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 2022

The Current Transcript for March 23, 2022

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The symbolism of the Queen is that of oppression.

VOICE 2: Me like The Queen. Me love The Queen.

VOICE 3: I think she's kind, do a lot of things for us in Jamaica.

MATT GALLOWAY: Royla visits are usually filled with pop and ceremony and dancing with the locals. The visit by Prince William and Kate Middleton to Jamaica, though, has proven a bit more controversial. In 30 minutes, why some Jamaicans are hoping their government follows that of Barbados and bids farewell to the monarchy for good. Also this morning,

SOUNDCLIP

This is part of a national effort to attack and criminalise trans young people. This isn't about safety. This isn't about protection. This is about trying to stop people from being trans.

MG: At least 21 U.S. states have introduced laws that would prevent trans youth from accessing gender affirming health care. Politicians behind the legislation say it would protect children. The youth in question say the reality is anything but. In an hour, why these laws are being introduced now and how young people are responding. We begin, though, with a political realignment that has left the Conservatives and the Bloc on the outside looking in. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

What does Liberal-NDP deal mean for Canadians?

Guests: Wayne Easter, Lisa Raitt, Libby Davies

The Prime Minister calls it a chance at stability, the leader of the NDP says he just wants to help people. The interim conservative leader calls it backdoor socialism. Call it what you want. There has been a big shift in Canadian politics.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Today, I'm announcing that the Liberal Party has reached an agreement with the new Democratic Party to deliver results for Canadians, now.

VOICE 2: This is not a destination, but a starting point and we're going to continue to fight. We're not going to let the Liberals off the hook. We're going to continue to fight to make sure people get the help they need.

MG: That's Justin Trudeau and then Jagmeet Singh with leader, the details of their agreement as leaders to work together until 2025. What exactly does this mean for Canadians? Well, I'm joined now by our National Affairs panel of political veterans. Lisa Raitt, the former conservative member for Melton and Halton. She held several cabinet positions under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Libby Davies served as MP for Vancouver East for 18 years and was the NDP House leader from 2003 through 2011. And Wayne Easter is a former solicitor general of Canada. He served nine terms as the liberal member from Prince Edward Island. Good morning, everyone.

GUESTS: Good morning. Morning.

MG: Wayne Easter, the prime minister says this is about stability around the world at an uncertain time, how big of a deal is this agreement?

WAYNE EASTER: Well, I think a lot is being made of it for sure. I'd say one thing off the top, Matt. It'll be a little sad for the media and the Ottawa types type panellists who love to speculate on election to the point that it becomes almost self-perpetuating. But but I would also say be careful because there could be a false sense of security here. This is a minority parliament. It'll remain a minority. Parliament and parliament is supreme and leaders should recognise that. I don't know where the rank and file of the parties are on this, but I would say as a former member, I think it would if he were still a sitting member, it would give you a little bit of security that maybe you could concentrate more on the issues instead of worrying about raising money and getting prepared for an election year at least have a couple of years. But again, you don't want that false sense of security. It still is a minority parliament.

MG: Certainly gives security to the prime minister's legacy. He will have served as prime minister for 10 years if this holds until 2025. Do you think that that's in part what this is about when?

WAYNE EASTER: Um, yeah, that could be part of it, I don't know. But I do know and I maintain this strongly. Parliament is supreme. It does seem this was an agreement between the leaders to get to this point. On the liberal side, I know a lot has been made of the dental proposal from the NDP and pharmacare. Well, both those issues were in previous liberal planks during an election and really, dental care should be part of the health care system. And I think for the conservatives, too, I know they're saying what they are. But look, this gives them a little time to get a leader in place. Take their time, do it right, get their policies in place. And I think this is actually a good thing for them too, but they are going to say otherwise.

MG: Lisa Raitt, is this a good thing for them to keep winning? How big of a deal is this, do you think, Lisa, between this deal?

LISA RAITT: I think it's a big deal. Look, there's no secret in Ottawa, and it's been written many times and observed many times that the prime minister does not like Parliament, and he now has a place where he doesn't have to be held accountable in parliament. And it's in it's in writing between the two parties. I find it interesting that the the announcement came from almost simultaneous separated press conferences and that there's no signatures on the the document itself, indicating that the parties are working together. And to me, that's a signal that there is some concern about the appearance of this and what it means to to voting in the next election, which is going to be in 2025, it now appears. But the Conservatives look at the the first reaction I have is fundraising is going to be a lot easier for the Conservative Party because there's a lot of folks out there who, when they voted Liberal, didn't vote for an anti government when they voted. NDP didn't vote for a liberal government. And certainly conservatives have always been suspicious of Liberal NDP government. So for them, on that basis, it's going to be OK. But um, it's a minority government is there to hold account, but also remove the government if if there's no confidence in it, and that's been taken away. So I think there is there is disappointment for sure amongst conservatives, not just in parliament, but across the country.

MG: You said it is a liberal NDP government. This is a liberal government with support from the NDP. It's not it's not a coalition and it's not a liberal NDP government, is it?

LISA RAITT: I'm going to push back on that and I'm going to say that the one thing that I found interesting is the process that has been put in place to ensure that there's cooperation between the two. And what I see is the NDP and good for them for negotiating this. The NDP has very regular meetings with House leadership with the whips, and they also have the ability to call on any member of Parliament, any cabinet minister, any deputy minister to get a briefing on anything they want to get at any time. And that, to me, indicates that they have special privileges and are within the fold. I would even submit that to sit on this oversight committee that some members of the NDP are going to have to be sworn in as privy councillors.

MG: Libby Davies The NDP was unlikely to trigger an election any time soon. What is the party getting in exchange for this ongoing support of the Liberals?

LIBBY DAVIES: Well, I think the question that is what a Canadians getting. I mean, for the times that we're in, this is an incredibly historic agreement. Dental care. Wow. I mean, this is something that the NDP has long fought for secure long term care funding, long term funding for child care, long term care funding of pharmacare programme. I mean, these are all things that have been promised by liberals but never delivered, and it's taken the NDP to deliver these things through this agreement. I have to say I completely disagree with Lisa when she says it means that the Liberals don't have to be held accountable in parliament. I read it exactly the opposite. I mean, here we have in writing very specific deliverables that have been so long promised and not delivered. We have it in writing with timelines with specific spelled out. So I think that actually brings more accountability in this minority parliament. I have no doubt that the Conservatives and the bloc and the Green Party will also give very strong oversight to what's going on. So I actually think it's very historic and we should focus on does this make life better for Canadians? That's the key question. You know, anti-SLAPP legislation that we've been trying to get for decades and has failed through parliament, it's in this agreement. Just transition legislation so important for the climate emergency ending public financing of fossil fuel subsidies again, so critical in terms of moving to a just green economy. So. I, you know, I think there's some very good items in this package and the accountability and transparency is there, so we actually have more accountability, not less.

MG: Let me just ask you, though again about what the party itself gets out of this. I mean, the risk is some people are saying that the NDP will get no credit for what the Liberals do, even if these are ideas that the NDP pushes forward. Because the Liberals are the ones who are governing and they'll say, Well, it's our idea and we put it forward. The other part of it is that the NDP could risk end up being seen just as as a tool to prop up the Liberals. So just briefly, what is the what does the party itself get out of this, do you think?

LIBBY DAVIES: I think what the NDP and those people who support the NDP get out of this is is a realisation that these very significant advances that are going to help people are actually going to be achieved and realised, and that the NDP has used its own power to secure those results. I mean, that's very significant. I think it's a very selfless waste to politics. And if that meant one thing I found really interesting was just three little words in the agreement, it says we have agreed to improve the way we approach politics. And, you know, so often we're cynical about politics and the hyper partisanship and people trying to outdo each other and not focussing on on the public interest and the public good. So here we have an agreement that actually looks at approaching politics differently and trying to say, where is it that we agree? So I think the NDP in the long run will get a lot of credit for that, but for raising the bar for for putting the public interest first, for bringing stability and for actually making advance advances on some of these key areas that we know Canadians want to see. So I, you know, I think from a party point of view, it's very good. But the biggest thing is for Canadians are the big winners in this.

MG: As we've heard, the conservatives not entirely impressed with this. They've been ringing the alarm bell, particularly look at the price tag of a liberal NDP shared agenda. Take a listen to the interim leader Candice Bergen in question period.

SOUNDCLIP

Yesterday, the NDP Liberal government's initial platform will cost over $200 billion, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Can the NDP Liberal prime minister tell Canadians how much this backroom deal is going to cost them?

MG: Wayne Easter Is it fair to wonder about the political risks of going down a road with major new social programmes that are going to cost a lot of money?

WAYNE EASTER: Well, look, that will all have to be outlined in the money and in the budget. There's going to be, I think, exaggerated figures on on on both sides and that'll have to come down to budgetary measures. And I don't mind admitting, having chaired a finance committee of little which Lisa was on as well is, look, we've got to be very, very careful on the on on the spending side. There's also Matt, the bigger picture here that that I am a little worried about. I am pleased that an agreement can make parliament work. There's no question about that and bring better stability and not have the kind of what went on in the in the last parliament. But on the bigger political spectrum, who really represents the centre of of the Canadian populace. Now the Liberals have clearly moved more to the left, and everything I'm seeing from the Conservatives is they're moving further to the right. Who is going to represent the centre? And that is where the stability of the country really is believing in social programming, but also in believing in economic responsibility. And I'm a little worried in that end.

MG: Where should that go? Do you think, wait, I mean, who should fill that void? Are you concerned that your party, the party that you represented for so many years, has moved out of that centre?

WAYNE EASTER: I'm concerned they've been moving to the left. Yes, I am a little concerned about about that, and we will. I guess we'll see. And Chrystia Freeland as budget. Let's show us that that the government going forward is going to be fiscally responsible while also improving and improving programmes. I mean, I am a big supporter of of dental coming under the health care system, but you have to be able to financially do these things. And one of the other things, you know, I know they've talked about getting rid of the oil and gas subsidies, and that's been talked about for years. But does that mean you get rid of subsidies for diesel in the North? Like, these things are more common?

MG: Where it's Lisa, Ray Justin Trudeau has pointed out that whether it's a climate policy, strengthening health care, a day-care, these are priorities that his party ran on. So if there is support for another part from another party that can help advance that agenda, why not pursue that support?

LISA RAITT: Because the devil's in the details. The devil's in the details of what legislation comes forward. And I guess the concern that I'm expressing is it looks as if the NDP now have a first chance to look at any legislation, develop any policy and move it forward. That's why I say it really is a liberal NDP government, and I don't think that Canadians voted for it. But I'm also going to do something that surprises me and say, I agree completely with what Wayne Easter just said that it's the question is now where is the centre in the country? And there's a lot of folks out there wondering that today where where are we going to go? Because it they don't like the looks of how left the liberal government has gone, and they are very concerned about what conservatives are saying and what they're observing. And now they're wondering what's going to happen next. And I don't think that's necessarily good. And I think this this deal between the Liberals and the NDP really underscore that if you're voting to the Liberals, you may end up with a great flavour of of NDP and your in your future government.

MG: Let me ask you about the Conservatives. Just briefly, Pierre Polio-Free, one of the candidates for the leadership, released a video seemed to be driving across the country. He said that he's going to mobilise Canadians and try to pressure the Liberal and NDP backbenchers to bring the government down before 2025. Is that does that answer any of the questions and the concerns that you have?

LISA RAITT: It's it's a tall order to do that. I mean, it's stability of knowing that you're going to be making it to 2025 when you were elected in 2019, knowing that you're going to vest your pension. I mean, that's going to be something that's going to go through a lot of backbench MPs minds. And there was, Wayne said. There's going to be people are going to be relaxed, more it and they know that they're going to be able to travel again and they're going to be able to to do what they think they need to do in order to fulfil their promise to their constituents. So I don't see Mr. Polycarp having that much of a chance of mobilising opposition to agree with him to take down a government that's led by two of the leaders. I just don't see that as something that is as feasible. However, what he can do is he can get a lot of Canadians engaged and saying, Wait a second, I didn't vote for this. I voted. I may have given you my vote because I didn't want the Conservatives to win, but I certainly wanted you to know that if we didn't like what you're doing, we could take you out and that's not what's happening anymore.

MG: Libby Davies, Justin Trudeau said this deal, in part, is aimed at fighting some of the toxicity and the partisanship in parliament. Do you worry, as Wayne and Lisa have said, that the centre has been abandoned through a deal like this?

LIBBY DAVIES: No, I don't at all. I actually am quite surprised at how differently I'm seeing this, because when you look at the agreement, it's very clear that it's based on identified key public policy areas between both parties where there was a desire for a similar outcome that's always been publicly stated. So I think this agreement is exactly what Canadians voted for in majority. If you look at NDP voters and liberal voters in terms of the platforms that they put out to the public. And again, I think we're looking at this from the wrong end. We're looking at it from a partisan, you know, what does it benefit this party or that party as opposed to what does this do for Canadians? Is it better in terms of improving people's lives and fulfilling some of these commitments that have been made over the years but never, ever delivered and delivering new things like dental care? So I again come back to the key point, which is I think it's about security and stability in very uncertain times that it's out. It's actually about delivering key improvements for Canadians that people have made it very clear. Whether you look at polling, whether you look at the election, whether you look at, you know, just where people are in their local communities, that these are things that people want to see happen and they've waited a heck of a long time for it to happen. It's taken the NDP to make it happen now. So I think that's a good thing.

MG: Lisa, isn't that in some ways, too, to Libya's point, what Canadians voted for in electing a minority parliament as my colleague Aaron, where he said less electioneering and more governing, and that this could lead to more of that if you can find a way to collaborate.

LISA RAITT: It's the type of governing that I don't think Canadians have agreed with. Look, here I am. I'm sitting here in, you know, downtown Toronto and this this place has many, many people who are employed by the financial services sector and they're employed by corporate Canada. And there's nothing in this agreement between the NDP and the Liberals that acknowledges that that business is important to the to the running of the country, to the economy of the country. That economic growth is important and more to the point they're completely ignored to be consulted with on what a just transition looks like. They, you know, there's an enumeration of all of the entities that are going to be consulted on this. And businesses are not included in that list of consultations. And I'm very concerned about that. I mean, if it's a notion in the past has been that the Liberal government's door has been shut to businesses coming in to talk to the government about their concerns. It is now sealed, shut and taped and says do not enter on it. And yeah, that worries me, and it should worry a lot of people whose jobs depend upon those kind of sectors.

MG: Wayne Easter last minute to you. In the best case scenario, if these parties are able to work together, what will it mean for Canadians, do you think?

WAYNE EASTER: Well, I'm going to go a little beyond of these parties can work together, I think they have an agreement and that should bring some stability to parliament. But look, the government is obligated to work with parliament as a whole. Every voice matters, every voice matters in parliament. And so this should not exclude the the the conservative voices. They have to be heard to their own committees. Their points to raise and what you have to do is make parliament work. I do think this agreement should now have people more debating the issues with some security that they can debate. Those issues make decisions past legislation until two to 2025. But Parliament as a whole has to be heard. And that's one thing leaders sometimes miss. MPAs are important.

MG: It's great to speak with you. All is former MP. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Lisa Raitt, served as conservative member for Milton HALTEN, held several cabinet positions under the Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Libby Davies served as MP for Vancouver East for eight years and served as NDP House leader from 2003 through 2011, and Wayne Easter, former solicitor general of Canada, served nine times as liberal member for Malbec, Prince Edward Island. You're CBC News is next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

Jamaicans know the Queen is all about the Queen and the Queen. So when the Queen decided a queen, that but what you're doing for Jamaica and not doing nothing was a Republican.

MG: Wind is blowing across the Caribbean, just as Prince William and Kate touched down in Jamaica in six minutes more on the British monarchy's efforts to hold the Commonwealth together and the response from people in Jamaica. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio oOne. Stay with us.

Young royals met with protests and calls for reparations on Jamaica visit

Guests: Rosalea Hamilton, Mike Henry

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, U.S. Republicans are making a push to restrict some forms of health care for trans youth. Those youth, alongside Democrats and activists, are pushing back. In about 30 minutes, the fight over trans rights south of the border. But first, we head to the Caribbean for a different sort of political standoff.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Noise]

MG: Well, it might sound like a warm welcome in Trench Town, Jamaica, but in reality, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's trip to the Caribbean is not off to the starts they might have imagined. A visit to a cocoa farm in Belize was cancelled after protests and yesterday in Kingston, Jamaica. Demonstrators gathered outside the British High Commission.

SOUNDCLIP

Tell the Jamaican people, get up off their butts and stand up for your rights. If we don't stand up for our rights as black people, if we don't stand against brutality, colonialism, domination. We're going to always be under the foot of the colonial master.

MG: Earlier this week, an open letter signed by 100 prominent Jamaicans called for an apology and reparations from the British monarchy. Rosalea Hamilton is the first name on that list. She's a professor of entrepreneurship and development and the founding director of the Institute of Law and Economics in Jamaica. Rosalea Hamilton. Good morning.

ROSALEA HAMILTON: Good morning.

MG: You were at that demonstration yesterday. What was your message for the royals as they arrived in your country?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: It was a very simple message. You know, we have not forgotten the past. It's important to give an apology, a formal apology and begin that process of reparatory justice.

MG: You're holding a sign and the sign had a couple of slogans. One is 60 reasons to apologise and then the hashtag Say a story and make reparations. Tell me about some of the reasons that you're looking for when it comes to an apology from the royals.

ROSALEA HAMILTON: You know, there's several reasons we started. It's actually a history lesson of the continuing exploitation of our indigenous people. It's the extent to which our code of arms was used by the royal family as the crown of the Royal African Company. That's the company that started the trafficking and enslavement of Africans. And of course, the trafficking was a human tragedy. It was, in fact, a genocide. There are about 1.5 million people trafficked from Africa to Jamaica, and by emancipation there were only 300000 persons left. Of course, inhumane brutality on the plantations and the separation of families, the rape of women, the psychological trauma. We document all of that. These are all historical facts. And of course, the legal arrangement that prohibited ancestors of enslaved Africans from owning that, contributing to some of the problems we see today in 14 communities. About 20 percent of Jamaica's population are squatters. The education system. We still see vestiges of the problem there. And we talk about the health effects and of course, ongoing problems that you know that legacy has provoked.

MG: part of that is about the apology. Then there's the issue of reparations. What would reparations mean for you and for it and for the island itself?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: Yeah, reparations is clearly laid out in the CARICOM 10-Point Plan and our National Reparations Commission, and that includes not just a monetary contribution, but certainly the building of appropriate institutions, cultural institutions, you know, addressing technological deficiencies in our society. The addressing the psychological trauma as importantly, remembering indigenous peoples and the fact that they are ancestors of indigenous people. How you know, here in Jamaica. So it's a very comprehensive plan that tackles much of the issues that addresses that historical legacy, but most importantly, provides the kinds of institutions that can help in building a different Jamaica.

MG: In those requests do you distinguish between the Jamaican or the Jamaican impact from the British government and the British monarchy? I mean, you're looking for as the monarchy visits an apology from from the members of the royal family. But are you also looking for this from from the British government as well?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: Yes, absolutely. We see no reason why there can't be a settlement. In 1837, the Slave Compensation Act provided a framework in which moneys was paid. The compensation was was paid. And of course, these payments went right up to 2015. You know, we're talking about 20 million pounds at the time, billions of dollars today. And so the irony of that is that Jamaicans living in London in the U.K. were contributing to the payments of the enslavers up to 2015. So so we think that there is a legal framework for reparations and we expect both the government and the royal family to address it.

MG: Let me bring one more voice into this conversation to talk further about this. Jamaican lawmaker Mike Henry also signed the letter. He is one of the longest serving members of Parliament in Jamaica by Henry. Good morning to you!

MIKE HENRY: Good morning to you and good morning to Professor.

MG: What would it mean for you to get an apology from the royal family?

MIKE HENRY: Well, Britain, as this as escaped me given an apology because an apology is an admission of guilt of some kind. The reality is, of course, that I have been fighting for 20 odd years on the basis of factual things that relate to chattel slavery and relate to the claim that should follow. And they always speak against the background that some 20 years ago, we had a unanimous decision in parliament passed already by Parliament that we should be, and we are entitled to pursue the claim for reparations from chattel slavery and for repatriation. And on the issues that spin off from that and that that's still then my resolution, which was a private member's motion. I pointed out the slave trade is barbaric and uncivilised and represented one of the worst examples of man's inhumanity to man, and he should not have been forgotten or or repeated. And further to that, I take that case against the background of the chapter of slave repayment to the slave owners and only to this slaves and no recognition. And I developed out of that a programme which is passed through the National Reparations Committee and we have been in parliament and passed over eight or 10 years that is being pursued by the government is in power at the moment, and it was a unanimous decision of both political parties and I spent my years bringing that back and forth and keeping it on the order paper. So what we have is a driving issue of a parliamentary decision which was digging in the garden hose, which is the home of one of the modern slaves who fought for it for us to be free from slavery. And by extension, therefore, I have developed that with a team of Queen's councillors both here and overseas and to the cases that are presented to the government and the National Reparations Committee. And I'm waiting them to act on that overall and the need for us to implement and move on quickly. The minister is doing this

MG: and there's a symbolic element to this. But as Rosalie Hamilton has said, there's also a practical element. If you're looking for a significant sum when it comes to reparations, what would you like to see that go toward on the island

MIKE HENRY: that that is all contained in my presentation through Parliament? That's not something that immediately would take off the shelf. It goes towards education. These are all the issues that are there. Many of them would have spinoffs that can be cleared. The point is that under the clause four of the 1833 Judicial Committee Act, the exercise of whitefellas is granted to the Queen and the Duke to be able to make that adjustment on behalf of the people that she also represented as queen. And this also entailed in in the issues that have been set recorded with the National Reparations Committee and accepted by my understanding of it is now before cabinet to be discussed.

MG: There are many people on the island who say that the issue of an apology and reparations is the beginning of something larger and that that could lead perhaps to Jamaica removing its ties to the community.

MIKE HENRY: So with respect, Matt, it is said by my emotions, it is a direct consequence of the slave trade that the African people were scattered throughout the globe against their will. They actually led to the dismantling and the destabilisation of Africa, their children who were produced as a result and have remained disenfranchised. And the direct proportion to the liberalisation of the sons and daughters, et cetera. So in mobile money, revolts across 93 are the details of what I moved as emotion. And we say on which I got joint approval on conscience vote and unanimously passed is what I'm seeking, though, to move forward. And what I think the government and the minister is seeking to move forward to be able to deliver now to the people, and that is to be decided on the basis of what they claim. But I'm tying the claim to the 40 to the 20 million that was awarded to the slave owners. And I think that is theirs. So you value that in your first step. But what that is, that becomes a value of money. And of course, you paid to the government of Jamaica, the people of Jamaica.

MG: Do you see this Rosalea, as an opportunity for reparations, for the apology that Mike Henry has been talking about, but also for Jamaica to cut ties to the monarchy?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: Absolutely, and our opportunity to recreate a new future on different terms. Our experience of other countries in the treatment that become a republic suggested that, you know, much of these institutions but persist and there are no fundamental differences. We're not seeing the kind of progress that we want to see. And so I I'm of the view and I've written an article to that effect that [unintelligible] the Queen chose as head of state is not enough. We have to go deep to change the persistent institutional legacies that continue to be.

MG: What does that mean, Stuart? Because people, people do focus on the on the on the head of state. So what does that mean to go deep?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: To go deep means look, let's look at our institute, our education institution. We have some of us define it as an apartheid system of education. A few people are properly educated and the majority are less educated, uneducated. And there is mental slavery that in fact, our prime minister recently spoke out and reminded us at last intimate Emancipation Day that we must emancipate ourselves from intensely. What does that really mean? It means we have to get rid of this colonial mentality, and that means being proud of who we are as Africans, being proud of our hair, not having to bleach our skins because we look in the mirror and we're not proud of who we are. It would also mean addressing the infrastructure and legacy [unintelliglbe] this, you know, proper housing health impacts a range of systemic institutional arrangements that must change that will give all people affected.

MG: Mike Henry, I could hear you in the background. Go ahead.

MIKE HENRY: To summarise, my approach to the matter was simple in terms of it and can't find two or four points. Her Majesty's [unintelligible] refered the Judicial Committee for the Establishment, where the force transportation of African people from their homelands to Jamaica and their subsequent enslavement in Jamaica on 1833 was unlawful because such an authorised removal of subsequent enslavement was contrary to the fundamental principles of the common law. And because any local legislation that purportedly authorises objection to slavery was void and repugnant to fundamental principles of English law, and whether any event in the forced transportation and subsequent enslavement of people up until 1833 constituted a crime against humanity under international law, for which the United Kingdom bears responsibility. And the light of the said it is, the United Kingdom is under no obligation to provide a remedy for the Jamaican people for the unlawful transportation enslavement of the African people in Jamaica under British rule until 1833 and for the continuous consequences of the same. All of that has been praised that has been gained and divided by slave owners and by Great Britain. And I'm asking for us to participate in claiming for reparations. Apology to is merely one step along the route and even with our apologies, the established economic base on which they developed their country for their country, benefit it and release the slaves have not benefited anyway. We heard that therefore, [unintelligible].

MG: well, I was going to say we heard the demonstrations at the beginning in terms of how the public I think we lost him of how the public was reacting to this and what the public in particular was looking for. Take a listen to a comment by the cultural historian Patrick Vernon. He's in the UK. He has Jamaican roots and was talking about the mood in the country when it comes to cutting those ties. If I can put it that way between Jamaica and the British monarchy.

SOUNDCLIP

Jamaica is a conservative country with a small [unintelliglbe], so I'm sure there are lots of people who have an affection for the Queen of the Royal Family. They may not want to see Jamaica become a republic. You know, some people might feel that the politics, Jamaica, the political parties may not have served them the way they would like, and they want to have that link with Britain as a form ironically and independent way. The best way is to for that to be a referendum to the people, decide one way or another.

MG: Rosalie Hamilton How much appetite do you think there is amongst Jamaican citizens to sever ties with the monarchy?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: I think there's a lot of [unintelliglbe] appetite if there's a clear link between that civil war and and the need to be a reality of Jamaicans. That's the relevance. And I think if it's purely symbolic, it will be completely irrelevant to most Jamaicans.

MG: If so, if there were to be a referendum, which I understand is constitutionally required if the country wants to become a republic, do you think that the referendum would move forward?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: Well, I do think so. Again, if it's not politicised. Too often we see that issues that have gained consensus. I can mention the fact that, you know, for decades we've had bipartisan agreement on the removal of the Queen as head of state, and yet it baffles the society why it has taken so long. It is embedded in our political institutions of the two major party parties. So there is consensus at the political level. And if the link is made and I make that point again, because that's key if it is only moving the Queen as head of state and the institutional legacies persists, it will be of no movement.

MG: Mike Henry, what have you learnt from what Barbados went through in becoming a republic late last year?

MIKE HENRY: So it could be the Republic is an opportunity we have had from really game independent in sixties, governments and successive governments have spoken to that. The reality on the ground is that economic structure is not going to match the need that relates to it overall. And the case for. That we need is a legal decision, though, and the political decision joined together to ensure that we benefit from, we get we are compensated for what is the greatest actors in humanity, inhumanity to man. And in that context, we are prepared the cases in terms of it, we have given it, passed it over to the government and pass it to the National Reparations Committee have approved the approach. So the issue is, no, if you're removing the queen, you're removing her from paying or compensating what she should be asked to do.

MG: Rosalea Hamilton, do you worry about that, the fact that that's I mean, Jamaica still receives foreign aid from Britain, and so if ties are cut with the British monarchy, that could have a financial impact?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: On your country. I've heard that and it buffers the mind that any self-respecting nation, even what has happened in the past, would cut or diminish ties because of this step. There are many countries that have had no similar colonial history with us, and they provide they provide assistance and we do have good relations. And therefore, I don't see that as a step that the British in any serious modern world would take. I can't see that if they did, it would speak volumes of exactly what the cry is today that we have a set of insensitive people who completely misunderstand or can't understand the legacies of the past. And if that was their decision, it would be amazing.

MG: You're both experts in this field, but I want to ask you just in the last minute that we have personally what it would mean to you, Mike Henry as a Jamaican man, what personally would it mean for you, for Jamaica to become a republic, to cut those ties?

MIKE HENRY: It would mean it would mean the reality of being responsible for ourselves and to begin with how we administer what we have to administer, the point is that you must remember that the whole aspect of chattel slavery and I keep wanting pointing out it was unique to Jamaica and to Caribbean countries that shattered slavery dehumanise the person that made them as a piece of furniture. And in the context of that, that was a price for a man named by the British government in which they borrowed 40 percent of their treasury, loaned it for their own development. And all that I am saying and say that that [unintelliglbe] is that the same amount of money at today's value be paid to the Jamaican government, or there may be so that the politics doesn't come into it overall because part of what the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant into this structure, religion or they used religion, or that it was all the issues that educators mislead us. And that saying that there is a legal position, but which Queen's councils to have they prepared that says that the attorney general can take this case and claim. I don't see any reason for us not to do so because under section four of the 1833 Judicial Committee Act is clear because there is no legal boards and legal outlets to be able to make slavery an illegal act at the time. So you have to do that through the courts.

MG: Rosalea Hamilton What would it mean for you personally?

MIKE HENRY: Summary of the petition says that from 166 to 61807 also, African people were forcibly transported from the shores of Africa to Jamaica to work as enslaved persons, predominantly on sugar plantations. That some 1.5 million people were transported to Jamaica alone, quite apart from the large numbers transported to other parts of the Caribbean. And the case is tight and there it is clear. And in that context, and if you if if you remove the queen right, then you may have an issue in terms of who wish to be declared.

MG: Rosalea from you. Just briefly, what would it mean for you to see these guys tut?

ROSALEA HAMILTON: I think it's the removal of the Queen is tied to these institution of slavery. These legacy, I do think that we can begin a process of humanisation that we can begin to feel that we are human, we're not second-class citizens and that we can be proud of who we are and we can live freely. If that connection is made, then it would be significant not just for me as descendants of enslaved Africans, but for the majority of Jamaicans who have been disrespected, dehumanised and felt like second-class citizens for much too long.

MG: We'll be watching. It's good to speak with you both. Thank you very much.

MIKE HENRY: Thank you. All of that is contained in my resolutions and in my issues and in my affidavit that relates the regime which enslaved and subject to any human and torturous treatment, whether expressly sanctioned by Lucas [unintelligible]. Slave Code of 696 and 1781 expressly authorised punishment of rebellion by burning alive and specifically provided for punishments such as castration dismemberment until 1781. So the time when such punishments would have been recognised as cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to provisions of the second Bill of Rights. We'll be all of that and the brand Britain went ahead and paid and created an economic structure around the transportation of the people illegally from their homes.

MIKE HENRY: Well, we'll be watching to see how they respond. And in the meantime, it's good to speak with you both. Thank you very much. Mike Henry.

MIKE HENRY: And I will not give up the fight.

MG: And Rosalea Hamilton and Mike Henry is a member of Parliament in Jamaica. Rosalea Hamilton, founding director of the Institute of Law and Economics, both in Kingston, Jamaica. Rosalea quoted Bob Marley there, [unintelligible] yourself from mental slavery. Part of the letter that she signed. It specifically criticises an event that the royals are set to attend today about celebrating the legacy of Bob Marley. The letter states: "As a Rastafarian, Bob Marley embodied advocacy and is recognised globally for the principles of human rights, equality, reparations and repatriation". Kingston locals have called for streets in Kingston, Jamaica, with names like Princess King East Queen to be renamed in honour of icons like Bob Marley. And so here's Bob Marley and Small Axe.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

MG: Bob Marley takes us to a regional update. We're back in 90 seconds. This is The Current on CBC Radio One.

Proposed anti-trans laws show anti-LGBT groups are 'running out of ideas': advocate

Guests: Elijah Baay, Hussein Abdul-Latif, Cathryn Oakley

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Republican legislatures in several U.S. states are introducing new laws that restrict trans rights. Now, a new report from the Williams Institute at UCLA suggests that one-third of all transgender youth in the country could lose their access to gender affirming health care. Laws to ban treatments, including hormone therapy, puberty blockers and transition surgeries. All right. Different legal stages in states such as Idaho, Texas and Alabama. Elijah Baay is a high school student and trans activist who's been speaking out against Alabama's latest bill. It would make it a crime for doctors to give minors treatment to help affirm their gender identity and would jail doctors who provide that treatment. Elijah by IS in Birmingham, Alabama. Elijah, good morning.

ELIJAH BAAY: Good morning.

MG: How are you? I'm well, thanks. Yesterday was your 18th birthday. Yes, it was. Happy birthday! Thank you. Tell me what? Say what you're comfortable in saying. But what is your experience been like since coming out?

ELIJAH BAAY: Well, I'm very lucky to have been born to a family that has been super accepting and I've had a lot of family support, and the school I go to is pretty left leaning, so they've all been pretty supportive and accepting of my new pronouns and my new name. I think I work in a restaurant, so I'm a host and so people perceive me as not as the gender I wish to be perceived as I do get the standard a lot in that situation. But for the most part, it's been right.

MG: What would the bill that is being proposed in your state mean for your transition?

ELIJAH BAAY: Well, currently, I'm working on getting top surgery over the summer before I go to college, so it would potentially block that from happening. The I do have the opportunity like I could go out of state to get top surgery, but that just adds another layer of complication to all of it.

MG: Is that something that you would consider to go out of state?

ELIJAH BAAY: Yes, I would. If doctors gave me recommendations, other doctors out of state, I would try and go out of state. But again, it does add another layer of complication to all of it.

MG: In the meantime, what's it like for you to try to access medical support in Alabama right now? Is it available?

ELIJAH BAAY: It is available like I've been reaching out to a couple of doctors and I have some choices that have been giving me a couple of recommendations. But it is not like there's lots of loops that you have to jump through with financial support, as well as just like reaching out to doctors.

MG: What are you hearing from other young people about their experience and what they're going through, particularly people who are younger, who might not be able to? I mean, you're talking about the idea of maybe going to another state people who wouldn't have that option in front of them.

ELIJAH BAAY: Well, I think mostly this has been harmful to people who are not out yet because it is spreading a lot of misinformation to parents who may or may not be supportive of their children or who might be on the fence. And so this is giving them a reason to tip the other way in not supporting their children. As I know, that's super hard with autism misinformation for at least two people I know who are out because it is difficult for them to convince their parents, like, no, the legislator is not correct in this situation in that.

MG: What has that support from your parents meant to you? You talked about growing up in a family that was very accepting.

ELIJAH BAAY: Well, I think each year, I think, just means more and more to me, because if you are new people and realise that I am so, so lucky to have the parents I have who've been supportive of my transition and helping me get access to top surgery. And it just means a lot to me and I'm so thankful for my parents.

MG: Tell me about the environment and the atmosphere that you growing up in and what that's like because in addition to this bill that would ban gender affirming health care, there are also policies on bathrooms. There are policies around participation in sport. What is it like growing up with those restrictions around you?

ELIJAH BAAY: Home, it's pretty hard because it is degrading my nonbinary ness to male or female and like it is, it's really difficult because non-binary is by definition out of the binary and legislators trying to put me back into the binary. I've worked hard to get out of, so there is just constant. By trying to. Put me back out of what I've worked so hard to get into.

MG: Why do you think this is happening now?

ELIJAH BAAY: I honestly think it is for political clout because it is a quote easy thing to do for Republican lawmakers because they can say, Oh yeah, I'm going to ban trans people from using the bathroom they want and they can put it under an agenda of saving people's lives so people don't get raped or stuff like that when in reality, that's a small percentage of what happened. And I really think it's used for votes and political clout.

MG: How do you understand that? Because laws like this seem to have support within the Legislature in your state and politicians are making this big push now? I mean, how do you understand that? Do you have any idea of how they are coming at this?

ELIJAH BAAY: Well, I think my dad put it very well. I was talking to him about the Republican Party, and he said they were a dying party, which I think is partly true. Like they are getting less and more support, even though it seems like they're getting more support just because of voting laws that they're putting on people to disenfranchise them. And so in a way, it's kind of like a last cry before they sink. And so it's like if you see a hurt animal, you don't go near it because it'll attack you. It kind of feels like that's like a lost like reach out. Like, I'll fight back because you see what the anti-trans legislation, the voting rights law is, the abortion laws and just more and more and more anti kind of laws. And I think it is also easier to gather support for something you hate rather than something you support.

MG: What would you say to those Republicans, if you had the opportunity to speak with those lawmakers who are pushing this legislation forward? What you say to them?

ELIJAH BAAY: I would ask them to stop and share my story, because for the most part, it is a lack of education for why they're doing this.

MG: And do you find that that lack of education that if you are able to speak with people and this comes back to the work that you're doing as an activist, that if you're able to talk with people that you can get them to think differently about issues like this?

ELIJAH BAAY: Yeah, I had a friend who did not originally support me and thought they them pronouns were not grammatically correct. And once I had an opportunity to talk to them and explain my situation, they're actually pretty supportive. And I find education is a large part of whether or not people support trans people a lot.

MG: It's good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

ELIJAH BAAY: Yeah, thank you for having me.

MG: Elijah Baay is a high school student and trans activist in Alabama. Dr. Hussein Abdul-Latif is a paediatric endocrinologist at Children's of Alabama Hospital. He provides hormone therapy and transitional support for trans youth. Doctor, good morning to you.

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Good morning.

It goes through your mind as you listen to Elijah.

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Oh, yeah. As a I'm hearing definitely the worries and the concerns and the anxieties that are up into the mind of the of L.A. teenager like Elijah and I and Elijah is 18, which like the age of consent or age of growth or age of adulthood in Alabama is 19. So Elijah is in a sense lucky because if that law is going to pass and it's going to affect him or them, I am not sure what his pronouns are, then it's only for a short period of time. But I do worry myself as a paediatric endocrinologist about a kid who is 11 or 12 or 10 and who has a very long path in front of them of receiving puberty blockers and then hormone therapy to to affirm the gender identity that they have. So I also hear his frustrations with the political situation in the state of Alabama and other states like it, and definitely maybe some cynicism about the political atmosphere that we're living in.

MG: What would this law mean specifically in terms of of the the care that you're able to provide? It says that it would ban the prescribing of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans youth. So for those youth and you've hinted at this, but what does that mean for them?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Yeah, it's a it's actually the law says if it is to pass that, that it is a crime, it's a felony crime. If someone is prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy or surgery to youth in the state of Alabama. So what it means to me is that if I do prescribe any of those medications to a child after the law is passed and enters into effect, then I am committing a crime in the state of Alabama, which basically forcing my hand to make a very tough decision of either I break the law and risk consequences or I have to close the shop.

MG: And the consequences are you could go to prison for up to 10 years. Yes. So what will you do?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: I really don't know, it's I'm certainly seriously thinking. Well, I mean, the first thing I'm going to do if the law is passed is is is legal action and the court system believing in hopefully the fairness of the court system in the United States that it will make our case prevail. But if the court system was unable to stop this kind of law, then my decision is going to be a really tough one. I will have to do lots of soul-searching and decide eventually if I plan to break the law.

MG: What about for those youth? I mean, Elijah talked about possibly going out of state for young people who can't do that. What's at risk?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Yeah, this brings up another angle to to laws like this is that they are highly discriminatory to to to people who are vulnerable, even more vulnerable within the group, that's vulnerable, which is a transgender kids. So, so a transgender kid who comes from a relatively well-to-do family or a family of means that can go out of state and get medications out of state, then then that's, you know, they don't have the problem. In a sense, it may cost them a little bit more. But for patients who do not have that resource available to them, then they are basically stuck with living in relative sadness or misery, exacerbation of their own anxiety and depression that they may be dealing with and increasing the potential for suicidal attempts or suicidal success, unfortunately. Another option for those kinds of kids is to go online and find medications online that are not properly vetted. So the law is discriminatory about relatively poor people. It is also pushing people to go in a hidden path that is not vetted and that is potentially not safe.

MG: The Republican sponsor of this bill,s Alan, said the bill would protect children in similar ways that laws protect them from alcohol, smoking and vaping. What do you make of that comparison?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: It's a sad comparison. There is no there's no health consequences to using puberty blockers, although, you know supporters of those bills will use different kinds of laws.

MG: What do you mean? There are no health consequences to that?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: You know, like if you're using puberty blockers, then what you're doing is putting puberty on hold, giving the child and the family more time to contemplate their gender. And so it's buys time and it puts things on hold. If the child decides to desist, meaning go back to the gender assigned at birth, then we just stop their medications and we allow puberty to go through and happen. And if this child persists in, he continues, with the gender identity they identify with after a year or two or three on puberty blockers. And they have made a decision that is well studied and we start them on the medications that they need for affirming their gender without without side effects. So whereas vaping or smoking, clearly we're dealing with addiction issues, we're dealing with lung problems, we're dealing with heart problems. So comparing something that does not have clear or proven health consequences was something that that had been used. Puberty blockers have been used for 40 or 50 years without without side effects that they are talking about.

MG: in addition to threatening jail time. The Republican sponsors also use very strong language to talk about the work that you're doing. They say that that giving youth medication like puberty blockers could be a form of child abuse. As a doctor, how do you respond to that sort of language?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Well, it's kind of like entering into the house and entering and patients and families houses and and being very highly intervening in very sensitive and very family based issues. So calling it abuse is fascinating to me, is scary because then it is putting the freedom of families that are choosing to support their kids. Very much like Elijah's case, their freedom is at risk. And this comes from a party that ideologically is against that. The Republican Party, if understand its ideology, is minimal government, minimal interference with personal affairs. But here they are, very interfering with personal affairs.

MG: What's at stake in all of this, do you think?

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Well. I believe that this is those kinds of laws eventually are going to go to the courts. There's no way around it. And perhaps it is a certain move to end up at the Supreme Court of the United States and then see what the Supreme Court of the United States will decide, whether it will decide with wisdom, compassion and on the side of the families and the children who are transgender or will decide along ideological lines that are more conservative, more ideologically restrictive for transgender kids.

MG: Doctor, it's good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

DR. HUSSEIN ABDUL-LATIF: Thank you.

MG: Dr. Hussein Abdul Latif is a paediatric endocrinologist at Children's of Alabama Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. According to the Human Rights Campaign, which is an LGBTQ advocacy group, at least 21 states have introduced laws that would deny transgender youth access to gender affirming health care. Cathryn Oakley is the group's state legislative director and senior counsel. She's been tracking this legislation. She's in Washington, DC. Cathryn, good morning to you.

CATHRYN OAKLEY: Good morning. Thank you so much for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. Alabama is just one state, as I mentioned, where legislation like this has been proposed. What are some of the other state bills that you are keeping an eye on that target trans youth and their access to medical care?

CATHRYN OAKLEY: Yeah, unfortunately, we are, as you say, tracking these bills in 20 states in addition to Alabama. And, you know, this has been a growing trend over the course of the last several years where we've seen opponents of LGBTQ equality really target transgender children in a couple of different ways. And this is one of the very unfortunate ways that they've done that. We are tracking bills in, of course, in Alabama. We're also tracking them in Idaho. The bill in Idaho would actually make it punishable with up to life in prison to provide gender affirming care to a transgender youth. We also are tracking bills in Arizona and Tennessee. There are just unfortunately, too many states that are considering this. Arkansas, in fact, passed one of these laws last year. It was challenged in court and is now enjoined, so it is not in effect as the bills moving through the court. So none of these bills are currently in effect. But I'm sorry, none of these laws are currently in effect, but we are very concerned because the consequences as your other guests have already spoken to are very severe. If one of these should go into effect and prevent transgender youth from being able to access this incredibly important care.

MG: What's going on here? Why do you think that states are coming forward with this sort of legislation now?

CATHRYN OAKLEY: Well, that's a great question. And since marriage equality, which the marriage equality decision in the United States was in the Supreme Court decision was in 2015 and starting in 2015, we've seen state legislatures, unfortunately around the country, defy popular opinion and work on all kinds of different bills that would try to roll back different pieces of equality and acceptance for LGBTQ people. These are folks where this is their primary objective. They are groups that advocated for the criminalisation of same-sex sexual relationships against marriage equality, for exceptions where people wouldn't have to interact with people who were in same-sex marriages if they had a religious objection, they're the same people who put forth bathroom bills. And in the last three years and starting in 2020, we have seen state legislatures entertain really it just this extraordinary number of bills that target transgender youths in particular. In 2020, 79 bills were filed across the country that would specifically target transgender people, which was a record at the time. The following year, in 2021, we had 150 bills introduced across the country that were specifically trying to roll back rights for transgender folks. And then in 2022, we are already over 130 bills with lots of legislators, lots of time left in the legislative counters for many states. What is behind all of these is that opponents of LGBTQ equality are running out of ideas, and I loved the analogy that Elijah shared about the dying animal that's attacking back because I do think that opponents of LGBTQ equality are really desperate. They seem to have some information that if they attack trans kids, that this is a place where even fair minded folks who are in favour of equality don't necessarily understand the nuts and bolts of what it means to be a trans kid. And so if the opposition lies and spreads fear and talks about medically necessary, age appropriate, gender affirming care as child abuse, maybe they could get some folks scared into thinking that maybe there is something wrong with affirming trans.

MG: Broadly, in the American public, how much support is there for trans rights?

CATHRYN OAKLEY: Well, that's a great question. There was actually a poll released just this week that says that something like 75 to 80 percent of Americans support non-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ Plus community. So this is not an issue that is, you know, being clamoured for by the public. The public actually believes that equality is a great thing and really, these bills are being driven by politicians. Elijah was exactly right about that. I completely agree. This is about politicians who are trying to score political points on the backs of trans kids, and they just don't care about the consequences. Ploiticians are pandering to the very right wing of their party

MG: Was going say, take a listen to one of those politicians. This is the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, speaking in an interview with the evangelical organisation Focus on the family last year.

[sc].

We believe that the family is the centrepiece of the United States of America. We need to get education back to education. We need to make sure that our students. Are learning the core principles of maths of science in the hard skills they need to learn, as opposed to the ideology that the educators are trying to indoctrinate our children in. I'll just give you a couple of quick examples concerning some laws that we passed and those we see this effort to try to allow boys to participate in girls sports. And just makes no sense whatsoever. And that's why we passed a law to prevent boys from participating in girls sports in the state of Texas.

MG: Cathryn Oakley, what's the role of the Biden administration and the federal government in addressing what state legislatures and state governments are putting forward?

CATHRYN OAKLEY: The Biden administration has repeatedly expressed its support for LGBTQ plus people, but particularly transgender youth, and the president did that as recently as in the State of the Union, when he talked about some of these bad bills that have been targeting trans youth. And it's important to say that not only has the president said that he supports trans youth, but that the administration is actually taking action to ensure that trans youth, for example, are not denied medically necessary, age appropriate, gender affirming care. And as a result, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that they are absolutely accepting complaints for transgender youth who are not being able to or who are being denied access to gender affirming care. As a result of these state laws and and that they express their support for trans kids who are going through that. So there's still a lot that remains to be seen. We are dealing with these bills that are trying to to take all of these social supports away for trans kids, whether it's their doctors or their parents' support or their coaches and their team-mates and the books they read at school and the kind of history they're allowed to learn, and all of these different bills of being able to use the bathroom at school. All of these different bills are just trying to knock out those social supports one by one, and the administration has engaged not only in the health front, but also around sports. They've joined in in support of the plaintiffs challenging some of these courts. I'm sorry challenging some of these laws in court. So there's still a lot of of road left in front of us, but the administration is committed to being by our side.

MG: We're just about out of time, just in the last minute or so that we have. Do you take encouragement from what Elijah said that that education in some ways in talking to people, and that's difficult to talk to the broad swath of the populace, but talking to people is a way to start making change in this.

CATHRYN OAKLEY: I completely agree, and I do take lots of inspiration from folks like Elijah, who are willing to willing and able to tell their stories for so many folks. As Elijah, I think, expressed really beautifully. You know, it's not an option for them to be out talking about their story. And when folks like Elijah are able to do that, it gives voice to the most critical part of this conversation, which are the trans kids themselves. And, you know, trans kids are being really impacted by this legislation, even if it doesn't pass. The conversation is scary and stressful and othering, and I do believe that more education will absolutely change people's minds once they understand that kids like Elijah are fabulous and exciting and wonderful, and that maybe people don't understand what it means to be trans now. But kids like Elijah will make sure that they learn.

MG: Cathryn, it's great to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

CATHRYN OAKLEY: Thank you.

MG: Cathryn Oakley is a state legislative director and senior counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group. She was in Washington, D.C., this morning. Just before we sign off This morning. Wanted to give you a heads up on a story that we have coming for you in the coming days, and it is quite something. Joufah Jallow, is a Gambian beauty queen who lit a fire under the MeToo movement in Africa, and she did that by going public with her own story. This story started with what she thought was a huge opportunity. Toufah Jallow won a university scholarship. She was introduced to the country's dictator and president, Yahya Jammeh. He then asked her to marry him. She said no. And so he raped her. She ran through the wilderness and then far away from Gambia. It is an extraordinary story and one that takes her to Toronto. She ends up there.

SOUNDCLIP

I used the hijab, a niqab to hide my identity. I made up stories in order to get into trucks that carried livestock because I couldn't take the general transportation means because they were looking for me at this point. I found myself on the other side of the border trying to throw away my SIM card, get a new one. I called one person that I was familiar with who lived in Canada at the time, and he connected me to someone that worked at security services at the time in Senegal. I was sitting in the in an office, in an immigration office, and you know, the guy is asking me, Lamine, he's like, OK, so where do you want to go? Canada wants to accept you in as a protected person. I didn't even know what that meant at the time. And I said, What do you mean by where I want to go? Is Canada not like one big thing? I'm no dear different cities, and I remember him pointing to Vancouver and saying, Yeah, it's OK, but it's raining. The weather is a bit gloomy and it's not as industrial and as diverse as Toronto, perhaps, but Toronto here is like a version of New York. So. That's all I needws, and...

MG: This is Toufah Jallow. She is a remarkable person, you can hear my full conversation with her coming up in the days ahead on The Current. She helped light the fire, as she says under the MeToo movement in Africa, that is The Current for this Wednesday. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's q. They continue to look ahead to the Oscars. The chemical filmmaker Roger Frappé will speak with Tom Power about the power of the dog. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll see you tomorrow.

Wednesday 23 March, 2022 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode