime were wrongly convicted. Ricky Jones has written about the legacy of Malcolm X. He is chair of Pan-African Studies at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Ricky, good morning.

RICKY JONES: Good morning.

MG: You've written the Malcolm X was one of your role models. Why?

RICKY JONES: I think Malcolm X was a role model for a lot of black people, especially young black men, because as you see how integration is involved in this country, certain types of black people were put in positions where they would have influence or even a little bit of power, and they were usually more malleable types of people who would go along and get along. And Malcolm presented a different narrative about black manhood. So I think there are a lot of people who were taken in by that. Certainly I was, as a younger man and even now, as I enter middle age, that's something that I continuously ruminate on.

MG: We hear in that clip him talking about by any means necessary. And the thing with history and distance is that sometimes you can forget the influence that somebody had in that time. So for people perhaps who are too young to remember the impact that he had on the movement in the United States in the 60s, remind us what he accomplished.

RICKY JONES: Well, I think you can't talk about Malcolm X without talking about some fundamental questions that he raised. He sit at the heart of the ongoing debate about what approach is really the most effective for black liberation, be it integration or the various forms of nationalism. That's really important. He also speaks to our continued struggle to square American ideals of freedom and equality and democracy with our troubling realities of oppression, racism, and white supremacy that we're still dealing with in America today. Malcolm, also, and look at this case, he raises questions about how far America's centralized powers will go to quell what they see as viable challenges to the state. And I think that's at the heart of the Netflix documentary that prompted this new case that, you know, with Abdur-Rahman Muhammad's quest, to see really how threatening did America's government see Malcolm X and how far would it go to stop him. So when you explore those things and you explore ideas of freedom revolving around Malcolm, there are very few more important figures on America's historical and contemporary landscape.

MG: And there are a lot of people who say that he was gunned down just as he was beginning to embrace this global outlook, as you say, that would have made him even more of a threat to the status quo, that he was just hitting that ascendency.

RICKY JONES: Yes. I mean, you know with The Nation of Islam being relatively apolitical organization, also an organization that was limited religiously, because people have to understand that fundamental Islam is a very old religion. The black Muslim, that's relatively young. So as Malcolm expanded beyond all of that, he was able to develop some connections that he couldn't before. So that was going to necessarily evolve into a different world view. So people have to remember Malcolm X and Martin Luther King both were killed at 39 years old. He never saw 40. So [unintelligible] is to really sit down and think about where all of us are. We talk about global politics and history at 39. Where would you have been at 49, at 59, at 69? So there are very important questions about that.

MG: What came up in this Netflix documentary that would prompt the D.A. in Manhattan to take another look at his assassination?

RICKY JONES: You know, I really don't know exactly what prompted them to take another look. Because in black America, especially in black intellectual circles and black activist circles, there are always questions around what really happened with Malcolm. One question that's raised by Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is, look, five people, five men, initially were being sought for his murder. 30 were arrested. But even if five were arrested — And a police officer himself said this from the NYPD during that time — You don't arrest people without, you don't arrest shooters, without finding out who has sent the shooter. And they never did, right? They never did. So there's a lot more stuff that's gone on, that has made people question exactly what happened that day 55 years ago. And those questions are still around us.

MG: Well, and to your point, I mean, the FBI has known some of this information for a long time. Why would it take so long for the justice system to have a second or third look at this?

RICKY JONES: Well, this is the question around ideas of black freedom, power and agency. We simply do not control organizational levers of structural power to move them in such a way that we can determine what's happened to the people that our community values. Right? And so we're dependent on agents of the state to deliver investigations and conclusions and be committed to figuring out exactly what happened to people who were threats to the state. And that's always a very, very difficult dynamic for black people, I would argue, any marginalized people to swallow. It's always something that is going to raise questions. I mean, it's very much like the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century in this country where, you know, police chiefs and judges and lawyers all were Klansmen and people would be killed and then they would say, we're investigating the Klan. I mean, so it's a it's a contradictory dynamic.

MG: As we mentioned, three weeks before his assassination. Malcolm X was on CBC's Front Page Challenge. He was asked about Martin Luther King. Have a listen to what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

If his approach would bring about what the black man in America needs to completely eliminate the problem that we have, I would say well and good. But I very much doubt that anyone who adopts the approach that Martin Luther King has been teaching to people in that country can point to any meaningful gains that have actually served to solve the problem.

MG: Ricky Jones What do you make of what Malcolm X had to say there?

RICKY JONES: Well, it's understandable, right? But it has to be placed in the historical context. Even King has to be placed in the historical context. People have, remember, I attended Morehouse College, where Martin Luther King Junior went to school. America has failed children of this country and America's failed children of the world as we come into manhood and womanhood and understand it exactly what happened on that landscape. Even Martin Luther King Junior bowed to the analysis of Malcolm later in his life. People have to remember when Martin Luther King Junior was killed in 1968, over 50 percent of black people in America disapproved of him. And so if almost 50 percent of black people disapproved of second of mad and what the approach of white America was Martin Luther King. So [unintelligible] himself [unintelligible] to understand that America's structural power and its willingness to be violent and oppressive and mean spirited toward black people was much more repulsive than even he thought. So in that respect, you know, even King came to agree with Malcolm a bit before he died. And folks very rarely analyze that.

MG: As you mentioned, both of these men died at 39, which is almost hard to imagine. They're so young and then with so much life and so much potential influence ahead of them, what do you think? We live in an era now of Black Lives Matter. What do you think Malcolm X would have would have made of the time that we're in right now, or what is his influence in terms of the time that we're in right now?

RICKY JONES: His influence is absolutely incalculable. And really and truly when you study— and not just Malcolm, but when you study people from Du Bois to William Monroe Trotter to Ida B Wells to Paul Roques and to A Philip Randolph to Malcolm and others, there's always been this argument that Black Lives Matter. We're simply now in an era of hashtags. But the arguments that have been put forth about that organization and others about the nature of freedom and democracy in America and how can black people really participate in it and be more human in the world, that question has always been around. And unfortunately, that question, I think, is going to be around for some time. So if Malcolm were alive, I think that if he were not necessarily a member of that particular organization, he would still be a member and an advocate for movements that were speaking to black humanity. Because it's still needed. And so that is a question of how far has America really come and how far is America willing to go where black people and historically oppressed people are concerned.

MG: And you feel his influence today still.

RICKY JONES: I think all of us feel his the influence of the impact, I think its influence is growing. History has been unkind to Malcolm, at least the people who actually study Malcolm, not the people who study soundbites. So when we look at Martin Luther King Junior, we only know about four words from one speech in one day of his life. In the [unintelligible] of Malcolm, a lot of people say, okay, by any means necessary. But that's all there is, is they'll hopefully whether it's Netflix of anything else, it will prompt people to really explore Malcolm X as a man, you know, as an advocate and as a person who cared more about his people than he did about himself. And it cost him his life.

MG: Ricky Jones, good to speak with you. Thank you.

RICKY JONES: Thank you.

MG: Ricky Jones, chair of Pan African Studies at the University of Louisville. That is it for The Current for today. Stay tuned to CBC Radio One. Tom Power, we'll be speaking with Daniel Caesar on Q. Daniel, Cesar has gone from sleeping on park benches in Toronto to winning a Grammy to being a controversial, in some ways, pop superstar. You'll hear more about that when he speaks with Tom Power coming up in just a moment. Would recommend as well, wherever you get your podcasts that you subscribe to our new podcast, The Current Weekly, covers some of the best stories that we've talked about over the course of the week, including this week, our interview about walking. Had huge numbers of people who've told us about the walks that they love to go on. You can find The Current Weekly wherever you get your podcasts. We were just talking about the mystery surrounding the death of Malcolm X. No question that in life he was a gifted speaker, known for impassioned speeches, including one in Los Angeles in May of 1962, following a confrontation with the LAPD outside a mosque where a Nation of Islam member died. Here's part of that speech from Malcolm X. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current and have a great weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

We are oppressed, we are exploited, we are downtrodden. We are denied not only civil rights, but even human rights. So the only way we're going to get some of this oppression and exploitation away from us, aside from us, is come together against a common enemy. Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the colour of your skin to such extent that you bleach to get like the white man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to? So much so that you don't want to be around each other? Know before you come asking Mr. Mohammed, does he teach hate? You should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God gave you.

[Cheers and applaud]

Friday 21 February 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode