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 January 24, 2020

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

The findings were that Preston had died from heart disease. And I'm like, what? And he says, Yes. He goes, you know, so we can't really do anything because it wasn't ruled a homicide.

MATT GALLOWAY: From the start, Sally Wheeler believed that her husband was murdered. Police also suspected foul play, until the medical examiner ruled otherwise. Now a new investigation by the Fifth Estate shows there were problems with some of his work in the Alberta government. Knew about those issues. That's coming up in half an hour. And then, when you think of diplomacy, is two turntables and a microphone. What comes to mind? If not, think again.

SOUNDCLIP

I learned that hip hop is powerful. Hip hop can be a tool to impact our world, to build global relations, that it is indeed a diplomatic force.

MG: In an hour, how the U.S. State Department is using hip hop to build cultural bridges around the world. But we begin with the drawbridge is being drawn up in China, where a city the size of New York is on lockdown over fears of a spreading virus and residents are wondering whether they're getting the whole story. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

China's mass quarantines

Guests: Chris Buckley, Zhaoyin Feng, James Hodge

SOUNDCLIP

Trying to contain a city of 11 million people is new to science. It has not been tried before as a public health measure. We cannot at this stage say it will or it will not work.

MG: As the World Health Organization commenting on a move rarely seen on this scale in modern times. Chinese authorities have closed off on a city of more than 11 million people and the epicentre of the Corona virus outbreak. They've also imposed travel restrictions in at least nine other cities. Controversial measures are aimed at slowing down the virus's spread, but they come with their own risks. And in a few moments, I'll speak with a public health professor about that. But first, for the latest on the outbreak. I'm joined by Chris Buckley. He's a reporter for The New York Times and he is in Wuhan. Chris, hello.

CHRIS BUCKLEY: Good to talk to you.

MG: What is the city of Wuhan like today?

CHRIS BUCKLEY: Well, the city of Wuhan today is generally very quiet, as you probably know. China is supposed to be celebrating the important eve of the lunar new year holiday tonight, but it felt very melancholy and quiet and quite anxious across Wuhan today. Most of the shops and restaurants are closed. Many hotels are closed. Streets are empty. The only places where you see big crowds around the hospitals busy taking in patients. And some of those still seem quite stretch. Probably not as crowded as yesterday in some cases, but still very stretched.

MG: A city of 11 million people who described it as a ghost town. It must feel really eerie.

CHRIS BUCKLEY: It is very eerie now. Generally, this is a time of year when Chinese cities do quieten down to the celebrations. But of course, it's much more serious matter this time. And talking to residents today, especially people outside the hospitals, people are willing to put up with the lockdown around the city for the time being that there is anxiety about the medical supplies, having enough skilled doctors and medical personnel available and also availability of food as well.

MG: I think for a lot of people outside of the country, it's hard to imagine locking down a city that large. How do you go about locking down a city of 11 million people?

CHRIS BUCKLEY: Well, the restrictions now apply beyond the wall hand, which has 11 million people. Exactly how they're going to enforce that over the coming days, it's going to be a big question to the government. You certainly do see police around, especially blocking highways at the train station yesterday and the airport as well. But there's not a massive police and security presence in the city. They seemed to be policing the outskirts, trusting that residents are going to go along with this for now. And they may well be willing to go along, but give it a week toward the end of the Lunar New Year holiday may be more difficult to persuade people that they should stay put.

MG: If somebody in the city suspects that they may have contracted the virus, what are they supposed to do in the midst of that lockdown?

CHRIS BUCKLEY: The advice, especially if you have a high fever, you're supposed to go to one of at seven designated hospitals across the city that have been assigned to taken people showing symptoms that may be caused by the Corona virus. And so you find that those hospitals where the large crowds are gathering. There are also other hospitals taking in people who are worried because they might be sneezing, for example, or have a low fever and have started becoming anxious that they may also be praising the corona virus. So I think part of the strain on the system now is the numbers of people who are suddenly very worried about their health and they're showing up at these hospitals, not quite sure what they have. Now, in some cases, it may be the Corona virus. In other cases, it may simply be a more seasonal flu or cold that has triggered alarm among people.

MG: What is your sense as to how transparent the authorities are being about what's going on, what's going on right now in Wuhan?

CHRIS BUCKLEY: I think there's a lot of frustration, anxiety among residents in Wuhan. Well, also, China at large and the police that the Chinese government could have been more candid and forthright about the severity of this particular threat of the virus earlier. I think even people who acknowledge that the Chinese health system has made big strides and that China has become much more effective at monitoring and reporting on diseases in general, do see some problems in this particular case and think that the Wuhan city government in particular could have moved more quickly to alert residents to the potential risk with this disease and perhaps even taken other such measures to discourage the movement of people, or at least to try to identify people who may have exposed early on.

MG: This is the eve of the Lunar New Year, and it's meant to be a moment of great celebration, what are you hearing from residents on the streets today?

CHRIS BUCKLEY: I was asking people outside the hospitals today about that, what their plans were. And as you can imagine, a lot of them are thinking that this year is not the year for big celebrations. Other residents I spoke to were going ahead with family meals, in many cases did want to mark the day in some way. But the big banquets that would normally accompany a time like this, they've been cancelled this year. And people have much more modest expectations about the celebration. It's also a time of year when family and relatives often visit each other starting from the day in the next few days, I expect many fewer people are going to be visiting each other either this Lunar Year holiday.

MG: It's an incredible story. And wild scenes there in terms of that lockdown, we appreciate speaking with you this morning, Chris. Thank you.

CHRIS BUCKLEY: Thank you. My pleasure.

MG: Chris Buckley is a reporter for The New York Times. We reached him in Wuhan. In an outbreak like the one we're seeing in China information is king. And for some, the information from the Chinese government about what was going on in Wuhan came much too slowly at first. But social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat have been flooded with posts about the situation. Zhaoyin Feng has been tracking the story on both social media and in the Chinese media. She is a journalist with the BBC's Chinese Service and is based in Washington. Good morning.

ZHAOYIN FENG: Good morning.

MG: Take us inside the Chinese social media. What are people saying about the worries they may have when it comes to this outbreak right now?

ZHAOYIN FENG: Open Weibo this morning, Weibo is the Chinese equivalent of Twitter. And what I've seen there is pretty severe. On one hand, you have a lot of messages about coronavirus. Some sound, really desperate. People in Wuhan are complaining that medical supply is in shortage. Some family members are really sick, but when they went to the hospital, the hospital was overcrowded and they were sent home without proper care. On the other hand, you see colourful images of singing and dancing from this and new Lunar New Year gala, which is a four hour show on the state broadcaster CCTV. It's a giant celebration of the Lunar New Year. The show a segment addressing the Corona virus outbreak. But at the same time, you see signs of some propaganda efforts. For example, a famous anchor of this blockbuster sent a message saying that I do not write anything that will make Wuhan people feel bad and making all the sacrifice. The state media, trying to strike a positive note during this horrible outbreak.

MG: You talked about that desperation. And we have seen some of the photos and videos posted on Weibo and elsewhere of scenes at the hospital. What stands out for you from those images in those videos that you've seen?

ZHAOYIN FENG: Well, I've seen people waiting in line in hospitals, waiting for the test results out of their family members. And it's a very dangerous place to catch potential virus because you have healthy people, potentially infected people waiting in line for hours together. And at the same time, during the current lockdown, people asking questions that letter Wuhan people will have access to medical supplies and other life supplies. You know, how do we support them? This is the question about the lockdown. How do you strike the balance between controlling the spreading of the virus at the same time making sure that external support can reach down?

MG: How critical have people been, how the government has handled things thus far?

ZHAOYIN FENG: Right. I'm actually surprised to see many messages oppose, criticizing the government on Chinese social media. I start to see the spike after the past weekend, around January 20. So if you combine Google and Baidu, which is the Chinese equivalent and the search of Wuhan virus or Corona virus in January. You'll see that Google started to spike in early January. People started searching the virus. But in China, the spike didn't come until here later this past weekend, that's when the Chinese government decided to loosen its grip on information about the outbreak. And since then, we've seen Chinese media and social media users posting endlessly about the outbreak. And it's encouraging to see. And I do, for you to imagine if there was no censorship in China, how vibrant the media scene could be, how much check and balance there could be. But at the same time, as I mentioned, there are still signs of propaganda. The state media trying to stay on a positive note during the celebration period.

MG: Why do you think the rains have been loosened a little bit when it comes to that censorship? Because as you mentioned, we know that whether it's in social media or in more traditional media, Chinese journalists and social media users are often censored in terms of what they can search for and what they actually see.

ZHAOYIN FENG: My guess is that the Chinese government has also learned the lesson from SARS the outbreak in 2003, and they realized that the lack of transparency and the lack of information could damage public health severely. And in this case, a lot of Chinese people are already questioning the local authority of Wuhan of delaying efforts of fighting the virus, not releasing information early enough. For example, we have the first case reported in early December, and people started to suspect that the origins of the virus is in the secret market, which also sells wildlife in Wuhan. But the market was not close until 24 days later and people are continuing to ask questions. Why didn't we act earlier? Could we have dealt with this better?

MG: You mentioned the propaganda. We're now hearing that as many as 35 million people are caught up in this lockdown. Nine or ten different cities across the country. Are you expecting that propaganda and the messages from the government to increase as the scale of this increases?

ZHAOYIN FENG: I do expect so. Yes, I would expect them to try to stay on the positive note and try to make medical professionals as heroes of the country. But at the same time, we will see Chinese media. They own a private owned trying to push for the boundaries and standing from Wuhan from other major cities on the ground. And at the same time, I don't think Chinese people would give the government an easy time. We see a lot of questions and a lot of criticism online at the moment, and that is not going away. And it doesn't seem to me that the censorship is erasing all those away either.

MG: Now, you wonder whether this will just give Chinese citizens a taste as well of what a little bit of freedom online can look like.

ZHAOYIN FENG: Exactly. Yeah, it's a very valuable freedom. For me, Chinese media and Chinese social media have become the major source of information regarding this outbreak. It's surreal. I mean, usually we go to international media. But at this time, other than Chris Buckley, there are also many other great Chinese reporters on the ground and risking their lives to cover the story for us.

MG: Zhaoyin, it's good to speak with you about this. Thank you.

ZHAOYIN FENG: Thank you.

MG: Zhaoyin Feng is a journalist with the BBC Chinese Service based in Washington. As we've been hearing, China has been taking these extraordinary measures to contain the Corona virus. Is that the best approach? James Hodge is director of the Centre for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University. James, good morning to you.

JAMES HODGE: Good morning, Matt. Pleasure to be with.

MG: Good to have you. Have you ever seen anything like this before? The scale of these lockdowns, population almost the size of the Canadian population essentially being locked down in one country?

JAMES HODGE: No, this is really unprecedented. This is the sort of thing that you see with excessive efforts in every attempt possible for China here to live down what happened with SARS. I think they've taken a rather aggressive approach to this that really has not been seen in any modern historical context. Now, let's be sure. We've used quarantine and what we call cordon sanitaire, basically roping off populations in prior epidemics like Ebola and other arenas for limited periods of time, but not in response to this type of disease and not at this scale. You're right. We're basically essentially telling all of Canada you're now housed in that you can't get out, or we're basically telling the state of California you can't leave or you can't have folks come in. That's unprecedented. It's unlikely to work. In fact, it will likely backfire.

MG: So wait, why do you think it could backfire?

JAMES HODGE: Well, because just like you were hearing from our prior correspondents in regards to this interview, you know, people would tolerate this for some period of time. There's the sort of ethic of volunteerism, even in China and other places where persons understand the need for attention to public health measures. That's a good thing. And so what we rely on in regards to public health practice. But the longer this goes on with a slow moving type of epidemic outbreak, like what we're seeing with coronavirus here, which will take weeks for it to spill through a population, the longer that goes on, the less patients, the less the appreciation people have for it, especially against the backdrop of a major national celebration like what they're experiencing in China right now.

MG: What about also the element that you have the healthy who are locked down with the sick. How is that a good thing to have everybody locked down in the same space?

MG: It's not a good thing. That's what's patently unconstitutional, the United States didn’t do it. And I guarantee under Canadian law as well. Why is that the case? What you don't do with quarantine or cordon sanitaire and terror, which, you know, what it's used legitimately is what you don't do is place healthy persons at greater risk. That's a just don't do in the public health arena. And so what how they've tried to accomplish this maths that's so profound is they basically not condemned, not going to use strong language like that. But they've basically told 35 million people in China we know you're in the hot zone, but we need to draw a line around this. And you're just going to have to deal with the fact that you're in that hot zone. We're going to flood you with additional materials and essential health care services. We're going to do what we can to treat everybody that needs it. But you are at an enhanced series of risk. Now, let's contrast that, however, with allowing a population known to be infected to disperse across China and the globe. And that's a bigger problem. But we have public health, social distancing measures to accomplish and to restrict that. We don't need to use this type of a mass roping off of entire populations.

MG: Tell me more about this in terms of the difference between what we're seeing right now and what a more typical quarantine would look like. People, I think in Canada will remember certainly the Sars crisis and the quarantines and isolation that happened there. What's the difference between that and what's going on in China right now?

MG: Yes, exactly. Some of what you saw in Toronto was SaaS, obviously was controversial in Canada. But what you're seeing here in China is a whole other story. Let's talk about the responsible use of quarantine or isolation as well as cordon sanitaire. So let's just be clear on the three differences. Quarantine: When you know you have people that were exposed to infectious conditions. You're going to kind of ask them to observe some reasonable measures to monitor their health and avoid contact with others. Isolation: you know, the person's infected. You know they could infect others. We will isolate those persons with potentially deadly conditions like what you're seeing here with this coronavirus. And then cordon sanitaire which is the French term for just roping off populations, virtually nonessential. Although with Ebola, we did see temporary use of that in certain countries that may have may have limited some of it spread. What's responsible use? Quarantine is responsible. We do it every day in the United States. It's happening in Canada right now with cases involving persons exposed to tuberculosis or certain emerging infectious conditions that have a limited spread isolation. We do it all the time happens with cases of TB, with persons who are recalcitrant, who will participate in a normal type of measures. We will isolate them as necessary and lawfully, but for only a temporary period while they're infectious. This cordon sanitaire is unprecedented in regard to its scale and scope of what you're seeing in China in the modern era. And to be sure, in the United States and Canada would be highly, highly suspect under, you know, every level of legal intervention. And so you just don't do it.

MG: Is your sense that China is doing this because it can?

JAMES HODGE: Yes, in many ways. You could not pull this off in the United States. You could not pull this off in Canada. What you could pull off are limited travel restrictions. What you can pull off are, you know, certain restrictions in place designed to make sure that we don't willingly receive into borders persons who are known to be infected. So that's what screening at U.S. airports right now in select destinations. That's legit. That's consistent with the World Health Organization policies and principles on these types of outbreaks. But China can do what we can't. The question is, will it work? And that's what that one, you know, very interesting official public health official [unintelligible] telling us that now in regards to his comments, the WTO doesn't know whether to work or not. I think it won't. And I'm going to give you a practical reason why.

MG: Just briefly, yes.

JAMES HODGE: It begins with basically a fundamental human rights violation about restricting travel and liberty for no known epidemiologic gain. Those principles and typical practices are routinely shown not to work. In fact, they backfire. They backfire in very damaging.

MG: The remaining seconds that we have, how long do you think that this could go on for? Are we talking days? Are we talking weeks?

JAMES HODGE: If you want to quell what may be an emerging outbreak that's human to human and potentially transmitted respiratory or otherwise, this will take weeks if they wanted to quell it completely. I don't know how much patients, the Globe or WTO or others will have for a week long type of cordon sanitaire at this level.

MG: James Hyde's good to speak with you. Thank you.

JAMES HODGE: My pleasure.

MG: James Hodge, director of the Centre for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University. The CBC News is next. And of course, you hear the latest on what's happening in China and around the world when it comes to the Corona virus. And then Sally Wheeler was shocked when her husband's autopsy found that he died of heart disease.

SOUNDCLIP

And I said, well, what about the broken bone in his neck? And what about the blow to the head? And they said, well, no. But apparently that just wasn't enough to- that wasn't the cause of death.

MG: Now, an investigation by the Fifth Estate finds that there were questions about the medical examiner's work and the Alberta Justice Department knew about them. My name's Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stick around.

'Get to the bottom of this': Civil liberties group wants inquiry into buried records in Alta. criminal cases

Guests: Mark Kelley, Sally Wheeler, Michael Bryant

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, how the U.S. State Department is using hip hop to advance its agenda on the world stage. But first, a question of justice.

[Music: Theme]

MG: An independent panel of experts commissioned by the Alberta government found that a medical examiner came to, quote, unreasonable conclusions in 13 cases, some of them murder investigations. That, however, is old news. The expert panel's report was completed back in 2012. Why we're talking about this today is because an investigation by the CBC is Fifth Estate has discovered that some of the defendants in those criminal cases were never told about the panel's findings. Defendants who were sent to prison. Mark Kelley is a host with the Fifth Estate and he's with me now. Good morning.

MARK KELLEY: Good morning, Matt. Good to be with you.

MG: Good to have you here. Take us through this investigation. What was it that led you to look into this medical examiner?

MARK KELLEY: It was the most unlikely start for us that we'd heard that there was a raid at a medical examiner's office by the FBI in Lubbock, Texas, in West Texas. Why do we care about that? Well, because the medical examiner, at the core of this investigation was Dr. Evan Matshes, a Canadian. So we said, well, what's the story with this guy? So we did a search. We found out that it had a falling out with the medical examiner's office when he was a medical examiner in Alberta, in Calgary. He quit his job. He'd sued the government. Now, we're really curious to find out more about this guy. So we started digging and digging and digging into his past.

MG: And what did you find?

MARK KELLEY: Well, as you mentioned off the top, in 2012 there was this report. Three medical examiners were brought in from the United States expert pathologist to look into 14 cases that he had done. Questions started to arise in the medical examiner's office in Alberta, about his work, concerns about the conclusions that he was reaching. So these experts are brought in to look at 14 of his cases. As you mentioned, in 13 of the 14, they find unreasonable conclusions. And that's the terminology these pathologists use. They're raising red flags about the conclusions. And we knew we'd heard about this and that the government had made this public, the fact that they looked into this report. But key issues, Matt, that they never made public, which cases were involved? What were the concerns that these expert pathologists had and what was done with that information? That's what we wanted to find out.

MG: How did you come across the report?

MARK KELLEY: Well, are very, very resourceful colleague Rachel Ward, our colleague in Calgary. She starts digging. And because Dr. Matshes had launched this defamation suit, filed this defamation suit saying that Alberta government had ruined his career, he used included this expert report in his case as evidence against the government. So this report that was never made public, we found it in the files. Rachel found it in the files. And through that, we could then contact the people whose cases were involved and ask them the questions: did you know about this report?

MG: And it raised questions about Dr. Matshes's work.

MARK KELLEY: Oh, indeed. And once we started looking at some of the specific criticisms that they had, the expert pathologists had about his work. Now, we wanted to know more about how could this have affected the cases, the individuals who are involved in this. So many unanswered questions that put us on a quest that's consumed us at the fifth estate for the past six months.

MG: We're going to hear more about this just in terms of the personal experience that somebody went through. But just broadly, what does it say about his work, this report?

MARK KELLEY: Well, what it says, it raises some serious concerns about the quality of his work, that he was reaching conclusions that that other pathologists said that they found to be unreasonable, that he was finding rare injuries, previously injuries on people that the expert pathologist said that did not exist, that he was ascribing intent, that there was actually going one step further and saying in dealing with the police and saying that he saw patterns of abuse that helped build cases against these people and ultimately sent them to prison.

MG: One of the cases that he worked on was the death investigation of Preston Lochead. He was found dead in his home in Airdrie, Alberta, outside of Calgary nine years ago when police initially suspected foul play, until Dr. Matshes completed the autopsy. Sally Wheeler is Preston's widow. Sally, good morning.

SALLY WHEELER: Good morning.

MG: Tell me about your husband, Preston. What was he like?

SALLY WHEELER: Oh, he was wonderful. Very happy, laid back kind of guy. He was very generous with his friends and big family man, loved his kids and his family, and it's just an all around good guy.

MG: That generosity in many ways is at the heart of this story. Yes. And I know this must be really difficult. So say what you can say, but walk us through that night that that Preston died. Where were you?

SALLY WHEELER: We were at home and it was a Friday night and we had some friends over to play poker and have a few drinks and a few too many. And so we were all there playing cards and just enjoying ourselves. And we need this more mix. So Preston went over to the store that was just two blocks from the house. While he was there, a woman approached him and said that she had just picked up these two gentlemen whose truck broke down and she brought them to the gas station and hopes to find somebody who could help them with their vehicle. Now, that night, it was about minus 35. Preston had said, you know, come on back to the house and then I'll come and help you. So they came to the house. And I never liked having strangers in my house. I was like, oh, you know, I don't like this. And it's okay, babe. I'm just going to try and help and get their truck started and just help get them on the railing. It's really cold. So I was like, okay, they couldn't get it started. So now it was really quite late. It was probably about 12:00. They were trying to get a hold of their company that they were working for in the States. And while they were trying to do that, Preston invited them to come downstairs and just hang out with us and, you know, if they want to play cards or whatever. So time went on. They couldn't reach anyone. The lady that had picked them up. She also lived in Airdrie and she had a much bigger house. My house was small. She had a bigger house. So her and one of our friends that was there, he was going back to her place with her. And she said to these two gentlemen that they could go and spend the night at her place because she had a bigger house. As far as I knew, that was what was happening. Cabs had been called. Everybody had been drinking. So I just thought, well, you know, the cabs will be here any minute. I'm just going to go and wait in bed for Preston to come to bed. Well, I fell asleep. The next morning, I woke up to our friend Jemmy, who had a room in my house saying: Sally, it's Preston, and, that day is really- there's a lot of pieces that are missing. It was very traumatic. And I remember watching all these police and everything come flying in through the door. I know Preston had come to bed that night because his hoodie that he had on was on the bedroom floor. So I don't know what made him go back downstairs and I don't know why, of the two gentlemen, one had left to go to this lady's house, but the other one stayed with us.

MG: What sort of scene did you wake up to? I mean, you mentioned the police were rushing around me. What did you see?

SALLY WHEELER: When I went through to the front of the house, I did look downstairs and I could see Preston laying there.

MG: What did police tell you over the course of their investigation into what happened that night?

SALLY WHEELER: They found, well, they found the guy hiding in a car, in an unlocked car about a block from my house, I gather. They told me that his just, stories kept changing. They said that first he said that there were two guys that were beating him up. It was, it was just him and Preston. He said that it was self-defence, which I didn't understand that. Because if you're the one defending yourself, then why is Preston dead? He was the one clearly fighting for his life.

MG: Because they'd found and again, I apologize, the details are important here. They'd found that there was a sign of struggle, that he had broken bones and abrasions and...

SALLY WHEELER: Yes, there was a blow to the head. They said they could see there was a blow to the head and broken- a broken bone in his neck. There are clearly been an altercation. We had a huge poker table and that was on its side. And that's been, you know, so there had clearly been a fight. And they told me - like Major Crimes was brought in from Calgary and Red Deer - so they obviously thought it was a suspicious thing right away.

MG: How did those findings change when Dr. Matshes the medical examiner get involved in this?

SALLY WHEELER: Well, Preston died November 20th. When they called me to say they had Preston's autopsy results, that was about six months after he died. The police officer I talked to and I'm sorry, I don't remember his name, he said that the findings were that Preston had died from heart disease. And I'm like, what? And he says, yes. He goes, you know, so we can't really do anything because it wasn't ruled a homicide. And I went. What about the blow to the head and the broken bones?

MG: So giving what you just described, how did you react when you heard that this was being deemed heart failure?

SALLY WHEELER: Oh, I was- I was just fit to be tied when I was in there. I did not even know what to do with myself because I was so shocked that this is what they were saying to me. And I said, well, what about the broken bone in his neck? And what about the blow to the head? And they said, well, no. But apparently that just wasn't enough to- that wasn't the cause of death. And they were just like, yes, you know, so there's nothing that we can do now.

MG: And so no charges were ever laid in his death?

SALLY WHEELER: No.

MG: This happened nine years ago. And I just wonder how your life has been shaped or changed by by all of this.

SALLY WHEELER: I was being treated for PTSD for a couple of years by my doctor. It changed who I am as a person. It's- it's not the kind of thing you ever think you're going to have to go through and to know, to know that nothing was done, it's it's just devastating, not just for me, but for his family and for all of us who cared about him. And really, if it can happen to us, it can happen to anyone. The fact that this all comes down to one man's, basically an opinion, and there's not even more of an investigation that's done.

MG: If you could speak with that medical examiner, Dr. Matshes, who performed the autopsy on your on your husband, what would you say to him?

SALLY WHEELER: Nothing I can probably say right now.

MG: You're still really- it's still it's still really raw for you.

SALLY WHEELER: Yes. Yes, it is. It is. You know, I loved her and Alberta justice, you know, like to me, the man killing him. That was bad. The medical examiner screwing up. That was really bad. But for Alberta justice to find out two years after it happened, so seven years ago, that it was a homicide and then they just chose to bury that is just absolutely disgusting.

MG: I'm sorry for what you've been through. It's awful. But I appreciate you telling us the story. It's important.

SALLY WHEELER: Thank you.

MG: Sally, take care of yourself.

SALLY WHEELER: Thank you.

MG: Thanks. Bye bye.

SALLY WHEELER: Bye bye.

MG: Mark Kelley of the Fifth Estate is here listening to a conversation with Sally.

MARK KELLEY: I just want to add that three the three expert pathologists who reviewed Preston's, who reviewed his case, they pointed to strangulation being the most likely cause. They said that this indeed did look like a case of homicide. Now, Alberta justice at the time when they were doing this review, they said they would share this information in any potential murder cases with police forces. We contacted the Airdrie RCMP and this is important note to say, did Alberta justice ever share this report with you? They replied to us that there was no communication from Alberta justice with regard to the investigation of his death.

MG: There were other cases that were reviewed and you showed the panel's findings to some of the defence lawyers. What impact do they think that the findings of this panel would have had on the cases of their clients?

MARK KELLEY: Well, I mean, they were stunned when we were showing them some of this information. I mean, that some of these reviews they were saying were, you know, in his case, where it looked like a homicide. In other cases where they were saying homicide wasn't likely the cause. And these were people who were charged with second degree murder and ultimately went to jail for their crime. So they're just asking the defence lawyers, well, why did nobody share this with us? Because, of course, this would've called into question the work that was done by Dr. Matshes. Now, these are just other opinions. This doesn't mean that these people would be, you know, immediately exonerated. But it raises in a question some of the key evidence that was used in their convictions.

MG: You said at the beginning of our conversation that the Alberta government quashed its own report into Dr. Matshes in 2013. Why would it do that?

MARK KELLEY: Well, this is a curious thing that we're looking at. Of course, Dr. Matches from the outset thought that this entire review panel was designed to ruin his career. So he started fighting it behind the scenes and ultimately took this to court. He said it was not a fair process because he was not given an opportunity to respond to this. And a judge agreed and said, okay, we're going to quash this. We're going to set aside that this process. But at the time and this is important to say, Alberta Justice said the administration of justice demands a new external panel review be conducted that was written in November 2013.

MG: Dr. Matches sued the Alberta government in 2014 for 30 million dollars, claiming, as you mentioned, that the government officials had defamed him and tried to ruin his career. How do you think that affected the panel's report that was at the centre of all of this?

MARK KELLEY: Well, we think, you know, we spoke to James Locker, who, of course, well-known lawyer with the Innocence Project here in Toronto. And he wondered aloud whether there was some sort of quid pro quo here. That he sues, Dr. Matshes Susie Alberta government for 30 million dollar in 2014. Nothing's come of that case. Alberta government says we have to have a second review. They have never done that. Why? Why did this happen? And that's the question that we will be asking Alberta justice. Why did you not have the second review? If there were serious questions and concerns raised about his work in these cases, why wouldn't you do this to remove any doubt that there was no miscarriage of justice? It's a simple question. It's a simple proposition. And their own words at the time said that we feared that people's liberty could be hanging in the balance. These are the words of Alberta justice. These aren't the words of Mark Kelley in the Fifth Estate. These are their own words, their own commitments that they didn't live up to. And that's the question we have. Why?

MG: What happened to the Alberta justice officials who are overseeing this review?

MARK KELLEY: Well, and that's very interesting, because some of them and three of them, in fact, have now gone on to be sitting judges in Alberta. We've been in communication with them. Many of them now saying, I'm not at liberty to discuss this. Others have come back to us to say, look, we painstakingly ensured that there was no miscarriage of justice. We contacted various defence lawyers, those defence lawyers who claim they were never contacted. They were never shown the content of this peer review. So these people now have moved on, except for one official, one official who remains in Alberta justice, who was there then. He's there now. He said it was quashed. Therefore, the findings of this panel are, quote, inconsequential.

MG: And Dr. Matshes, what does he say about this review?

MARK KELLEY: He stands by his work. We went he's now working down in San Diego. He's a pathologist. He's got his own lab down there. I went down to talk to him. He refused to speak with me. But he says he stands by his work. He says this is all part of a vicious campaign to ruin his career and that as far as he's concerned, he has done nothing wrong.

MG: Just finally, what about the current attorney general in Alberta? What is the A.G. have to say?

MARK KELLEY: Yes. There is one person who could change everything here who could order the second review that was promised in November of 2013. So we've contacted that, justice minister. We were after him for weeks. He would not return our calls. He would not return our e-mails until he showed up somewhere and said, would you look into this? He said, I'll look into it. And he got back to us and he said, you know, this happened before my time in office. Therefore, it's not his responsibility. It's a stunning, stunning reply. Of course, in most cases, where there's a possibility of miscarriage of justice, this would have predated the minister's time in office. And for that to be the reply and washed his hands of it is truly stunning.

MG: Mark, thank you.

MARK KELLEY: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Mark Kelley, host on the CBS Fifth Estate. This is not the first time that the work of a forensic pathologist has been called into question in Ontario. An independent review found problems with the work of Dr. Charles Smith in something like 20 cases, 13 of which involve convictions. Michael Bryant was Ontario's attorney general as that case unfolded. He's now with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He's been listening. Michael, good morning to you.

MICHAEL BRYANT: Good morning.

MG: What do you make of what you're hearing?

MICHAEL BRYANT: Why the hell is this happening all over again? That the conclusions would come out of a public inquiry in Ontario, that are obviously available to all the justice ministers across the country, saying here are the things to watch for, and here are the things to do to prevent it. And then basically the other provinces, at least Alberta, apparently ignored it. So the problem here is that the forensic science system in Alberta may be what it was in Ontario back in the day. It needs to professionalize and modernize. Changes need to be made. Legal changes need to be made. But the urgent thing that needs to be addressed right away is what Alberta justice referred to already, which is that people's liberty may hang in the balance. There may be people in jail right now who shouldn't be in jail. And there are people who are convicted, who perhaps have been victims of a miscarriage of justice. And there's unsolved crimes. That's when an attorney general steps in and says, let's call a public inquiry.

MG: You saw a similar situation, as I mentioned, in the situation with Charles Smith. Just briefly remind us who Charles Smith was.

MICHAEL BRYANT: Charles Smith was a globally renowned, really rock star of pediatric forensic pathology out of Sick Kids Hospital. And it was determined that a lot of bad science was done, by him and his office. And as a result, there was a review. As a result of those reviews, it became public, unlike the Alberta Justice reviews. And soon after in 2007, well, as soon as soon as we had the information that that in fact bad science had put people in jail. William Mullins-Johnson was in jail. We got those people out of jail. By we, I mean the officials in the ministry, the attorney general.

MG: How quickly did that happen? When you take a look at the case of William Mullin- Johnson, when you found that out, how quickly did it happen that he was out?

MICHAEL BRYANT: Well, I got a call about 10 p.m. from the chief prosecutor of Ontario saying that they determined that, in fact, somebody had been wrongfully convicted. The pathology was wrong. And I said: 'So when are you getting him out?' He said: 'We have someone who's going to show up in the morning, to bring with Lockyer, to get him released on bail immediately. So you know, it was like, you know, [unintelligible] five, it was a red alert within the ministry, that there were some wrongful convictions and they had to get the people free.

MG: There were dozens of recommendations that came out of the public inquiry that you called. What do you think a province like Alberta should have taken away from that inquiry?

MICHAEL BRYANT: You know, there were dozens of inquiries that came out of the Donald Marshall Inquiry in Nova Scotia. Many of the provinces took those lessons to heart. The same thing was true with the Kaufman inquiry around Guy Paul Morin, also involving recommendations regarding forensic science and pathologists, also involving tunnel vision. You know, the thing that every prosecutor and every justice system has to watch for. Where they closed their eyes basically to the facts and hone in on what they think is the result. So what I think the current federal justice minister, David Lametti, has to do is to rethink how all this is done.

MG: Well, why aren't there federal guidelines in terms of how medical evidence is used in those sorts of investigations?

Some of this is because of the division of powers between the province and the federal government. The administration of justice is provincial. Some of it is the federal government, not, I think in these circumstances, taking the responsibility to make sure that when the federal, provincial, territorial justice ministers get together, every time they get together, they do something about miscarriages of justice. And along those lines, when forensic reports come out from one province, they seek to implement them in all the provinces.

MG: The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called for a public inquiry into how Alberta justice handled this review. What would that inquiry look like?

MICHAEL BRYANT: It would look like the Goudge Inquiry. It would mean, firstly, that people don't have to tiptoe around, in terms of what they say about the players for fear of being sued for libel.

MG: And so when the current attorney general in Alberta says that this happened before my time...

MICHAEL BRYANT: Yes, it happened before my time, too, Dr. Charles Smith. It happened before my time. But I mean, if anything, politically, that's a reason why there's no reason for him to be circling the wagons and not calling a public inquiry into something that happened before his time. I mean, I don't care what his motivation is. You got to get to the bottom of this, because obviously there's been miscarriages of justice. And the only way to rectify it, ultimately, is through a public inquiry.

MG: In the meantime, are you confident that something like this won't happen somewhere else in Canada?

MICHAEL BRYANT: No, I'm not. So that's why the current federal justice minister needs to learn from this lesson of intergovernmental omission and failure to do something. We can't just rely upon good journalism such as taking place here, in this case by CBC. We can't just rely upon that. We also need to have a system that looks at itself. I know that's what the ministry of the attorney general does in Ontario. I know that there are people who literally review cases after a conviction.

MG: That can be painful. I mean, when you're looking at yourself.

MICHAEL BRYANT: Yes.

MG: And looking for mistakes that may or may not have been made.

MICHAEL BRYANT: Yeah. And you don't have one prosecutor who did the case look at his own case. You have someone else look at each other's cases. I mean, in the same way as you have fact checking done by different parts of journalists. You don't have one journalist checking himself, they do that. But then you have someone checking them. So we need to have- it's all about sending up checks and balances, independent checks and balances within the system to prevent this from happening. And once it happens, to immediately deal with the urgent matters of launching new investigations and making everything public that they can possibly make public.

MG: Michael Bryant, thank you.

MICHAEL BRYANT: Thank you.

MG: Michael Bryant is executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. If you'd like to find out more about this investigation by the Fifth Estate. Head to cbc.ca/fifth. Coming up in 90 seconds. When you think of diplomacy, maybe you think peace talks, maybe you think treaty negotiations. Diplomacy can also sound like this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

MG: That's group of artist from Senegal, India and Zimbabwe. They're part of a U.S. State Department initiative that uses hip hop to bridge cultural divisions. We'll hear more about the program and why it's controversial. Coming up after your regional update. Stick around. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

Why the U.S. State Department is backing hip-hop diplomacy

Guests: Toni Blackman, Mark Katz

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. I don't know, do you have an idea in your head of what diplomacy sounds like? Does it sound anything like this?

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Invisible Woman by Toni Blackman].

MG: I mean, it's Toni Blackman performing her poem Invisible Woman in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2009. That performance was part of a campaign to raise awareness about violence against women, funded by the U.S. State Department, women love. Tony Blackman is the U.S. State Department's first hip hop ambassador. She's just one of the people featured in Mark Katz's book, Build: the Power of Hip Hop Diplomacy in a Divided World. Mark Katz and Toni Blackman are with me now. Good morning.

TONI BLACKMAN: Good morning.

MARK KATZ: Good morning.

MG: Toni, we'll start with you. What is hip hop diplomacy?

TONI BLACKMAN: Hip hop diplomacy is I guess it's diplomacy. It is the use of soft power. It is programming that uses the hip hop; the aesthetics of hip hop, the art of hip hop, the culture of hip hop to create better relations with people in other countries and other parts of the world.

MG: And when you talk about soft power, just for people who don't understand that terminology, what does that mean?

TONI BLACKMAN: It means, you know, there are a lot of things that we do that-- soft power it's more of a- [unintelligible], my friend, he defined it for a group of students as being a a subtle approach to making change.

MG: We just heard a little bit of it. How would you describe your music?

TONI BLACKMAN: My music is hip hop. It is hip hop soul. Some people say hip hop, neo soul. It is a spoken word. I also rap. I do traditional, what people consider traditional, rap art of MCing boom bam. But I really do prefer rap that has more musicality involved in it. And it really works in other parts of the world, particularly where people don't speak English.

MG: How did you end up being the first hip hop envoy for the State Department?

TONI BLACKMAN: That came about because of John Palmer Claridge, who was the director, executive director, of the Arlington County Cultural Arts Division. And I did a program through my project, Freestyle Union Cipher Workshop, where I was myself and Boogie Man, Ghost and MC. We worked with the Municipal Health Department in Arlington County and Cultural Affairs and it went really well. And John Paul McLaren was at the State Department. They were looking through rap magazines and he say, close the magazines, I have the person. And he sent them my press kit.

MG: When they contacted you, how did you respond? What's the what's your initial reaction when they say we would like you to be involved in hip hop diplomacy?

TONI BLACKMAN: Well, you know, they had the program at that time. It was called Echo Spec and it's now defunct. It was an American cultural specialist program. And I had two reactions. One, I was incredibly hyped because they say we're going to send you to Senegal, Ghana and Ivory Coast. I was like, what? Yes. And then the other part was that it was the government and the state department. And I was like, oh, you know, because at that time, especially institutions, hip hop didn't affiliate with institutions much as, even universities. It was not, it was suspect and frowned upon.

MG: And so what did people say? I mean, in the community, a well-established community that's been wildly successful and has helped turn hip hop into the dominant cultural influence around the world. What did people in the community think when they heard that the government was interested?

TONI BLACKMAN: It was a mix of things. You know, my friends in the industry, the pure capitalists were like, yes, okay. And then you position yourself to do this and do that and do that, because they were really tyred of me. I was labelled as a hip hop missionary. And so they were really like, okay, this is great. But then there are other folks who are rooted in the culture who, I mean, for justified reasons, are suspicious of institutions. I mean, there were folks who didn't want to be bothered with the Smithsonian, with arts foundations, with colleges and universities.

MG: Because they thought that that would somehow corrupt the music or taint it?

TONI BLACKMAN: It would corrupt the music. It would water down the culture. It would exploit us more. It would like and there was one point where I remember there was discussion that called hip hop diplomacy was no different than the record labels. It was just a different hat we were wearing. \.

MG: Mark Katz, what was your role in all of this?

MARK KATZ: I applied for a grant in 2013 to create what became next level, which is the U.S. State Department's first cultural diplomacy program dedicated solely to hip hop art and culture. And before that, I had been working with a number of hip hop artists at my university, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, teaching courses and doing work with the community in the community. And in fact, it was a rapper, Pierce Freelon, who let me know about this Grant. And I applied with him and got it. And then suddenly I had to create this program. And Toni Blackman is one of the first people I turned to and wanted to get advice from.

MG: Why would the State Department use hip hop to advance American interests and to be involved in helping to shape countries around the world through that influence?

MARK KATZ: There are a lot of really good reasons for that. One is that hip hop is popular everywhere in the world. Another is that hip hop is known to be American U.S. in origin and it's beloved around the world. So here is an art and culture and music and lifestyle that is readily identified as coming from the United States and is loved by people, young people around the world. In contrast to the U.S. government, which is known around the world but is not loved around the world. So it's a great way for the government to connect with people to connect citizens of the U.S. with citizens of other countries in ways that that can give people a more nuanced, richer understanding of this country and its people.

MG: What would that connection, in the best case scenario, what would that connection do in those other countries?

MARK KATZ: When we go to other countries and sit down with people and start talking- fact, we don't even start talking. Sometimes we just start dancing, making music, making beats. There is a really quick and often profound connection that follows and that connection lasts. And we've been doing this next level for four or five years. Toni has been doing hip hop diplomacy since 2001. And we can both tell you that these connections last over the years and that these relationships really grow and flourish. And that's really what it's about. It's about planting seeds for stronger relations between people of different countries. And the goal of next level is to build global community through hip hop. And that's what it does.

MG: Was there any concern in using this music in particular? It is wildly popular. It is music that is, to your point, appreciated, celebrated, performed, reinterpreted all around the world. It also comes for some with a reputation of violence, of misogyny, of occasionally homophobia. Were there concerns around using hip hop in particular, or how do you use a form of hip hop that would challenge maybe those preconceptions?

MARK KATZ: Well, you make a good point right there when you say that this is an opportunity to challenge those preconceptions. And that's another goal of hip hop diplomacy from our end, the people who who run next level, which is to give the world a richer, more nuanced understanding of what hip hop culture is. And the misogyny, the materialism, the violence, the homophobia that we hear and see in the media is there. And it's real, but it represents just a small part of what hip hop is about. And I would say someone like Toni Blackman and specifically Toni Blackman is someone who represents a real hip hop. How I would put it in its most kind of big hearted, conscious, thoughtful expression. And so there are certainly challenges when we go abroad and we say we're representing the U.S. through hip hop because people have these preconceptions. But in fact, most of the people that we connect with know more than just the surface level that that is presented in the mainstream media.

MG: Did you find a different call to connect with the artists that you were and the culture that you were exporting? You write in the book that you don't look hip hop.

MARK KATZ: That's right. I know you can't see me, but. But I'm a I'm a white guy. I'm a middle aged college professor. And, yes, I don't look hip hop, but I respect hip hop. I respect the people who create this music. I respect the culture. And I don't find it hard to connect with people because I want to listen. I go in listening and I show respect simply because I'm an awe of the of the talents, the intelligence, the thoughtfulness that I encounter.

MG: Toni, tell me about that first trip that you went on. Where did you go?

TONI BLACKMAN: I went to Senegal, was my first stop on the tour.

MG: And what do you remember in that job about, you know, you step out of the plane and this is your responsibility in some ways to export American culture through hip hop to other parts of the world. What do you remember about that trip?

TONI BLACKMAN: Well, you know, at that point, I didn't really know what was at stake or what I was really up to. I saw it as artist residency. And I think I got clear when the concert- they said they told me there would be 500 people and 2000 showed up. And then when I had to do a press conference, they told me some of the press would be there, but they didn't really prepare me. And I walked in to this big outdoor area. I do desect a cultural centre in the car and the like 80 people in chairs there to watch our shoot. And there were 20 cameras and all the national press were there and the radio was there and the newspapers were there. And they asked me questions, you know, that I didn't have answers to.

MG: Questions like what?

TONI BLACKMAN: When do you believe Russell Simmons? Will you use his agency to impact the development of the economic crisis? I think it was questions like that and asking me specific questions about specific rappers in relationship to the economy, to to agriculture, to political issues and environment. And it caught me off guard. I'm a trained speaker. I was a competitive speaker. I pay for college, competing in public speaking. My first job out of college was at a media training firm. I teach people, but I tell you, they got me, man. They got me. Ha. And the cultural attaché at the time, who was an African-American man at the embassy. He saw me. I was shook. We got into the limo after the show and he walked me through the responsibility.

MG: And what did you learn in that experience?

TONI BLACKMAN: In that experience I learned that hip hop is powerful, that hip hop can be a tool to impact our world, to build global relations, that it is indeed a diplomatic force. I also learned about my value as as as a woman of African descent, an American of African descent whose ancestors were enslaved Africans and what my role and function needs to be with regard to my hip hop career. It really set the tone for my entire destiny. But that's when the 48 countries now.

MG: That's a lot of pressure to be put on your shoulders to realize that in some ways you're representing that music and you represent a culture that has impact.

TONI BLACKMAN: Oh, it was heavy. I was young. You know, it was so heavy. It was so heavy for me to process. It was a lot.

MG: Have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Fight the Power]

MG: Public Enemy. Fight the Power, one of the most iconic songs in hip hop history, Mark Katz, a lot of the ethos around hip hop is just that fighting the power. How can a music and a culture fight the power? If it works for the State Department?

MARK KATZ: Well, that's a good question. And it's something that every hip hop artist who considers doing this kind of work has to ask themselves. And when you put it that way, it sounds like a real contradiction. But when I talk to hip hop artists, particularly people who have come up in marginalized and oppressed communities, they are very well used to working within oppressive power structures and making the best of what they can. People tell me that when they were young, the question was not, where are you going to college, but what gang are you going to be in? They had to navigate difficult choices about who to work with and how to maintain your integrity while doing that. So for a lot of the people that that come to next level, of course, they're wary and they think hard about this, but they're also very thoughtful and they are not naive about what it takes to maintain one's integrity while working within a system that might not necessarily represent all of your interests all the time,.

MG: Working within a system is one thing. Working for, as they say, the man, which is the government, might be something a little bit different, would it not?

MARK KATZ: Not necessarily. People talk to me about how their families work with the government, how their families are veterans or civil servants. And also, one thing that I try to dispel in this book is the monolithic and black and white view of the government as if it's a single entity with a single agenda. We work with with actual people, people who care really deeply about the arts, who care deeply about the power of culture to to connect people of different countries. And this represents an amazing opportunity for people to fulfil their dreams. One of the things that Toni told me about is how this kind of work fulfilled dreams of travelling around the world and doing so as an artist. So it's always a trade-off. But working with the State Department presents rare opportunities for artists to see the world and connect with people as artists.

MG: Toni Blackman As you mentioned earlier, people within the culture and the community are very protective of that culture and community. Did you ever face accusations that that you'd sold out, that you'd been co-opted by working for the State Department.

TONI BLACKMAN: Ironically enough, most artists understood, you know, you need to work. So it was it was two things. You know, doing this work was paid. And then the other part of it is that I got to manifest my artistry full out. And so I didn't get it directly from artists. Some hip hop scholars, ironically, came at me hard core. I got accused of being a puppet for Obama's drone systems by one particular scholar.

MG: How would you answer those questions and those accusations?

TONI BLACKMAN: It hurt because there were a number of hip hop journalists, hip hop activists who chimed in on the thread and face on Facebook. And only one of them defended my integrity and my character. And these were friends. And so how did I defend it? I was on air in South Africa. I was doing a touring South Africa. I think it was 06. A caller called in and question my sensibilities because he knew of my work and he knew of my person and couldn't understand, how an educated woman and how an educated black woman, would dare do this. So he went out for a spill and I let him finish. But by that, by 2006, I was very clear about what I was doing and why I was doing. I said, look, my grandfather, was an American. My grandfather, my great grandparents helped to build America. I build the U.S. I should be the person to represent the U.S. And if I'm not here, who's here, who's representing me, who's representing my voice? I want to represent my voice. I want to speak for myself. I want to speak for Hip-Hop. I think I do it quite well. And then I ask the caller to suggest, you know, an alternative, how they thought it should be done. An American at the end of the day, I didn't really embrace being an American until I started to do this work. I couldn't see it. I mean, there there I was in denial about that. Regardless of how I feel about the way the country is going, this is where I'm from.

MG: Did the caller have any response?

TONI BLACKMAN: No. I killed him. The competitive me loved it.

MG: That's a battle moment for an MC. How suspicious are the governments where these artists are going? About what Hip hop diplomacy really is about, because there's been a long history of, for example, the CIA using cultural front groups to support U.S. government objectives. So the people in the countries where these artists are landing, do they buy into why the artists are there?

MARK KATZ: Often they do. I would say usually they do, because they're these programs are are created to benefit the local communities. So, of course, they may still be suspicious. And early in the history of hip hop diplomacy, a B-boy crew, a crew of dancers was sent to Vietnam and the Communist Party was very concerned about the influence that these young dancers from Houston might have on the youth there and might, you know, push them towards criticizing the government. But but it didn't. I don't think it happened. So, yes, there's reason to be suspicious. There always is. Especially when a superpower like the U.S. is involved. But the point of this is to demonstrate goodwill. And usually that works.

MG: One more thing for you to listen to. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song by Native Deen]

MG: That's the American Muslim hip hop group Native Deen. Mark Katz, what was the relationship like between the State Department and Native Deen?

MARK KATZ: Well, Native Deen is a hip hop group. I think a trio of Muslim men. And they presented themselves, they presented their hip hop as spiritual, as wholesome and, you know, as representing both the African-Americans and and Muslims in a positive light. So they were already doing this. And I guess presented or were seen by people in the State Department as an ideal representation of the U.S. to other countries around the world and particularly to Muslim communities as a kind of bridge builder.

MG: And has that worked? Has there been success in creating those bridges between the U.S. and Muslim countries?

MARK KATZ: Well, it's hard to say. We keep doing things to alienate them. So. So it's hard to hard to say that sending a hip hop group to Egypt or Tunisia or Algeria or Senegal or any number of other countries is going to is going to make people forget about the confrontations and the Islamophobic policies that the U.S. has had. But on a person to person level, yes, it works.

MG: The cliché is to talk about, you know, the universal language of music and the power of music. But we're in a really divided time right now. And you see this all around the world. Do you see this as an opportunity to do for people to be able to speak to each other in a language that they can all understand?

TONI BLACKMAN: It's actually one of the few ways that people speak to each other nowadays. I know as a hip hop head for many years in the 90s, I remember going to places the only place you would see white, black and Latino people in this same space and Filipino people was that a hip hop concert. That's the only place you would see people gathering. Guess what, they would gather in peace. No conflicts, no fighting, no beefing, no anything. It was at a hip hop show. And I think too often because we look at what's on mainstream radio and TV, we underestimate and undervalue the impact that hip hop has made on culture, on commerce, on the political landscape. Hip hop has has made so, so much impact. And in its end, it vibrates around the world. That's why it's the most consumed genre. So can we create balance is being commodified and corporate ties to a point where a lot of times the authentic hip hop artists, they can't breakthrough, they can't mainstream because of corporate radio. But they exist. They are there. They are creating music. And I think for some of the American artists going out of the country affirms, your music, because it's appreciated, is celebrated because the value system is there. Going to a place where there's less industry means that is often means there's more meaning to life. And people honour that beauty.

MG: Toni Blackman, it's great to talk to you both. This is inspiring stuff. Thank you.

TONI BLACKMAN: Thank you.

MG: Mark. Thank you very much.

MARK KATZ: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

MG: Toni Blackman was the U.S. State Department's first hip hop ambassador. Mark Katz is the author of Build the Power of Hip-Hop Diplomacy in a Divided World. That's the current for today. Can I tell you about something new that we are doing? We have launched a new podcast. It's called The Current Weekly. It is a way for you to get caught up on some of our favourite stories over the course of a week. This week's episode starts off with the interview. Everywhere I go, people are talking about this interview that we did with John Mighton. He's a mathematician. He was on the program talking about how anyone can be good at maths. Even me, somebody who - and I'm not proud of this - wasn't good at maths in school. You can find that interview and others on The Current Weekly. It drops every Friday morning. Subscribe. Won't you? Wherever you get your podcasts, you can also get it on the free CBC Listen app. It's called The Current Weekly. We'll leave you this week with some music from another hip hop diplomat. She's headed to Ethiopia this week, part of the U.S. State Department's next level program. This is Boog Brown. And Do It. Yeah. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current and have a great weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Do It. Yeah by Boog Brown]

Friday January 24, 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode