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 2018

The Current Transcript for February 12, 2018

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We have come to this point as a country far too many times. Indigenous people across this country are angry, they're heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Into the raw emotion of a polarizing verdict, the prime minister and two of his cabinet ministers in Justice and Indigenous Services tweeted concerns for the Boushie family and raised questions about fairness in their own governing systems. That was matched by outrage in demonstrations across the country reacting to the acquittal of Gerald Stanley in the death of Colten Boushie. At the same time crowd funding for the acquitted man is gaining steam. And some are questioning both the jury system and the choice of key government ministers to weigh in. Where does this go now? We're on that in just a moment. Also today, poisoned by Putin?

SOUNDCLIP

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Basically within a couple of days all of my major body organs have shut down—multiple organ failure. The lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the heart, everything.

AMT: Vladimir Kara-Murza was poisoned and on the verge of death twice. He believes his pro-democracy work made him a target of the Russian president. And journalist Amy Knight adds him among the many she's documented targeted for political assassination in Russia. We'll hear from both of them in half an hour. Also today, on last week's panel of Israelis and Palestinians under the age of 35, this Israeli admitted his view of the Netanyahu government is not universal.

SOUNDCLIP

HAGGAI MATAR: They definitely don't represent me personally; I think unfortunately they do represent a majority of Israelis—that I'm just not a part of.

AMT: As Israel targets Iran in Syria, we'll hear why so many young Israelis support Benjamin Netanyahu's long tenure as prime minister. And if statistics show people in marginalized communities were disproportionately convicted of marijuana crimes, and they do, should the government now help those same people get into the legal marijuana business? We're asking in just over an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Fallout from Gerald Stanley verdict could have been avoided, says lawyer

Guests: Doug Cuthand, Ryan, David Butt

SOUNDCLIP

MANY VOICES: Justice for Colten! Justice for Colten!

VOICE 1: Indigenous lives matter!

MANY VOICES: Indigenous lives matter!

VOICE 1: Enough is enough.

VOICE 2: Justice for Colten!

[Sound: Singing]

AMT: Sounds of demonstrations and anger over the weekend that took place Regina, Saskatoon, North Battleford, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. The response was swift from the Indigenous community and many others after a jury acquitted Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley in the death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie, an Indigenous man. Gerald Stanley's trial has galvanized communities and raised issues about everything from Saskatchewan's rural divide, to dealing with crime in isolated communities, to how juries are selected across the country. Colten Boushie's family flew to Ottawa yesterday in anticipation of meetings with the Trudeau government to address what his cousin, Jade Tootoosis identifies as systemic racism in the Canadian justice system.

SOUNDCLIP

JADE TOOTOOSIS: There was no justice served here. We hoped for justice for Colten. However, we did not see it and we did not feel it throughout this entire process. We will fight for an appeal and answers to all of the racism that my family has experienced from the day that Colten was shot, until the jury delivered the verdict of not guilty.

AMT: Doug Cuthand is a First Nations columnist with the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and he joins us from Saskatoon. Hi.

DOUG CUTHAND: Hi.

AMT: What did you think when you heard that verdict?

DOUG CUTHAND: Oh, I was stunned and shocked. We were all in the media room. We were expecting it would be a manslaughter charge. But to just completely let him walk free was absolutely stunning. We had a hard time accepting that.

AMT: And we have seen demonstrations across the country over the weekend. But give me a better sense of what it's like in Saskatchewan right now. There is a divide.

DOUG CUTHAND: Well there's a very serious divide here in this province, especially in the rural areas. There were a lot of non-Aboriginal people that came out to the rally in Saskatoon here. We had over a 1,000 people in front of the courthouse down here. In rural Saskatchewan there is a real divide, especially in the Battlefords area. That has a long history of racial tension that goes way back to the very beginning of settlement. It’s a long-time problem and it's getting worse actually.

AMT: And why is it getting worse?

DOUG CUTHAND: Well there are a number of reasons. But basically the Aboriginal population is growing and becoming more visible, taking up positions of power, and more wealth in the Aboriginal community. And at the same time the settler community is shrinking. People aren't passing their farms onto to their kids, so there's a lot less people in the rural areas. So it's become more of a fortress mentality out in the country. And there's a lot of insecurity and fear. Fear is a very powerful emotion that's really affected a lot of people here in rural Saskatchewan.

AMT: And when we look at this verdict then, how hard do you think this decision was on the family?

DOUG CUTHAND: Oh, it is terrible for them. They expected something. They weren't looking for revenge as much as they wanted justice. That was the whole object of this exercise was to get some justice and to be able to move on. But now they can't. It's just getting worse.

AMT: The family feels the Canadian system has failed them. Are they right?

DOUG CUTHAND: Yeah, I think the justice system has failed. Every time an Aboriginal person came forward from the jury pool, the defence lawyers would challenge them. And you had an all-white jury that. The idea that the lawyers can eliminate people from the jury has got to change. I think one of the big things that is going to come out of this is the selection of a jury.

AMT: So were you in a courtroom when that jury was selected?

DOUG CUTHAND: Yes I was.

AMT: And can you confirm that it was an all-white jury? They appeared to be an all-white jury...

DOUG CUTHAND: Yeah

AMT: Yeah.

DOUG CUTHAND: I can say they appeared to be an all-white jury. I'm pretty sure they were. You can't speak to jurors of course. But from my knowledge they all appeared to be a white jury. And when the defense was making this case, we were sitting in the media room and there was a camera on the jury and a lot of them were just sitting there nodding their heads in total agreement with what the defence was saying. So you could see that this wasn't going to go well.

AMT: So do you see a need for change in the system? You were talking about the divide in Saskatchewan, but that's a system that is actually controlled by legislation in Ottawa. Is it not?

DOUG CUTHAND: That's correct, yeah. It's the criminal code about the selection of juries. That's one thing. But more than that, it's just a general attitude. There's no reason why an all-white jury couldn't have come up with a different verdict. If you had a more cosmopolitan jury in a city like Saskatoon, you would probably come up with a different response. But out there as one lawyer friend of mine told me, 'Stanley really did have a jury of his peers’.

AMT: And you saw a lot of that trial. Did the Crown fail the family?

DOUG CUTHAND: Yeah, I think he did. I feel the Crown could have put forward a more decisive case. He could have put more emphasis on it. There were things in his submission he stated that he didn't believe Stanley told the truth. There were lots of gaps in his testimony and he pointed them out. But I wish he had done that when Stanley was on the stand. I think he didn't give a strong enough case for the jury.

AMT: Doug Cuthand we have to leave it there. Thank you for your thoughts today.

DOUG CUTHAND: You're welcome.

AMT: Doug Cuthand, an Indigenous with the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. He joined us from Saskatoon. A group of Saskatchewan’s farmers’ have been rallying around Gerald Stanley and his family. They have raised over $72,000 – crowdfunding—to help with the family's legal fees. My next guest is a grain farmer and a member of Farmers with Firearms. He’s requested we not use his last name. We have reached him this morning on his farm, about an hour west of Saskatoon. We’re using his first name. It is Ryan. Hello Ryan.

RYAN: Hey, how are you today?

AMT: Well I'm wondering what you thought when you heard Gerald Stanley pronounced not guilty?

RYAN: Actually, yeah, same as your previous caller there. I was actually a little bit surprised that likely a manslaughter charge wouldn't have came down to it. But at the same time I guess we're not in the courtroom. We didn't—I should state myself here—I didn't have all of the information of facts to base that decision off. All I was basing that off is what I've been hearing on news and social media and stuff like that.

AMT: And there is a crowdfunding campaign for the Stanley family for legal fees. How quickly did that happen?

RYAN: Not necessarily legal fees. If you check on the GoFundMe site, the family had to I believe sell their farm. It's been for sale for a couple years here now. That year that they had they weren't able to get crop off in time. They had bills to pay. Vehicle that was wrecked at the time of the event and stuff like that. I think it's been two days or something like that. A lot of support. Like I say living out where we do, it's a different way of life. And I guess you could say we understand it. And I get a lot of people probably on the other side of things do not understand what it's like.

AMT: Well you're a member of Farmers With Firearms. What is that?

RYAN: Yeah, so it’s group that we set up, I want to say five or six months that happened before this Boushie accident. We had a local issue here in Western Saskatchewan. People jumped out on the road with handguns and were pointed at a farmer's heart hand. And this was a series of events that have been going on for the last three years now. Anyway we started this site here. It was more or less an awareness thing we started. Any vehicle suspicion or stuff like that we've seen the community, we would post stuff, get it out there. We've had a few vehicles that we were able to chase and pass on to the RCMP later on when they can finally get there. So it’s actually gone over quite well the last two years.

AMT: The incident you described was not Indigenous men.

RYAN: That's correct, actually. Yeah. I'm going to go off a guess here, the last three years of stuff we've been posting on our site; I would say it's 50/50. This is not a race issue. No offense to media, I have a little bit of a problem one when you read articles and stuff and it says, 'Indigenous man shot by white man'. I don't know why we need to say. That's half the problem here. It should just be 'man got shot by another man'. So it's pretty frustrating. I get it. It makes the views, and it really riles people up. But it's not the case here.

AMT: But that's not how the Indigenous community sees it.

RYAN: Yeah, and I understand I guess. I do get somebody died in this scenario too, so it is a very, very touchy subject.

AMT: You seem to be saying that there is an isolation problem that you feel vulnerable because you're isolated?

RYAN: Yeah. I think everybody if you ask nowadays—times have changed. I know as a kid growing up we used to leave our farmhouse unlocked and stuff like that. So in the event of anybody ever having some problem in the middle of winter they could come inside, knock on your door, and use your phone. Now you'd be crazy to do such a thing. I think what it comes down to is how little bit of a problem with our judicial system is the way our laws are. Somebody can commit a robbery, a crime, and they can be out six months later and are doing it again. We don't have enough of a punishment system here I think. And the criminals are starting to catch on, 'well why would you do this in the town where the police response is very quick. Let's go somewhere where it’s going to be hours and will get away with it'.

AMT: So do you see this verdict as a vote in favour of your use of guns for self-defence or what you would consider to be self-defense?

RYAN: I wouldn't say that because—I hope a lot people understand this—Gerald Stanley was not claiming self-defence on this. I mean he easily could have. He could have lied I guess and went that route because you've seen the rifle that they had in the vehicle, he could have said. But the route that they took was an accidental is what I understand of the court case. You know keep in mind 12 people have decided this. This wasn't a one person thing and it was a jury that was selected. And I understand that from your previous caller, all white jury got picked. However, hopefully people do know, there was 700 people I believe eligible for this. And it's picked through, I believe, our Sask Health Numbers. This is all random stuff. So when we start saying that we should be 100 percent appointing a Métis or a Native person to a jury, well now that's the definition of racism. You're allegedly favouring somebody to put them on something. And I absolutely disagree with that.

AMT: We have to leave it there, Ryan. Thank you for your thoughts.

RYAN: Hey, you betcha.

AMT: Ryan is a Saskatchwan grain and a member of Farmers with Firearms. He has requested we not used as a last name because he says he lives in an isolated area. He is west of Saskatoon. Well this verdict and the makeup of the jury, the reaction of the members of the Trudeau cabinet—it all raises issues. David Butt is a criminal lawyer. He's been tracking this and he joins me in our Toronto studio.

DAVID BUTT: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: So muddy waters between politics and our legal system. First of all, let's just speak to the fact that the prime minister tweeted and as did the justice minister, as did the minister of Indigenous services. They all spoke about ensuring justice for all Canadians or related things. Is that problematic? Already the Conservatives have raised this as them stepping in.

DAVID BUTT: Yeah, two points to be made on that. First of all, it's obviously a case has touched a raw nerve across the country and politicians need to be sensitive to the country's mood and respond sometimes with soothing words where they think soothing words are warranted. So in that respect, from my perspective it falls into the realm of legitimate political response. Second thing to keep in mind is that they are ultimately responsible—the legislators not the courts—for reform of the system. If as a result of this case there is a broadly shared need for reform, it's appropriate for politicians to speak to that. I would also say that a couple of tweets and press releases from politicians aren’t going to do a thing to compromise the independence of any judges who will hear this on appeal. We have world class judges who will disregard those tweets and so on and keep them in their proper form, which is reform directed and responding in a sympathetic way.

AMT: What were your initial thoughts with the decision of the jury?

DAVID BUTT: Well, you know, from a legal perspective there was an evidentiary foundation to acquit. There was an evidentiary foundation to convict. And juries are asked to make those tough calls. So from the perspective of the evidence, it's going to be very difficult if the Crown appeals for them to argue that was a wrong verdict to reach. My concern is with the systemic issue and the perception issue around the defence being able to use peremptory challenges to eliminate every potential juror who appeared Indigenous. That creates a perception issue. And lawyers are fond of saying that justice not only has to be done, but must be seen to be done. And it's the perception problem that from my perspective is the most significant one.

AMT: In February of 2013 the Ontario government published a report by retired Supreme Court Judge Frank Iacobucci looking at the representation of First Nations people on Ontario juries. So he's identified this already. It was a pretty comprehensive report, was it not?

DAVID BUTT: Yes, very comprehensive report. Seventeen recommendations. Justice Frank Iacobucci Is a nationally respected former Supreme Court of Canada justice. Very carefully researched. Well-written. Judges don't deploy rhetoric irresponsibly. And Justice Frank Iacobucci in his report said that the under-representation of First Nations people in the justice system is to use his word a "crisis." When you have a measured judged using that kind of word, we have a problem.

AMT: So the report has existed for five years. The Trudeau government is in its third year of a four-year mandate. Could they not have looked at this already?

DAVID BUTT: Absolutely. Justice Frank Iacobucci is far too much of a gentleman to be doing this, but I'm sure he's sitting in a comfortable chair somewhere thinking 'I told you so'. The blueprint to avoid this kind of large scale tragic fallout from a verdict was there in Justice Frank Iacobucci report. It hasn't been acted on and one can hope that this case will be impetus for some of those very sound recommendations to be put in place.

AMT: OK. Can I just ask for a couple of clarifications? We know the defense can actually challenge a potential juror and then they have to drop out. Does the Crown have that right as well?

DAVID BUTT: Yes, in every case the Crown and the defence have an equal number of challenges. It varies depending on the type of offence. But at all times the crown defence have equal, what are called peremptory or automatic challenges.

AMT: So did the Crown fail the system by allowing an all-white jury?

DAVID BUTT: I would say it's more of a systemic problem in the sense of very few Indigenous people being in the jury pool.

AMT: But they doubled the jury pool. They had something like 750 people and they picked to that jury before the end of the day. I think everybody was surprised at how quickly they picked that jury.

DAVID BUTT: I don't know the extent to which there were Indigenous people. But an ideal scenario is that you only get a maximum of 12, in some cases perhaps a bit more, peremptory challenges. If you have a jury pool in the hundreds and there is significant diversity in it, that small number of challenges makes it impossible to undermine the diversity of the jury. So if we have underrepresentation—this is something Frank Iacobucci spoke too – we have the potential for a systemic problem despite the best efforts of all the players. And I'm not absolving the Crown. I just don't know how they use their challengers and what the effect was. But if you have a very large and very diverse pool, you're not going to have that problem.

AMT: Just briefly, so how would the fair representations of First Nations people on a jury have quelled criticisms of justice not being done?

DAVID BUTT: The appearance here is that an all-white jury acquitted a white man who was charged with shooting a Native person and that appearance is problematic. And if it had been a diverse jury—let's say six Indigenous people and six white people—nobody could say that that appearance problem existed.

AMT: David Butt, thank you for coming in and sharing your thoughts.

DAVID BUTT: My pleasure. Thanks so much.

AMT: David Butt is a criminal lawyer in Toronto. He joined us in our Toronto studio. Stay with us. The news is next and then I'll be joined by a Russian political activist. It appears someone doesn't want him to live. Vladimir Kara-Murza has survived two poisonings – nothing less he says than an assassination attempt twice. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Kremlin opponent, poisoned twice, vows to keep on fighting

Guests: Vladimir Kara-Murza, Amy Knight

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, our panel of under 35 Jewish-Israelis and Muslim-Palestinianslast week sparked a lot of discussion from you. We're following it up in our next half hour with a man who explains why more young Israelis supporter of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Plus, marijuana will be legal soon. What does that mean for people with pot convictions on their records? We'll hear arguments for amnesty and more. But first, ordered killed, but still standing opposed.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: In a hospital in Moscow, an outspoken critic of the Kremlin fights for his life. Vladimir Kara-Murza's wife Evgenia says her husband fell sick with sudden and mysterious organ failure last week.

REPORTER: What is your husband's official diagnosis right now?

EVGENIA: An acute intoxication by an unidentified substance.

REPORTER: What do you think that means?

EVGENIA: That's poisoning.

AMT: A CNN report from a year ago about Vladimir Kara-Murza, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's most outspoken opponents. The assassination attempt on Mr. Kara-Murza last February was the second he's faced and survived. Critics say what happened to him is part of a grim pattern of political violence and murder that shows no sign of stopping in Russia. Nevertheless, Vladimir Kara-Murza is back working to oppose President Putin. He is the vice chairman of Open Russia, a Russian pro-democracy movement, and chairman of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation. Vladimir Kara-Murza is with me in our Toronto studio. Hello and welcome.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Thank you, Anna Maria. It's really great to be here and I sincerely mean this.

AMT: How are you? Are you fully recovered?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well I'm certainly much better than I was a year ago. I think it's fair to say that I'm mostly recovered. I mean there are some residual effects even from the first poisoning in 2015 that are going to last forever.

AMT: Tell me about the first time you were poisoned. What happened?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: I was at a work meeting. It was in Moscow. It was in May of 2015. And suddenly I began to feel very, very sick for no apparent reason. And within a space of under an hour, I went from feeling completely normal like I am now to basically being incapacitated. You know my heart started racing. I suddenly had difficulty breathing. Began to vomit and to sweat. And you know after about a couple of hours I lost consciousness and I do not remember anything else. So what I'm going to say next is what I know from my wife, my friends, my colleagues, and the doctors. Basically within a couple of days all of my major body organs shut down in a cascade, one after another. Multiple organ failure. The lungs, the liver, the kidneys, the heart, everything. And I was in a coma, on artificial life support, hooked up to cables and machines. And the doctors told my wife that I had about a five percent chance to survive. So I'm very, very happy and very fortunate to be sitting here today.

AMT: They were moving you around from hospital to hospital trying to figure out what was wrong with you.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: They did because they didn't understand what was happening because the organs would fail one after another. So they would deal something then something else would give up. They would go to deal with that and then a third thing would collapse. And then finally after about a couple days they realized this was a central issue. It wasn’t to do with any particular organ. And so of course the diagnosis both times—the first time and a second time—as you just quoted my wife saying there from the CNN interview, "toxic action by an unidentified substance," which translated from medical into human language is poisoning. I was in a coma for about a month. Then it took me more than a year to more or less recover. I mean I had to learn to walk again and to do everything. It's amazing how fast your body can just lose all strength completely when you're in a coma. But by the end of 2015 I was back in Russia and back to my work up. At Open Russia we had a parliamentary election 2016—a so-called parliamentary election. But we feel it is our position at the Open Russian movement that we have to use even this sham and truncated electoral process to still put forward an alternative to the current regime and to help train those young people, so this is what we were doing. And I was also making a documentary about Boris Nemtsov. I was filming it through 2015-16. And then just as I began to screen this documentary around the country in February of 2017—exactly one-year ago—this happened all over again in exactly the same way. The same symptoms. Same diagnosis. The same chance of survival.

AMT: The same feeling.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Absolutely. I woke up in the middle of the night not being able to breathe and I have to tell you this is really frightening as well as painful.

AMT: Do you remember ingesting anything? Like how did you get poisoned? Do you know?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Look, one thing we do know—to state the obvious given the way this was done—this was obviously some kind of a very powerful and sophisticated toxins. Not something you can go and buy in a pharmacy. Of course it leads my colleagues and me to make the conclusion that this bears the signature of the Russian domestic security services or at least of people connected to them. And as we well know the Soviet and then Russian domestic security services have perfected this practice of poisoning people for decades. They've had this lapse since the 1930s, developing these powerful toxins that are not only strong but also many of them untraceable. And you know as everybody knows they have been poisoning people, for example, in London in the last few years. I think it's not very difficult for them to do it in Moscow.

AMT: Is it something you could ever prove through toxicology? Were they able to do that? Were they able to look for something?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: So the official diagnosis is "toxic action by an unidentified substance.”

AMT: 'Cause they can't figure it out.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Poisoning but they cannot figure out what it was.

AMT: They can't even figure out how you were poisoned?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: No., as it was explained to me by people who know much more about this than I do. I am a historian education. I'm not a chemist by any means. But I do know about this more than I care to know after what happened. It's been explained to me that there are so many ways of ingesting a poison into a human being. It's better not to think about this. But food and drink is still the easiest. And as I said if they can poison people in London, I'm sure they have no trouble doing it in Moscow.

AMT: Well Vladimir, hold that thought. I am speaking to Vladimir Kara-Murza, an opposition leader to Russian President Putin. And I want to bring in another guest who is listening in. Amy Knight is an historian specializing in Russia. Her new book is called Orders To Kill The Putin Regime and Political Murder. She joins us from New York City. Hello Amy Knight.

AMY KNIGHT: Hi Anna Maria.

AMT: How common has poison been as an assassination tool in Russia?

AMY KNIGHT: Well poison was used actually in the Stalin period as well. But what struck me when I was listening to Vladimir—you asked him whether this could be proven that whether this poison could be traced—it's interesting that in the case of Alexander Litvinenko who Vladimir alluded to, he was poisoned by polonium-210 in London in 2006. He was a former KGB, FSB officer. And the people who carried out this poison had counted it not being identified. And it was only because Litvinenko lived for over three weeks before he died that they were actually to find out what the poison was and then they were able to actually trace it back to the FSB.

AMT: He was having tea in a London hotel.

AMY KNIGHT: Yes, exactly.

AMT: They were able to trace it right to that. Did they not find trace elements of the radiation on a member of the Russian Duma?

AMY KNIGHT: Yes.

AMT: In his car or something.

AMY KNIGHT: Yes. Andrey Lugovoy and Kovtun inadvertently spread polonium everywhere they went in London. As one of the British commented "like Hansel and Gretel." They just spread these crumbs of polonium all over the place.

AMT: So how did political murder evolve after Vladimir Putin became president?

AMY KNIGHT: Well we saw quite a few murders, mainly back in the ‘90s under Yeltsin because of the Russian mafia arising and all sorts of battles over money and things like that. So Russia was becoming a pretty dangerous place if you were an oligarch, for example. People had to have protection. But then we had a very separate phenomena, which was getting rid of people who posed a threat to the regime. And in my book I talk about one of the first such murders, the killing of Galina Starovoitova in November 1998. Putin was not yet prime minister or president of Russia, but he was head of the FSB. And Starovoitova was a Russian Democrat who had a lot of enemies in St. Petersburg. They never really found who ordered the murder of Starovoitova.

AMT: What happened to her? How she was killed?

AMY KNIGHT: She was shot in the stairwell of her apartment building in St. Petersburg.

AMT: The murder of Litvinenko, is that the clearest link to Putin that you've identified?

AMY KNIGHT: I would say so. I don't know what Vladimir thinks about that. But it was really the only case where they made an effort to look into all the evidence. There was a hearing that was conducted by the British High Court and the Judge Sir Robert Owen after listening to months of testimony and seeing evidence was able to conclude that these two hired FSB thugs, Lugovoy and Kovtun actually did administer the poison- the polonium—to Litvinenko. Sir Robert equivocated it a little bit in tying it directly to Mr. Putin. He used the word "probably." And he talked about Putin and Putin's-then FSB chief who was also definitely responsible.

AMT: And of course that happened in Britain and there was great outrage because there were very disturbing traces of polonium left in Britain because of this. So suddenly another country got involved with a rule of law, right?

AMY KNIGHT: Yes, but interestingly enough it took a long-time before they had this public hearing. And there was quite a bit of resistance on the part of the British establishment because it presented some difficult diplomatic issues with Russia. For some of the members of the British government, they would have rather avoided confronting this very unpleasant fact that this murder was carried out on British soil.

AMT: Earlier, Validimir you mentioned Boris Nemtsov. I have a clip right now that I'd like to play. This is a CBC News report from the National’s Susan Ormiston. It aired February 27th, 2015.

SOUNDCLIP

SUSAN ORMISTON: Shot in the back four times just before midnight Moscow time. Boris Nemtsov was walking with a woman on a bridge close to the Kremlin. A witness says a car stopped and several people shot him. Nemtsov, 55, was a prominent opposition leader. In politics more than 20 years rising to Deputy Premier in Boris Yeltsin's government and considered a possible successor. More recently Nemtsov had founded the People's Freedom Party and was mounting a large opposition rally this Sunday in Moscow. Tonight President Putin condemned the killing. But many will believe this was the work of assassins close to the government.

AMT: Valdimir Kara-Murza, you were close to Boris Nemtsov. Tell me about the moment you learned of his murder.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well that is a moment that will forever divide my life into the before and after. I remember that day almost to the minute. That morning I come back to Moscow from Tomsk in Siberia, and just had some sort of you know meetings, conversations all day, and exchanging messages with Boris and we were supposed to see each other the following day actually February 28th. I was supposed to go to his house. And the last kind of message exchange that I still have on my phone—I cannot put myself to delete it I still have it—it's "See you tomorrow," and it's dated 11:13 p.m. He was killed 11:31 p.m. This was personal for me. He was not just a political colleague. He was not just an opposition leader. He was a very close friend. He was actually godfather to one of my children. But he was also the most prominent, the most effective, and simply put the strongest leader of the opposition to Vladimir Putin's regime. In the opposition to the corruption, to the authoritarianism, to the aggressive behaviour, to all the hallmarks of the current system of authoritarian kleptocracy that we have in Russia. I think it’s very remarkable. Boris Nemtsov was a member of the very top political establishment in Russia. Boris Nemtsov could have easily chosen to either play by the new rules or to just leave public life to find a plush place in government or in business or in the worst case scenario to leave the country—so many others have also done. But this was not possible for him because he was a passionate Russian patriot and he could not just stand idly by and watch these things being done to our country; watch the future and the prospects of our country being destroyed by an authoritarian kleptocracy. So he chose to stay and he chose to fight. And his voice was the loudest and the clearest voice for years in opposition to everything Putin was doing.

AMT: President Putin said he would take personal control of the investigation into the killing. How did that work out?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well it will soon be three years since the day Boris Nemtsov was assassinated on the bridge in front of the Kremlin. This is the most secure location probably in the entire Europe, not just in Moscow. I mean you cannot stand on that bridge for two minutes without plainclothes policemen running towards you and asking what are you doing. And of course there are dozens of security cameras that apparently had no footage from that evening. And in these three years that have passed since his assassination, five alleged perpetrators have been sentenced and convicted by a Russian court. And even if we just look at this official story, the man who was convicted of pulling the trigger—his name is Zaur Dadayev—at the time of the assassination of Boris Nemtsov, he was a serving officer of the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation of the Interior Troops. And his commander was on the one side, General Viktor Zolotov, Commander of the Interior Troops and one of the people closest to Vladimir Putin. And on the other hand his commander was Ramzan Kadyrov, the Putin appointed strongman in the Chechen Republic. And when those alleged perpetrators—now convicted perpetrators—were arrested, General Alexander Bastrykin, who is the head of the investigation committee, the top law enforcement agency in Russia, has publicly declared that the case is solved and the case is closed. Any expert in criminology will tell you that you cannot consider a case solved and closed unless you have those who ordered and organized it, not just a low level, not just the actual perpetrators are carried out. And three years on, nobody is really even pretending to look for the organizers and masterminds and there's continuing official cover up and continuing impunity for the organizers and masterminds of the highest profile political assassination in modern Russia.

AMT: At the end of this month, outside the Russian embassy in Washington—the street outside that embassy—will be named after Boris Nemtsov. How do you think that's going go over in the Kremlin?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Frankly, I couldn't care less how it will go over in the Kremlin. I think there can be nothing more pro-Russian than to name a street in front of the Russian Embassy after a Russian statesman. We have been working on this initiative together with members of the U.S. Congress and members of the Washington D.C. City Council for more than a year now. And literally a few days ago the D.C. Council took the final vote and unanimously approved the measure. And on February 27th the political colleagues’, friends, and family members of Boris Nemtsov, along with members of the U.S. Congress and members of the D.C. Council will gather for the official unveiling of unveiling of Boris Nemtsov plaza. This will be the first official commemoration of Boris Nemtsov anywhere in the world. And we're very grateful to citizens and to elected representatives and free countries that are doing this on our behalf. And I know there will be in the next few days an initiative announced right here in Canada for commemorations of Boris Nemtsov in Ottawa and Toronto. And this is being led by my very good friend are Irwin Cotler, the former justice minister of Canada and the former member of parliament. And Marcus Kolga who is a prominent activist here in Toronto and we are very grateful to them also for doing what we in Russia for now cannot do.

AMT: Amy Knight, we are talking about the killing of people involved in politics and trying to force a new kind of politics in Russia. Journalists in Russia have been targeted in as well. Give me an idea of the level of street violence against reporters.

AMY KNIGHT: Well the most famous or infamous case is of course Anna Politkovskaya, as she was murdered a week shot again in the stairwell of her apartment building just a month before the Litvinenko was poisoned. She knew that she faced danger. There is absolutely no question about it. But she like Nemtsov and many others, she was so courageous. And again she gave the Kremlin good reason to want her dead because she was a tireless reporter on the atrocities that were committed in Chechnya for example.

AMT: And she was not alone in the journalist killed, was she?

AMY KNIGHT: No. I mean we've seen other journalists being shot and beaten up. It's been a repeated pattern.

AMT: In her case there were trials and convictions. Was there any reason to question that justice was served in that case?

AMY KNIGHT: Well the Politkovskaya case is a lot like Nemtsov case. They find that triggermen, but they never really find the mastermind.

AMT: Valdimir Kara-Murza, has Russia's security service succeeded in undermining opposition through these killings?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Well I think today we see that despite the killings, despite the threats, despite the dozens of people imprisoned for their political views—let's not forget about them either—despite all of this there are people today, many people, who are not just increasingly opposing the current regime but are prepared to do something about it.

AMT: There are elections next month.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: So-called elections. Yes.

AMT: Mr. Putin has barred Alexei Navalny, an opponent from running. How vocal can the opponents be?

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: You know it's not difficult to win an election when your opponents are not actually on the ballot. And when people speak about the so-called high popularity of Vladimir Putin, let's remember that this popularity—so-called popularity—was never tested in a free or fair election against genuine opponents. And I think a much better way of judging the real standing of the current regime, a much better way than bogus election figures or doctored opinion polls, is by the behaviour of the regime itself. A popular government would not need to rig elections one after the other. A popular government would not need to put its opponents in prison. It would not need to beat up and arrest and detain demonstrators of peaceful opposition rallies or censor television or threaten journalists. Now this is the behaviour of a regime that feels uncertain and insecure. And I think looking at those mass protests that we've been seeing in the last few months around the country, most of the participants in which were young people, the younger generation. I think frankly the Kremlin has right to be worried.

AMT: After that last attempt on your life have you maybe time to get out? Like maybe you should stop. You've got a wife and child. You've survived twice.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: I have a wife and three children.

AMT: And three children.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: That are outside of Russia for obvious reasons. But I feel that those of us who are the public faces of the opposition have a responsibility to continue our work. Again I think the best gift we could give to this regime is if we gave up and ran and that's not something we’re intending to do.

AMT: You have said this is your country.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: This is our country. And I think our country deserves so much better. And our people deserve so much better. But it's also very hopeful to see more and more young people. The people who were raised and certainly in many cases born under Vladimir Putin. Don't forget Russian citizens all turn 18 and come to vote for the first time in these so-called presidential elections next month will have been people born under Vladimir Putin. That's how long he's been in power. And increasingly more and more people in that generation, are beginning to rise up and say 'we've had enough of this'. And I think this is a very worrying sign for the Kremlin and Mr. Putin, but a very hopeful sign for the future of Russia.

AMT: We have to leave it there. Thank you both for your insights. Thank you.

VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA: Thank you very much.

AMY KNIGHT: Thank you.

AMT: Vladimir Kara-Murza is an outspoken critic of President Putin's; the vice chairman of Open Russia, a Russian pro-democracy movement; and chairman of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation. Vladimir Kara-Murza has survived two assassination attempts from poisoning. He joined me in Toronto. And Amy Knight is the author of Orders to Kill: The Putin Regime and Political Murder. She joined us from New York City. We contacted the Russian embassy in Canada to comment on the allegations made against the Putin government. The embassy's spokesperson replied “We don't comment on hearsay and fake news.”

[Music: Theme]

In our next half hour we're continuing to explore how those who’ve grown up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict see the future – this time with some who explain that young Israelis support the Netanyahu government and why. As well we’re looking at marijuana convictions – should convictions be pardoned and should people who have been convicted get some help into the new business? This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Benjamin Netanyahu's 'projection of strength secures the support of young Israelis'

Guest: Asaf Romirowsky

SOUNDCLIP

HAGGAI MATAR: They definitely don't represent me personally. And unfortunately they do present a majority of Israelis that I'm just not a part of. But on a personal level they definitely don't. The way that they've been promoting and continuing the occupation and the siege and tearing communities apart, this is no way a representation of what I would want to see here.

AMT: That is Haggai Matar, a 34-year-old Jewish-Israeli journalist in Tel Aviv, telling us why he doesn't feel Israel's government represents him. He was part of a wide-ranging conversation I had last week with two Jewish-Israelis and two Muslim Palestinians – one in Gaza and one in the West Bank—about their politics and their lives. They’re all part of an under 35 generation that has only known conflict, and all four were critical of their political leaders. But as we just heard Haggai say, he is not part of the Israeli majority in his thinking. A 2016 poll of young Israelis found most do support the right-wing Likud government. So to continue the conversation today I'm joined by Asaf Romirowsky. He is a dual US-Israeli citizen, a former Israel Defense Forces International Relations liaison officer to the West Bank and to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He is currently the executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. And we reached him in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hello.

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Hi, good morning.

AMT: What do you see in the support of the upcoming generation of Israelis for the politics of Prime Minister Netanyahu?

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Well you have to distinguish exactly what's going on socially in Israel. Interestingly enough, since the collapse I would say of Camp David back in 2000, there has been a kind of a shift from the people who saw themselves in left, moved over to the centre as a result of the collapse with the peace talks. And still, while some Israelis have their [unintelligible] like any other democracy with Netanyahu’s government. When it comes to the existential issues as we even saw this past weekend, from a security perspective and still from understanding of how Israel is perceived in the international arena, Netanyahu has done a fairly good job. And for that reason he still has the mandate. You know today the second-longest prime minister sitting since Ben-Gurion—Israel's prime minister the founder—and that's quite telling about the larger architecture and about the political mindset that was expressed in the last elections.

AMT: He's had two sets of tenures. He was a prime minister in the ‘90s and then he came back. And as you point out he's been there a long time. You mentioned the weekend. Let's just get up to date here. Israel says it intercepted what it believed was an Iranian drone that had penetrated a terrorist base from Syria. It attacked what it called the command and control centre from which Iran launched that drone—a Syrian base near Palmyra, according to reports in The New York Times. On the way back from a mission one of its F-16 fighter jets crashed in northern Israel after coming under heavy Syrian anti-aircraft fire and then Israel had a wave of strikes against a dozen Syrian and Iranian targets in Syrian territory. So it's a tense mood right now on that border.

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Correct. I mean Netanyahu to that end and Israeli society—really I would say the majority of Israelis believe that Iran represents the most existential threat in the state of Israel, and Iran's tentacle Hezbollah up north and of course the ties that the Iranians have funneled money to Hamas down south in Gaza. To that end, Iran at large represents an existential threat, not only to the state of Israel, but I would argue to the stability of the region at large. That's why you're seeing today much more collaboration between Israel and the Arab Sunni states—namely when you're looking at the Saudis, the Egyptians, and Jordanians when it comes to be the biggest destabilizing factor reason with the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is no other proof, of course, that Netanyahu has been right about this given the [unintelligible] of Iranian signatures are on the rockets. All the things that he has argued for. To that end, Israelis remember vividly and this is not what it's like to live under rockets in the northern part of Israel, vis-à-vis the second Lebanon war back in 2006. Sirens are not an uncommon scene. Again these are part of the indicators. But when it comes to security issues, this is where the state of Israel comes together.

AMT: So let me ask you. Let me ask you. You're talking about concerns about Iran and Syria and Lebanon. We're talking about Palestinians.

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Look Palestinians—nobody saying that they're not a concern or an ongoing issue within the conversation. But the difference is that the Israeli-Palestinian is an evergreen issue and it does not represent an existential threat to the state of Israel. Iran does. And so while the peace talks are where they are or a lack thereof, the conversation [unintelligible] and been attempted to jump start throughout the current U.S. administration and previous administrations, and this is still an ongoing continuous goal, the state of Israel. To that end, they don't represent this destabilising existential threat. Elements of Palestinian society vis-à-vis Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. They are indeed analogous to similar vis-à-vis Hezbollah and Iranian money and those do represent threats. But again you have to distinguish between those and the actual parties’ vis-à-vis the actual talks.

AMT: Do you think most Israelis make that distinction?

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Yes. I think that Israelis understand that when it comes to Israeli IBF presence in the area of the West Bank and on the border with Gaza, that if the idea is currently not there and the current configuration of the Israeli architecture, that will bring about similar movements of ISIS and other kind of radical Islamic forces that will attempt to take in the region as we saw in the southern part vis-à-vis the attempt on now the Egyptian side vis-à-vis [unintelligible] jihadis, and other kind of Iranian proxies. And we see it also in the north. So when it comes to the defense of the state of Israel, it's nothing to take away from the idea of a two-state solution or the Israel’s desire to create peace with its neighbours. These represent our security on going consistent threat. And for that they support the current policy.

AMT: What does it mean for Israel that a majority of young Israelis now see themselves as right-wing?

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: I think the characterization as I was alluding to before about the question of the right-wing and left-wing. If you look at the gap between the left and the right in Israel, it is much narrower than the gap between right and left in the North American Jewish community at large. And that has to do especially as it relates to the security needs, I mean Israel is the size of Lake Michigan, and so when there are threats that are threatening its citizens in the north and the south, Israel will do what it needs to do to defend itself. While at the same time as you saw on the other side on the northern border, which is where we saw the latest event this past weekend, it's Israel that has been saving Syrian refugees who are fleeing for their lives and individuals who are fleeing as a result of the current conflict up north. And so the major concern is for the Israelis is de-escalation of Hezbollah with ties with Iran as far as Israel and the maintaining of human life on both sides. The people more willing on the Syrian side of are coming to Israel. They're not going in the other direction.

AMT: So let me ask you though. The Palestinian civilians we spoke to in the West Bank in Gaza feel they are trapped by that politics.

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: The current status of Palestinian society is also a factor of its own leadership. I mean there have been consistent ongoing attempts to try to bring the parties around the table under Abbas and under the Fatah party, since the rise of Hamas and the takeover of Hamas of Gaza. Really what you're looking at today within the Fatah party, which is a more pragmatic party at large that Israel has been with. There has been a consistent ongoing refusal to sit down.

AMT: Well to be clear, our Palestinian guests made the point they were unhappy with their own leadership. But I want to ask you all of our panellists—Israeli and Palestinian—said that unlike their parents and grandparents, their generation never meets anymore. They never have any chance to meet socially, have discussions, and meet academically. How do you think that plays into what you see going on today?

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Well, I mean academically I would say as an academic myself I do come across many Arab Palestinians in my travels and around the world.

AMT: I'm not talking around the world. I'm talking inside.

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Again I think the current situation that we are currently observing is indeed different than it was in the ‘80s and in the early ‘90s where you had much more interaction between Israeli society and Palestinian society before the peace process began. And I think that once the radicalization of the factors within Palestinian society emerged post the [unintelligible], those dialogues have become much more difficult. Agree. And I think as far as the next generation which is very interesting to look at. In contrast to Palestinians in the 80s and 90s that I used to deal with and negotiate with, where the ultimate goal was a two-state solution. Interestingly enough within the younger population of Palestinian society there is more of a tendency to a one-state solution, which again is not helpful toward moving the parties together for any kind of conversation.

AMT: OK we have to leave it there. Thank you for your thoughts.

ASAF ROMIROWSKY: Thank you.

AMT: That is Asaf Romirowsky. He is the executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He joined us from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

[Music: Bridge]

Back To Top »

Convicted pot offenders need special access to the legal weed market: sociologist

Guests: Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, Tyler James

AMT: You’re listening to The Current on CBC Radio One. I’m Anna Maria Tremonti. It's been illegal to possess it, smoke it, buy it or sell it, for nearly a century. But now that the legal status of cannabis is about to change, there are growing calls to take marijuana convictions off of some people's criminal records, which some say is particularly important for people with minor pot offences in communities that have most strongly felt the effects of the war on drugs.

SOUNDCLIP

Annamaria Enenajor: There's been a lot of research and a lot of work done by the government on the issue of marijuana legalization, which has pointed to the fact that the criminalization approach has not been working for our country. And it's not been working for our country in a number of respects and one of them is, because it disproportionately impacts communities of colour and people of colour. And so, when the government decided to take all that information and adopt a strategy to move away from the criminalization of marijuana towards a marijuana economy, one of the things that was left out of that picture is a consideration of the way in which these historical criminal offences and criminal records would impact African Canadian communities.

AMT: That was Toronto lawyer Annamaria Enenajor speaking with CBC Toronto's Metro Morning about the idea of an amnesty. Other advocates would like to see the government go even farther, and give people with previous pot convictions special access to the burgeoning legal pot market. Akwasi Owusu-Bempah is an assistant professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto, whose work focuses on race, crime and criminal justice. He's with me in studio in Toronto. Hello.

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Good morning.

AMT: So make the case. Why should people with past cannabis convictions be allowed to participate in the legal industry?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: We're legalizing cannabis in part because we realize that prohibiting its possession and production was wrong. And as Annamaria Enenajor pointed out in the clip that you played, the enforcement of those drug laws have not been equal across social groups. So our prime minister campaigned on a promise to legalize and talked about his own experiences using cannabis as an MP, and talked about his brother being saved from a cannabis charge by his father given the power that he had. And that's true for many Canadians. They can use their privilege to shield themselves from criminalization. And then you've got other groups of people, many that I work with, who have been the target of the war on drugs, who have been criminalized in communities that have been criminalized, and they're now going to be excluded.

AMT: You're looking at some kind of special access to get them into the business. What would that look like?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: So we see in different jurisdictions for example in Oakland, special tiers or classes of licenses specifically for individuals who have been criminalized and from those communities that have been a most heavily policed. And the work of the Toronto Star series that they brought out this summer clearly identified neighbourhoods that have been particularly harmed by or over-policed in terms of drug laws. And so it's not hard to figure out who these people are and where they are and provide them with access to this new industry.

AMT: What kinds of offences are we talking about? Are you talking simple possession, minor trafficking? Like which areas would be looked at?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Precisely. Minor possession without a doubt. I think that goes without question. Anything that's going to be legal now should be considered. And I would include minor trafficking in there as well. If we think about the quantities of cannabis that the licence producers are now producing and that will be produced in this country relatively soon, even a half a pound, a pound of marijuana is no longer going to seem the quantity that it did a couple of years ago.

AMT: Health Canada has proposed regulations right now that say the minister can refuse to give security clearance to people with ties to organized crime or with past convictions for drug trafficking corruption or violent offenses. It did recently wrap up public consultations asking if those with non-violent criminal convictions should be allowed to get a security clearance. What's your read on the government then on this front?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Yeah I think the jury's still out there on what's going on and I think this differs us while across jurisdictions. Like I'm hearing slightly different rumblings from the West Coast than I am hearing in Ontario. The federal government does seem to be paying at least a little bit of attention to this which I think is key. The links to organized crime and gangs is problematic for me partly because of how those labels are applied as well. So we know that young marginalized kids are often labelled as gang members even if they don't see themselves as that based on faulty police evidence or reports from members of the community. And so that's going to further exclude people that should not be excluded from participating.

AMT: Same with organized crime. I remember someone writing a book about all organized crime and according to worldwide statistics B.C. had the highest number of organized criminals anywhere because every mom-and-pop marijuana grow up at the time was considered organized crime.

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Precisely. And certainly you know British Columbia has had some issues with organized crime, let's not deny that. But I think that's led the police and other justice officials perhaps to be overzealous in applying that label.

AMT: So you're really looking at a clear definition of what that is so it doesn't look at racialized groups and just target them.

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: I think a clear definition there's also like a consideration of the actions that the individuals have actually partaken in. So just because you associate with someone who may be seriously involved in organized crime does not make you a member of an organized crime group as well. And that's what we've seen certainly with the street gang label is that people become as guilty by association.

AMT: Not everyone thinks that people with prior drug convictions should be allowed to be part of the legal pot industry. Let's listen to Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu.

SOUNDCLIP

MARILYN GLADU: How can we be sure if we're going to put people in place and we want them to obey the Health Canada regulations and all the provincial and municipal and federal laws with respect to this legislation - if they couldn't obey the law in the past, how will we have any guarantee that they will obey those laws and comply to the system that the government is trying to put in place. I don't think there is a guarantee.

AMT: How do you respond to that?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: We elected someone that admitted to doing something against the law in this context. Justin Trudeau is now our prime minister. He admitted to smoking marijuana, not only when just a citizen but when holding high office. So I'll say let's just lead by his example.

AMT: What does your research show about who has then been most affected by these laws?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Without a doubt it has been African Canadians and Indigenous Canadians, African Canadians in our cities. We've got the best data available for Toronto. It's young, black men who've been targeted for possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking. I've done other research looking at the rates at which Canadian youth use cannabis and there are relatively similar across racial groups, and the same evidence comes from the United States. We've got data from the early 2000s indicating actually that white youth in Toronto trafficked cannabis at higher rates than did black youth. But were not black youth were being criminalized for those actions.

AMT: What would you say the social benefits are bringing in former people convicted of either some level of dealing or using or selling into this?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: So I think we need to recognize—people think often times of cannabis charge being something that's kind of minor or not serious. And we talk about cannabis as a gateway drug, usually as a gateway to the use of harder drugs. I argue that it's a gateway to the criminal justice system. That minor possession offence leads to more serious criminalization. As I was discussing with the other guest earlier, you become known to police, right? Not only become known to police but even for young people you're identified as someone who's broken the law in your community meaning that the parents of good kids might not want their kids playing with you. So you become excluded from much of what's good in social life and that leads to further conflict with the law and more trouble. And so I think we can use the emerging industry and what's happening here as a way to bring people back into the fold and repair some of those horrors that have been done in a very real way from prohibition.

AMT: It isn't lost on any of us that some of the biggest names in the medical marijuana business now are politicians or former politicians who were responsible for upholding those laws, including the former police chief of Toronto.

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Precisely. Like I've got little in the way of a problem with those people participating, providing amnesty and inclusion is forthcoming in this industry. But otherwise that just reeks of hypocrisy.

AMT: Thanks for coming in.

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: My pleasure.

AMT: Akwasi Owusu-Bempah is assistant professor of sociology at the University of Toronto. He joined me in our studio in Toronto. We also asked Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Bill Blair, the government's point person on pot legalization, for interviews. They were not available. In the state of California, maijuana legalization came in on New Year's day this year. And the city of San Francisco has said it will be offering an amnesty to people with past cannabis convictions. Across the state, efforts are underway to make it easier for people from minority groups to get involved in the legal pot industry. The city of Oakland has introduced what it calls "equity permits.” Half of new permits for cannabis dispensaries are set aside for people from communities that have been disproportionately affected by the war on drugs, and may have criminal records as a result. Also in Oakland, a non-profit called the Hood Incubator is trying to address the industry's lack of diversity. Here's part of a video from the group, explaining its mission:

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We're an organization that's focused on creating pathways to ownership for people of colour in legal cannabis. We organize folks that have been operating in the underground cannabis industry, that seek to transition themselves to the legalized industry. If you look at the city of Oakland California alone, almost 80 percent of cannabis related arrests are black people. But if you look at business investment, less than 1 per cent of venture capital funding, or loans in this country, are going to black business owners. Now is the time to act, and create the pipelines that allow people of colour to have a real stake in this country.

AMT: Last year, an investigation by Buzzfeed estimated that throughout the United States, less than one per cent of cannabis dispensary owners were black. Canada, according to my next guest, has a lack of diversity in its legal pot industry too. Tyler James is director of communications for the Eden Medicinal Society, a medical cannabis company, and founding director of the Ontario Cannabis Consumer and Retail Alliance. He's been on the forefront of efforts to get more minorities in on the ground floor of the legalized marijuana business. And he joins me in our Toronto studio. Hi.

TYLER JAMES: Hi. Thank you for having me.

AMT: Well so how does what we just heard from Oakland resonate with your own experience here in Canada?

TYLER JAMES: The ability for—minority groups in particular African Canadians—to participate in a legal framework I think is one that we need to really draw from them given the history that Canada has in terms of disproportionately targeting the black community as it relates to cannabis offenses. So really one has to take from that the inclusion of the permitting program.

AMT: So that “equity permit” thing, you'd like to copy that?

AKWASI OWUSU-BEMPAH: Some aspects of it, yes, really work out. Now what they did address—the Hood Incubator—is that the [unintelligible] itself is only one piece. You still need to have the access to both capital into some instances real estate in order for specific communities whether it be First Nations or you know the majority black community to then not only attain a permit but then to do the build out of let’s say these microprocessors, cultivators, or dispensary storefronts or lounges as well.

AMT: Does anything like that exist now through like regular business development?

TYLER JAMES: Currently right now none of that does exist.

AMT: OK. And so you support any amnesty for past convictions as we were just talking about?

TYLER JAMES: Absolutely. Especially given the stats on the you know drug policy coalition it just really highlighted that not only are five percent of the cases that was in their pool actually had associations to organized crime or gangs, but there's also stats that show that again blacks have been disproportionately targeted. So unfortunately some of the rhetoric that we're hearing in the news does not necessarily correlate to the stats that exist.

AMT: How easy then is it to get investors from minority-led cannabis businesses?

TYLER JAMES: At present I believe there have been some hindrances, in part to individuals from minority groups not being able to participate again because of either previous convictions or current charges that they're facing. And as well this stigma that comes from an individual from minute minority groups seeking investment to participate in the cannabis space. That stigma within the community of again it being associated to organized crime has really been a hindrance for a lot of people to explore opportunities within the cannabis space.

AMT: Are you getting any traction from any governments?

TYLER JAMES: Unfortunately, not here in Ontario. However in jurisdictions such as B.C. and also Alberta—the B.C. mixed model has already, I would say, given a lot of light to the opportunity for more minority groups to participate because they will not be you know putting any hindrances on current participants in the province submitting for an application. In Alberta as well they are also looking at privatization which would allow for more participants to open up storefront dispensaries.

AMT: Because the clock's ticking on this. A whole bunch of other people are getting involved. You need to see people in racialize communities getting involved now.

TYLER JAMES: Yes, precisely. So really what I'm trying to do is mobilize not only the diaspora of Jamaicans but of other minority groups as well even First Nations, you know to get involved within their communities and really take the lead on this. There's some bound of opportunities for especially the First Nations communities to meet the demand that will currently exist in the Ontario market because there will be a lack of access as well.

AMT: Well we'll have to stay in touch with you and see how that unfolds as we get closer to that final day.

TYLER JAMES: That'll be wonderful.

AMT: Thanks for coming in.

TYLER JAMES: Thank you for having me.

AMT: Tyler James is director of communications for the Eden Medicinal Society, a medical cannabis company, and founding director of the Ontario Cannabis Consumer and Retail Alliance. He was with me in our Toronto studio. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Laura Lynch is going to be here the rest of the week because I am off to Halifax for a few days. I'll be hosting a townhall as the first in series called Facing Race, about some of the most pressing issues of race in Canada. We will be recording Friday night before an audience at the Halifax Library and that will air the following week. We'll keep you posted on the details. Visit our website to see more, cbc.ca/thecurrent. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

February 12, 2018 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This