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 2019

The Current Transcript for June 13, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

People of Hong Kong want to protect our freedom. Our freedon of speech. Our rule of law. Our judicial system.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: The people who are on the streets of Hong Kong see themselves on a slippery slope. The law they are fighting, an extradition law, would extend the legal reach of mainland Chinese authorities. To the protesters that signals an erosion of their wider democratic freedoms, a threat to the semi autonomy of their region. But powerful Beijing has a different official view of governance and safety. And that is what played out on the streets this week. We're looking at the consequences in just a moment. And then the push to ensure democracy and freedom takes many forms around the world right now. Even in the U.S. of A.

SOUNDCLIP

The Secret Service came out and they said Mr. Acosta I'm sorry we have to take away your press pass. You can't come in here. And so I had to hand it over and at that point CNN had a decision to make.

AMT: You may remember when CNN's White House correspondent Jim Acosta had his press credentials confiscated after a persistent attempt to question President Donald Trump at a news conference. There was doctored tape released by the White House to discredit him. All of it feeding into a narrative from Mr. Trump that the news media is fake, that it is an enemy of the people. Jim Acosta says this is a dangerous time to pursue and tell the truth in America. He's my guest in half an hour. And all she wanted was the freedom to go to school in her Pakistani village. And for that a Taliban gunman shot Malala Yousafzai in the head. Instead of silencing her it would give her a voice heard around the world.

SOUNDCLIP

I said Malala speak up. Speak up for girl rights and for your rights and speak of that education is the only solution for it.

AMT: Before she was the youngest Nobel Peace prize laureate Malala was an outspoken schoolgirl healing from a traumatic injury. That's when I met her and when I truly understood how special she is. We revisit my conversation with Malala Yousafzai in an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Hong Kong authorities are inciting protest violence, says singer and activist Denise Ho

Guests: Nathan Vanderklippe, Denise Ho

SOUNDCLIP

[Protestors singing]

AMT: A song of praise sung in protest in front of a Hong Kong police line. Just one of the number of scenes involving tens of thousands of demonstrators yesterday protesting a proposed new extradition law. The protests turned violent. Police resorted to pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets. Close to 80 people were hospitalized because of the clashes. Today areas are still cordoned off by police in riot gear and the city's legislative council has suspended meetings for today at least. For more on what has been described as one of Hong Kong's biggest political crises since the former British colony was handed over to Chinese rule in 1997, I'm joined by Nathan Vanderklippe. He is the Globe and Mail's Asia correspondent. He's in Hong Kong. Hello.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Good morning.

AMT: What has it been like on the streets today?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Much quieter. There were a few people who came out this morning, not to any size that was anywhere near like what we saw yesterday, particularly after the decision was made not to proceed with that deliberation on on the bill today.

AMT: And how does that compare to what you were in the midst of yesterday?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Yesterday was quite an extraordinary event. People started sort of gathering in the morning. There were streets that were closed off. People took over the streets and then the numbers sort of swelled and swelled and swelled. There was a tension in the air though even from the beginning yesterday. A number of people talking about calls that had gone out to sort of push into the Legislative Council in hopes of occupying that space to prevent further debate and further deliberation on this bill. So the attension was there and a lot of people suggested 3:00 o'clock might be when that might happen and then when 3:00 o'clock came very very quickly the crowd, which by that time was quite sizable, began chanting withdraw withdraw withdraw. And over the next 45 minutes people started marshalling towards barricades that have been set up and moving towards police and then after that is when things got fairly violent. It was quite dramatic.

AMT: Who are the protesters, Nathan?

AMT: A mix. Yesterday it was quite young in part because yesterday was a workday. So many of the people that I encountered were either people who are either teenagers or in their early 20s. Many of them students or recent graduates. One of them I spoke with I asked out of curiosity what he has brought his backpack, and he took out a plastic sheet thing inside where a bunch of papers and he said these are resumes. I just went for a job interview. So there were some people who just finished high school. It wasn't just students though. There people in their 30s and their 40s as well, people who had taken days off work because there were calls for a general strike. And then there were a fair number of people who responded to that. But overwhelmingly, if you cast your eye across the crowd, it was it was a very very young crowd.

AMT: And what are the fears around this new extradition law?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Well the fears are that the Hong Kong judicial system has served as the word that everyone uses it as a firewall between Hong Kong and mainland China. And that the Hong Kong judicial system this provided a relatively fair system of justice and that the system in China is very different. It's a court system that falls under the authority of the Communist Party and there's always the potential for political influence there. And there is a fear that if this extradition bill is passed it will result in an erosion of sort of the Hong Kong judicial system because it will create a new avenue for people from Hong Kong to be sent to China to face justice there. And there's also a fear that the authorities have responded to some of the concerns but with a number of assurances they said this is only for very crimes that are very serious in nature. There is a fear in Hong Kong that criminal allegations, criminal accusations can be trumped up against people and that criminal allegations can be used as a disguise for what are political prosecution.

AMT: So how are people sorting through how much support there really is for the law? Because isn't there a petition that has hundreds of thousands of signatures in favour?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: There is. There is indeed. Yes. It's over 800,000. I think if you were to look on the ground though, by the ability of either side to marshal on the ground support, there have been very small demonstrations in favour of the bill and quite large sweeping demonstrations and opposition to it.

AMT: So the protesters see this as a slippery slope. Am I right?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: They see this as a fairly significant movement toward integration with China. There is a worry that in going this way it will create an opening towards judicial integration in a way that hasn't existed before, and that it will create new dangers for people living in Hong Kong. And those worries come in part from the experience of the last two years here. There have been a series of people some of them booksellers, one of them a very well-connected Chinese billionaire who have disappeared from Hong Kong and then reappeared China. And the allegations have been that they've been kidnapped by Chinese security forces and then brought back into China. If this extradition bill goes forward the concern is that there will now be a legal and perhaps simpler means of doing that with people.

AMT: And Hong Kong as such an important financial hub. How is the business community responding then?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Protest. And there's been a remarkable degree of concern that's been expressed even if you look at lawyers in the city, there's been reports that even judges in the city have expressed concern about this. And there are worries that if this is to have an impact on sort of the judicial function in Hong Kong that it could change its desirability as a city from which to do business.

AMT: And of course even in the China Daily - the government controlled China Daily - earlier this week the argument was that Hong Kong is a safe haven for fugitives.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: That has been the argument from the leadership in Hong Kong as well as the leadership in Beijing that there is a concern that that's a possibility. Similar arguments of course have been made about places like Canada. You will recall that Canada at one point of time was pursuing an extradition treaty with China. I don't think that is ever officially rescinded but it's quite clear that Canada is no longer actively pursuing that.

AMT: And Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has spoken out and released a statement talking about Canada's concern about the potential effects of this law and raising concerns on what it could mean for the number of Canadian citizens who are in Hong Kong. The Chinese government actually released a statement through a spokesperson in the Chinese embassy in Canada basically saying: Hong Kong affairs are purely China's internal affairs. No other country organization or individual has the right to interfere in it goes on to say we deplore and firmly oppose what Ms. Freeland has said. And then it goes on to say: If the Canadian side really respects the rule of law and really hopes that Hong Kong will remain prosperous and stable - that's part of the quote - It says it should not be encouraging riot makers. How do you interpret that?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Yes. And that has become quite clearly the response from the Chinese government which is that the biggest risks to Hong Kong is not an extradition Bill. The biggest risk to Hong Kong is lawlessness. And that seems to be the counterargument that's coming from Beijing.

AMT: And of course that reference to if Canada respects the rule of law, the little undertone of the ongoing Canada-China conflict on the Huawei issue.

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: It is. I mean that's been one of the mantras of the Canadian leadership, calling on China to respect the rule of law.

AMT: And so what are you watching for over the next few days?

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE: Well it appears that there's another movement afoot to bring demonstrators back to the streets on Sunday. And then there's also the question of at what point the government in Hong Kong moves to resume debate on this extradition Bill. There is a widespread sense even among protesters adamantly opposed to the bill that Hong Kong will continue to move forward. But of course there's also the possibility that the government here blinks. So just sort of that interaction between how the local government here pushes forward with this bill and what sort of response that prompts, whether we see a resumption of the sort of peaceful protests that have been a hallmark of Hong Kong's active protest scene or whether we see more violence between protesters and police.

AMT: Nathan Vanderklippe, thank you. You're welcome. Nathan Vanderklippe is the Globe and Mail's Asia correspondent. We reached him in Hong Kong. Well Claudia Mo is a politician a former journalist and head of the Pan Democracy camp in the Hong Kong Legislative Council. We reached her yesterday for her view of these protests and what's at stake for the future of Hong Kong.

SOUNDCLIP

I was actually tearful because it's such a display. It's not just people power. That's the young people power in Hong Kong and they should fight for what's right. It's their future and it's their Hong Kong. People like me and my generation, we wouldn't be a wrong in the year 2047 when the one country two system promises would expire. It's their future. They must fight for it. And I was touched to know.

AMT: Well my next guest has been participating in those protests Denise Ho is a long time pro-democracy activist in Hong Kong. She happens to be a Canadian and we reached her in Hong Kong. Hello.

DENISE HO: Hello Anna Maria.

AMT: How safe are you feeling today?

DENISE HO: Ah today is relatively more quiet than yesterday. Yesterday was a very very emotional day for a lot of Hong Kong people because of all the demonstrations and the protests on the streets and also the way that the police they treated the people. It cost a lot of anger and frustration. So today I believe that people are taking a rest from the demonstrations. And also on the other hand you know this is a more upgraded version of our fight against the government. Comparatively to the Umbrella Movement in 2014 where at that time we were occupying the streets for days and days and a total of 39 days. That didn't work. So I guess in 2019 people have learnt to do it and the more creative and more sustainable way. So that is why lesser people are on the streets today. But that doesn't mean that we have given up. We are only preparing for a long fight.

AMT: And the use of tear gas and rubber bullets yesterday, you just made the connection to the the Umbrella Movement. This had very strong police action immediately. What's your interpretation of what that's about?

DENISE HO: Yes. Personally I feel that it is the result of four years of training for the police force the way that they react so quickly and with so much - In my eyes it was obvious excessive force and I was in the streets yesterday among the protesters. I could see the way that the protesters were peacefully-- we were just really standing there most of the time not doing anything and not provoking the police. But no they just charged on several times without warning and throwing tear gas into the crowds and creating chaos among all these young people. So one moment I was on the side of a building, with really a very packed crowd on the streets and also it was a commercial building so people were inside it resting. And so at that point when the police threw the tear gas into the crowds it created fear and then people were screaming and then all these young kids they were trying to get into the building. And I was personally, I was pushed into a wall, I was also squashed. And so it was really quite dangerous. And it was mostly provoked by the police. So I think you know the way that they were doing it, it was obvious that they did not want people to be occupying the street again like what happened in 2014. I think that is the new tactic for the Hong Kong government. So we as the people we have to change our tactics.

AMT: Amnesty International called what the police did yesterday as use of excessive force. Police say they have no choice because it was a riot. Was it a riot?

DENISE HO: Absolutely not. I do not agree with this term and with the way that our Chief Executive Officer Carrie Lam she is trying to frame it as a riot. For it to become a riot I think you really need to see a lot of violence with weapons and fire and all that. But yesterday it was absolutely leading nothing near that. Like 99 percent of the people were really just young students and parents who were concerned and myself included. So that is the way that the government they have been using this kind of propaganda on the press and also on TV to just only show one or two footages of maybe some kids, they were throwing bricks but it was mainly provoked by the police. So also Carrie Lam she tried to frame this as the protesters were just spoiled kids and just trying to get their way. But I don't think that is a right expression because there were also a lot of adults and a lot of other people on the streets. And with the march that we had on Sunday, we have just one million people. Also you could see all these elderly people and all these young families with toddlers on their shoulders. You can see people from all walks of life like lawyers, judges that have spoken out, and teachers. So it's not just one small crowd of young students and I think that is a very tricky way of framing it into a riot.

AMT: What is it about this extradition law that has galvanized people?

DENISE HO: Well I believe it is an accumulation of frustration from since the post Umbrella Movement the years after it where we saw these members of the pro-democracy camp from the Legislative Council being disqualified, and all these activists being prosecuted and put in jail, some even to seven or eight years. And the booksellers and this Hong Kong billionaire who have been kidnapped. So all these things and then adding on to the fact that Carrie Lam is not listening to anything the people has to say. All these frustration accumulated on top of this extradition bill which is really the last line to our autonomy and of our freedom of speech. Because we have with what happened before, we don't have any trust in the Hong Kong government anymore, let alone the Chinese government.

AMT: This has been the concern all along, has it not? Ever since the so-called handover of 1997 that there was supposed to be 50 years and that China would encroach, and those citizens of Hong Kong who had no other way would be taken in under that Chinese system.

DENISE HO: Yes it has been no very bumpy road along the way because like probably in the beginning since 1997 people were kind of reassured by the fact that economically it was going quite well. And we didn't see a lot of changes right away after the handover. But then gradually we could see the democratic systems and also the freedom of speech in Hong Kong eroded by the Hong Kong government. Now I remember this very vivid image during the Umbrella Movement. We have eight newspapers in Hong Kong. On the last day of the Umbrella Movement, we could see seven of the newspapers. They were all pro-Beijing. And then there was only one newspaper that worked on the pro-democracy side. That is a very scary image to see in Hong Kong because we have always enjoyed this freedom of speech since we were a British colony. And to see this going down so fast at this really alarming for all the people in Hong Kong.

AMT: Denise Ho, thank you for speaking with me today.

DENISE HO: Thank you so much Anna Maria Tremonti.

AMT: Denise Ho long time pro-democracy activist in Hong Kong. She also happens to be a Canadian. Well, stay with us. The news is next and then.

SOUNDCLIP

JOURNALIST: You're concocting a national emergency here in order to get your wall.

TRUMP: A very political question because you have an agenda. You're CNN. You're fake news.

AMT: That's a fairly typical exchange between U.S. President Donald Trump and CNN's chief White House correspondent. Jim Acosta is going to join me in our next half hour to talk about his testy relationship with the president and the charge that journalists are enemies of the people. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, online on cbc.ca/thecurrent, on podcast and on your radio app.

Back To Top »

CNN's Jim Acosta chronicles reporting under Trump, combating 'enemy of the people' rhetoric in new book

Guest: Jim Acosta

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current. Still to come.

SOUNDCLIP

I'm proud. But in fact I'm very proud. To be the first Bush to be. The first Pakistani and the youngest person to receive this award.

That's Malala Yousafzai accepting her Nobel Peace prise for 2014. The young advocate for children's education inspired people around the world and when I got a chance to interview her, a few years ago, I could understand why. In half an hour my conversation with Malala. But first, truth in the time of Trump.

SOUNDCLIP

JIM ACOSTA: If I may ask you a question. Are you worried enough?

TRUMP: That's enough. That's enough. That's enough.

JIM ACOSTA: Mr. President.

TRUMP: That enough.

JIM ACOSTA: Mr. President.

TRUMP: That's enough.

JIM ACOSTA: Mr. President, if I may ask on the Russia investigation, are you concerned that you may--.

TRUMP: I'm not concerned about anything with the Russian investigation because it's a hoax. That's enough. Put down the mic.

JIM ACOSTA: Mr. President, are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation? [Noise] Mr. President.

TRUMP: I say what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN. Go ahead.

JIM ACOSTA: I think that's--

TRUMP: You are a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible.

AMT: As a White House correspondent for CNN Jim Acosta was at that presidential news conference to get a story. After that exchange with U.S. President Donald Trump, he became the story. That was last November the somewhat surreal encounter heighten concerns about how far the Trump White House is willing to go to punish journalists it considers too challenging. And since that dust up President Trump's ardent followers consider Jim Acosta their media enemy number one. It's an experience he's written about in his new book: The Enemy of the People, A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America. Jim Acosta joins me from CNN's New York City Studios. Hello.

JIM ACOSTA: Hi. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

AMT: As you listen to that hope. How comfortable is it for you to hear that exchange?

JIM ACOSTA: Oh I've had other exchanges that I'd rather play on the radio. But you know, listen, I think that that is is fine to reminder our viewers and our readers of because it takes us to a moment that I think encapsulated a very contentious relationship that we have had with the current administration. It's not a relationship that we've chosen. It's one that we've been thrust into. You know when you have a president of the United States who has made, according to The Washington Post, 10000, approximately 10000 false or misleading statements since he came into office, obviously this makes it really critical for all of us in the press to be fact chequers in real time. And so we spent a lot of our time and energy fact checking this president, saying when he's not telling the truth and it's a new experience for all of us because we've never had a president bend the truth to this extent this often in recent memory. At least in my lifetime for sure. And that frustrates the president, frustrates his team, frustrates his supporters, and I think has created this adversarial relationship in addition to that, not to go on too long about this. When the president of the United States refers to the press as fake news and the enemy of the people, that to me is taking the bully pulpit of the presidency of the United States to a point where you know many of us in our profession feel endangered and like we have a target on our backs.

AMT: How did the White House respond after that incident that we just heard?

JIM ACOSTA: Later on that evening. I was coming back to the White House to do a live shot for Anderson Cooper and I see a notification on my phone. It's a statement from Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, stating that my press pass had been revoked. I was given no previous notification of that. It just flashed on my screen like it flashed on everybody else's screen saying that I had been booted out. And when I got to the Secret Service gate outside the White House, where I check in to go to work, when I go to the White House the Secret Service came out and they said Mr. Acosta, I'm sorry, we have to take away your press pass. You can't come in here. And so I had to hand it over and at that point CNN had a decision to make and we decided to take the administration to court because we felt my rights had been violated and our rights had been violated and we had to go get it back.

AMT: And she also tweeted a video of the confrontation. What was your reaction when you saw it?

JIM ACOSTA: Well as I tweeted at the time this was a lie. Sarah Sanders a taxpayer funded spokesperson for the United States government tweeted out a doctored video of the exchange which removed the audio. You can't hear me say Pardon me ma'am to this intern who came to retrieve my microphone and then they sped up the. Video to make it appear as if there was some sort of physical altercation when obviously that did not occur. And so this was a White House smear and you know we can say a lot of things about policies that administration might have on the environment, on health care, on tax policy and so on. But we shouldn't have the United States government smearing journalists, trying to run them out of town because they don't like the reporting that they did.

AMT: They sped it up so you'd look more aggressive. Last month they slowed down the video of Democrat Nancy Pelosi so she would look drunk or some element of functionally impaired. What kind of challenge to those doctored videos posed to journalists?

JIM ACOSTA: This is an alarming trend where you know very savvy people who are good with computers much better than you and I can take video manipulate it alter it and present it to the public, as something that is akin to reality when it's obviously not. And it sort of takes us into a 1984 Orwellian territory, where you can tear people down with manipulated video. And it's incumbent upon the consumer of information, not only in the United States, but also in Canada and around the world, to be mindful of the fact that now when we're looking at video and audio presented to us by political campaigns buyer beware. Be careful of what you're watching. Be careful what you're hearing because now we have operatives in this in this business who are willing to do these sorts of things to manipulate public opinion.

AMT: After the manipulated video of you in the White House taking away your press pass, what did the other news organizations do in response?

JIM ACOSTA: Well it was a wonderful moment because just about every news outlet in Washington, New York, all around the country they got behind us, and even Fox. News and I know some folks out there might find that surprising, but Fox News--

AMT: I was surprised.

JIM ACOSTA: Yes. They were one of our one of the very first organizations to come on board and they understand this. You know they're very conservative - I call them - personalities. Sometimes I call them propagandists in the evening on Fox. They are deeply critical of what we do, but there are also journalists who work at FOX who understand what we're up against. And they understand that you know there's no guarantee that the conservatives stay in power in Washington from here on out and that another administration might come in, a Democratic administration might come in, and say well you know Donald Trump did this. We're going to do it too. We're going to do it to you guys the way you did it to them. And they're mindful of that. And so I think that was part of the reason why they stood with us. But more importantly I think there was just an overall recognition that this is an important test. And as I write in the book, my goodness, had that case gone against us, if the Trump appointed judge ruled against us in that case it would have put a chilling effect on the First Amendment in the United States. Because what the government was arguing, taxpayer funded government lawyers were arguing, was that the president of the United States could essentially go up to any reporter, tap them on the shoulder and say I don't like that story you wrote today, you're out of here. And we just can't have that kind of situation in the United States if we're going to remain you know a model of for democratic freedoms around the world.

AMT: That was of course not the first confrontation between you and the president. I've got a clip here from a press conference in January of 2017. Let's listen.

SOUNDCLIP

JIM ACOSTA: Since you're attacking us, can you give us a question?

TRUMP: No.

JIM ACOSTA: Mr. President. Since you are attacking our news organization.

TRUMP: No. No. Not you.

JIM ACOSTA: Can you give us a chance.

TRUMP: Your organisation is terrible.

JIM ACOSTA: You are attacking our news organization.

TRUMP: Your organization is terrible.

JIM ACOSTA: Can you give it a chance to ask a question, sir.

TRUMP: Go ahead. Quiet. Quiet.

JIM ACOSTA: Sir. Mr. President elect--

TRUMP: Go ahead. She is asking a question. Don't be rude.

JIM ACOSTA: Can you give us a question.

TRUMP: Don't be rude.

JIM ACOSTA: You're attacking us. Can you give us a question?

TRUMP: Don't be rude. I'm not going to give you a question. I'm not going to give you a question. You are fake news.

AMT: Jim Acosta, why did you decide to challenge the president like that?

JIM ACOSTA: Well it's a good question. You know I write about this in the book and my goodness when you listen to it over the radio it does sound like things were getting pretty hectic. But just to rewind things a little bit because you know the folks at home listening might not have the full picture. The president, the vice president, the incoming press secretary Sean Spicer were all attacking CNN that day. Why? Because we had just broken a story, my colleagues and CNN had just broken a story, that the U.S. intelligence community had gone to the president elect and said 'Mr. President elect the Russians may have compromising information on you and this may be a problem for your presidency and you need to know about it'. That was a real actual thing that happened. That conversation occurred and the president was calling it fake news. So he was trying to tell the public don't believe what the press is telling you believe what I'm saying. Up is down. White is black. In is out. And so on. And I just didn't want to stand for that. And I was thinking back also on what we had dealt with during the campaign. The president was referring to us as the disgusting news media, the dishonest news media and so on. And he wouldn't take my question and all I wanted to ask was: Mr. President, did you have any contact or did your team have any contact with any Russians during the campaign? And as it turns out that was not an illegitimate question it was a very legitimate question and I would say it was real news. Because as we learned during the campaign the president's eldest son and campaign chairman and son in law had met with a Russian attorney who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. That's a thing that happened. Donald Trump junior admitted that that occurred. And so I think what has happened over the last couple of years is we've been largely vindicated in terms of all of our reporting on the Russia investigation. The president can point to the Mueller report and say well I got off scot free. Well that's not necessarily the case. The special counsel Robert Mueller said if we thought the president hadn't committed any crimes we would have said so in this report. And so we're sort of left with a giant question mark as to what happens next. You know, we would not have been asking these questions if if we didn't have a good reason and I think we would have been committing journalistic malpractice had we not asked ask this question.

AMT: Well arguably he understood that you were going to ask a question of substance and that's what he wanted to do.

JIM ACOSTA: That's right. And I did manage managed to spit the question out. I think PBS Frontline, one of their programs, actually has the video of me finally getting the question it out after he shouts me down. But it did set a tone for what was to come over the next couple of years. And you know we're so exhausted from the news cycle that we forget all these things. But the president went to the CIA and went off on the press in front of a memorial to a fallen CIA agents, and on that very same day Sean Spicer comes out into the White House briefing room and accuses the press of misreporting the inauguration crowd size. This is what the president was railing against us about at the CIA and Sean Spicer did the same thing. And that's when Sean uttered those words that the president had the largest inauguration crowd in the history of the United States. But both in this country and around the world. And you know that to me set a really bad tone for the rest of the first two years of this administration because it basically meant that they thought it was okay to go into that White House briefing room and just flat out lie to the public.

AMT: You know the president has attacked huge segments of society, American society and beyond: Muslims, Mexicans first and foremost. What's the responsibility of a journalist covering a president of the United States when they make those statements that are so sweeping? What are you supposed to do? What is your responsibility?

JIM ACOSTA: My sense of it is - and this also goes for people who work for the federal government, people who work at the White House, people who work for the administration - they work for the American people. And I see our job as journalists is similar to that. We work for the American people too. And when the president tries to put out a policy that is very much aimed at banning Muslims from coming into the United States then we have to be very straightforward about that we can't tiptoe through the tulips when the president of the United States puts out a tweet that says nearly three million undocumented immigrants voted in the election and that's why I lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, which is just a wild unproven conspiracy theory. We have a choice to make at that point we either accept that as something that the president says and we don't fact check it or we say no. That is a false thing. That is a big whopper.

AMT: I mean you talk to them. How do they live with that? Do they not enable him? Like what kind of conversations do you have with them when there's no camera? How comfortable are they?

JIM ACOSTA: Well I'll tell you - And that's why it's necessary at times in this book to talk about anonymous sources. I had a senior White House official come up to me and sit down for a meal at a restaurant in D.C. and the first thing that popped out of his mouth was the president's insane. And I said what are you talking about. And he was just exasperated with the president's behaviour behind the scene behind the scenes inside the West Wing. And I've talked to a number of officials who felt that way. I talked to a former national security official for the Trump administration who said he couldn't tell me whether or not the president of the United States was pursuing U.S. interests, and why he had this cosy relationship with Vladimir Putin. I also talked to people on the record. Kellyanne Conway did an on the record interview. She said that she essentially regrets using the term alternative facts. She says it was a slip of the tongue. She meant to say something else. Folks can decide for themselves whether they want to believe that. She also went on to say that it was contrary to her Catholic beliefs to see families separated at the border. I thought that was a pretty striking moment of candour from her.

AMT: But let me ask you though. So we're dealing with smart people. They have lots of ways to make money. So why did they stay? Is it the power? Like if Kellyanne Conway has a struggling with her religious conscience. Or are they just spinning you?

JIM ACOSTA: Well I'll quote an old congressman a former congressman Tom Davis who said that the only cure for Potomac fever is embalming fluid. You know there are folks who are very addicted to being in power in Washington and it's one of the constants that I've observed as a reporter in the nation's capital. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you can get awfully high on your own fumes when you're walking around the corridors of the White House, when you're standing in that White House briefing room. That goes for the press too. And we're not perfect and we should be held accountable as well. That's why I try to be very honest throughout this book and say here's the reason why I did this. Here is the reason why I did that. Because you know we also need to answer to the American people. But I put up our record up against the president's record over the last couple of years. Our record of accuracy and truthfulness, we're way ahead of him in that regard in my view.

AMT: Your dad came to the U.S. in the early 60s, shortly after the Cuban Revolution. How did the family experience, your family experience, helping form how you cover power in Washington?

JIM ACOSTA: Well my dad came over in 1962, three weeks before the Cuban missile crisis. And you know his story of escaping a communist island is always instilled in me you know the respect for democratic freedoms that we have in this country. I got to go back to Cuba and to question Raul Castro about that country's practice of jailing political prisoners and he couldn't believe his ears. And as I tell folks you know, a Cuban reporter could never get away with asking that question but a Cuban-American can. And so my dad's experiences has definitely affected my life. He also is an immigrant. And I like to call him one of the original dreamers. But when he came to this country he wasn't-- you know Cuban-Americans weren't being called rapists and criminals by the president of the United States. Were there times when they experienced prejudice and so on. Sure of course. But not by the federal government. And so you know that to me is something that I think folks need to remember, that you know I'm going to turn 50 in a couple of years here. This hasn't been my experience growing up in the United States. Yes we've had ups and downs and we've had challenges but we haven't had the president calling the press the enemy of the people and referring to immigrants as part of a breeding concept or an infestation in this country. Those are things that are outside the bounds of normal presidential behaviour. And as a journalist do you just whistle past the graveyard and ignore these things and not report on these things? Or do you have to reflect on your experience as an American and your understanding of our experience as Americans to say wait a minute this stuff is outside the bounds and we have to describe it as such?

AMT: You have covered many Trump rallies. How Trump's supporters treated you?

JIM ACOSTA: Well let me just say from the get go. I mean I've run across so many Trump supporters who have just been absolutely delightful people and very nice and they'll come up to me and say, oh I'm so sorry that folks are not nice to you and they'll ask for a selfie or an autograph. But there are folks - no question about it - from time to time who have I think absorbed the president's rhetoric and then directed that hostility at us in ways that are menacing and make us feel endangered as journalists covering these events. You know I think about this rally that the president had in Columbia South Carolina where a lady told me I need to stop being so rude to the president and the press secretary or you're going to start another civil war, she said, you're going to have people shooting each other. And I thought my goodness, are folks so emotionally invested in this man and this president that they would say such a thing.

AMT: Well last year pipe bombs were sent to CNN and other news outlets as well as the Democratic Party as Democratic Party politicians. What was your reaction when you when you learned that?

JIM ACOSTA: Well at that point I thought OK now we have crossed over from rhetoric to a dangerous time. If there is a Trump supporter out there who is so upset with what's going on, and in many ways is just being bombarded with negative information about us and conservative media and so on, but so upset about what they're saying and what they're feeling that they think it’s okay to send a pipe bomb in the mail to CNN, then I think we've reached a point where we have to hit the pause button and ask folks to think deeply about whether or not this is something that we should be doing. And one thing that we found, after that person was arrested in that white van covered in anti-media signage as we all remember, is that on his social media account he had directed several death threats at me and one saying you were next, you were America's enemy and so on. And we did not even know that this had happened because many of these social media platforms just don't have any idea about a lot of these threats that are out there. And I think those platforms have to do a better job of that quite honestly because I mean I've had a steady stream of this stuff since President Trump has been in office. And it's just unlike anything that I've ever experienced before as a journalist. I want folks to think about that and say wait a minute is this the country that we want to have? And could this get worse could we get to a point where a reporter is hurt or God forbid killed in this country? And I think at that point the United States joins a different category of nations around the world where the press is no longer safe to do its job. And I think that could have very negative consequences for the country.

AMT: I'm struck by something you say near the end of your book. You say that across the country, by 2020, people will have come of age exposed to a dangerous rhetoric that distorts our collective sense of reality and that will have consequences we cannot fully appreciate. What are you afraid of?

JIM ACOSTA: What I'm afraid of is just in the way we see little kids today pick up an iPhone and know exactly what to do with it, that we're going to have kids you know grow into young adults who believe it's okay to only get their news from information sources that share their point of view. And you know that I think poses a real threat because we have to have an informed population making decisions that affect our daily lives. We can't have folks who are just bombarded with conservative media. And to some extent I think folks on the left have to be mindful of being too partisan with information on their side of the spectrum. You know we have to have a little more faith in one another. It's the other thing I write at the end of this book that folks who work in this line of work who are in the news business are here to give you information. We're here to do the news. We're not here to try to taint things or spin things a certain way. And we can't get to a point in this country where millions and millions of people have essentially been indoctrinated to think that the press is the enemy of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are here to serve the people. That is born out of a devotion to people because we love people too. We have fathers and mothers. We are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, we're fellow Americans and up in Canada you know you in the press your fellow Canadians and you have to have a little faith in one another that folks who were in this line of work are doing it with the best of intentions.

AMT: Jim Acosta we have to leave it there. Thank you.

JIM ACOSTA: Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it.

AMT: Jim Acosta is CNN's chief White House correspondent. His book is called The Enemy of the People. And he joined me from New York City. What do you think? Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. Go to our Web site cbc.ca/thecurrent and stay with us in our next half hour. The voice that Taliban tried but could never silence: Malala Yousufzai, another one of my most cherished conversations from years past. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, online on cbc.ca/thecurrent, on podcast, on your radio app.

Back To Top »

Anna Maria Tremonti's most memorable interviews: Malala Yousafzai

Guest: Malala Yousafzai

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Noise]

Violence in Pakistan so grotesquely common it doesn't register as news most nights. It does tonight because of who it is bleeding on that stretcher. Malala Yousufzai just a school girl who's proved braver than most adults. In 2009 when the Taliban was beheading activists in her city of Mingora Swat when they bombed girls schools and demanded girls not even try to get an education.

[Screams]

It was 11 year old Malala who decided she'd stand up and defend a girl's right to go to school.

ATM: The CBC's Adrian Arsenault in a news report there. It was an attack that revolted the world. The Taliban's bungled attempt to assassinate a schoolgirl. But after that dark day in Pakistan's Swat Valley in 2012 Malala Yousafzai not only recovered, she became a beacon for oppressed youth especially uneducated girls. She wrote an international best seller. She travelled the world speaking about the importance of girls' education. She addressed the United Nations. And in 2014 she won the Nobel Peace prize and she was still a teen, 17 years old, the youngest person to ever win the award. I went to New York to meet with Malala in 2013. I had read her book. I knew what an influence her dad was, a passionate advocate of education for girls. And he sat quietly in the back of the room the day we met and she was a combination of very humble and very poised. I knew she was smart. I knew she was special. But I came away from that interview feeling that there is an aura of other worldliness around Malala. I don't think I've ever felt that before, in an interview that I've done when I've met someone. Here's our conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

AMT: It has been a year. Since you were shot. And you had your last big surgery earlier this year too. How are you feeling?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Now I'm feeling very well and I'm recovering every day and I believe, it's my belief that I am recovering because people have prayed for me and because God is with me. Allah is with me and he has given me this new life and it's for a cause and the cause is education.

AMT: And when you say I am Malala, it's not just any statement. It is a fearless answer to a question. Tell us the importance of that answer and that question.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: On the 9th of October 2012, two Taliban they were standing on the roadside. And on that day they road was vacant because usually there are so many people on this road and there is just noise and hustle and like everyone is busy in their work. But on that day there only two boys. I'm calling them boys because they were in 20s. And they just stopped the school van. And at that time we girls were just enjoying, having gossip, thinking about examination, how much marks would we get. Then one of those boys were talking to the driver in the front seat and one came in the back and he asked who is Malala. He didn't give me time to answer him and then he shot me. He fired three bullets. One bullet hit me and other two bullets hit my friends and I just fell down in her lap. And I was bleeding. The bullet hit me in the left side of my- this upper- this left eye, so here the bullet hit me. And then one bullet went down to my shoulder and then it came out of here through my left shoulder. So it also cut my facial now. That's why the moment of half of my face has been affected by the bullet. It also hit my eardrums. Now I can't hear through my left ear. Also it affected my jaw. And then the school driver took us to the hospital and those two boys ran away. But now I see that I am Malala and this is not only my story. This is the story of every girl who has suffered from terrorism in Swat. And I'm telling the story of, not only one Malala. This is the story of every Malala in Afghanistan as well because they have also seen terrorism. And I hope that people will read this book and they will understand what is happening in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and how people are suffering to terrorism and to extremism.

AMT: Now before that happened were you worried that that someone would come after you in the Taliban?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I was not worried that much but in the January 2012 we heard about some threats. At that time I just started thinking like what if a Talib comes, what will you say.

AMT: But you worried about your father as well didn't you?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes. As I was really worried about my father because he was also speaking up for women's rights and he was speaking for peace in Swat. At night when we used to sleep I used to close the doors and I used to look at the gates and everything. But I didn't like to do close the windows of my own room and my father was worried about that. So we both were worried about each other.

AMT: But you didn't think that the Taliban would come after a young girl.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: We thought that a Talib would never come for a child. Yes it is true that they have slaughtered men. They have started women as well. But not a child. And in that time I was only like 14 or 15 and I was not expecting them to come. But still we were worried.

AMT: What was life like in Swat when you were growing up before the Taliban? Tell me what it was like growing up as a girl there.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I don't think about the situation of Swat, before the terrorism, before this bad situation, all we were living in a paradise. And the tourist used to come to swat in Swat was like a paradise for tourists as well. People from all over the world came to Swat.

AMT: And when you were growing up you were listening to Justin Bieber.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I think everyone was listening to Justin Bieber at that time. I think I was nearly 13 or 14 at the time. And his song like Baby and Never Say Never and with that kind of songs, we used to hear that. We could not dance with English songs but we were good in Urdu language songs.

AMT: And so you were growing up. You were a pre-teen and you were also reading the Twilight books, were you reading them in English?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes because we started learning English from our nursery. We start English from like A for apple B for banana C for cat. So in that way we start learning English since we joined the school and so I read the Twilight, the first book Twilight. And it was quite interesting. And like reading such books, people think that's not reality but it's good because sometime we just go out of that situation of terrorism and you just go to a new world. So it helps your just mind to go somewhere else.

AMT: When you would go to weddings or when you were celebrating Eid and you would henna your hands, what would you draw on your hands?

AMT: Usually people draw some flowers in kind of different art people have. I used to draw [unintelligible]. I used to write the formula of chemistry like H2O and H2SO4 and CO2 and I also draw the diagram of a frog's digestive system.

AMT: For your henna designs.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes.

AMT: Were you alone in that or did your girlfriend do that with you?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Some of my school friends did that, some said like it's just a waste of time, why don't you draw beautiful kind of flowers.

AMT: You love to learn, huh?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes. Because I think when you learn you broad your mind. You learn about other people. You learn about other cultures in society and you learn something new every day. And that is really good in one person's life.

AMT: Your dad has said that from the very beginning; he saw that you were very special. And what did he mean by that?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I'm not sure what did he mean by that but I think maybe he just could see another face in that small little girl who was crying when she was born and was screaming. And for him I was special and I think every girl is special and every person is special. But my father recognized me because there were many other guys who were special but their parents did not recognize them. They did not give them a chance to go forward. And my father is a great father because for him I was special because he recognized me. And he said this Malala, she's my daughter and she has the same equal rights as my sons have. And he educated me. He gave me admission in his own school because my father was running a school and he started this school in 1994 and he started it with four students. And now there are 1100 students now and the school is still going on. He gave me the freedom as my brothers have.

AMT: And the freedom to learn.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes.

AMT: And so when did the Taliban first come to Swat? You were 10 when they came?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes. I think I was 10 because they came early. They came in 2004 but they started terrorism, they became terrorists, in 2007. So at that time I was 10.

AMT: And how did life change after the Taliban came?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: They started to misuse the name of Islam for their own personal benefits. They were doing this for their own will. They were not listening to others. They were just using the name of Islam. They blasted schools. More than 400 school only in Swat. And if we look at the province [unintelligible] , they blasted 1500 schools. They also flogged women. They flogged men in front of people, in front of a huge crowd. They used to flog people. The worst thing was that they were against the education of girls. And in the month of January 2009 they said that no girl is allowed to go to school. And at that time I said why should we be silent? Why don't we speak for our rights? Why don't we tell the world what is happening in Swat? And I did not want Swat to be a next Afghanistan because this is what was happening in Afghanistan at the time as well. But in Swat we said let us speak of our right.

AMT: And you began to speak up for your rights, you and your father, speaking up for the rights of girls to go to schools and you kept going to school even while they were blowing up other schools. How hard was it? What did you do to go to school so they wouldn't notice?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I did time. I was in grade five. And then later on, the Taliban allowed us up to Grade four. And we said like it's very hard to differentiate between students of Grade four and five. So we decided the students are great five and six will also go, in our school only. We used to go to school but it was really hard for us because around us were terrorists and anything could happen. They could even kill us. They could even slaughter us. They could even flog us at that time. So we said that we will go to school but in our home clothes, so that they cannot identify us. And we also used to say that we would hide our books under our shawls just to pretend that we are not students we are just girls going around. And it was really hard for girls to go outside as well. We still needed a boy or like a brother or our father to go with us.

AMT: Even a young boy. You had to be with some male figure.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes. If my mother wants to go outside, if she takes even my 9 year old brother that would be fine. But she cannot go alone. Women are just a kind of slaves. They were just limited to their four boundary wall of their home. Their only job was to cook to feed their children and just to sit in the kitchen all the day. They could not show what talents they had or how special they are. They are just told to do this job. On the other hand there are no boundaries for men. They can do anything. Is it written in a book in the heavens that a woman should live this kind of life and a man should live this kind of life? Who are they to decide how shall we live? So that was what we were saying at that time that men and women, they are equal. We believed in equality. Then who has given him the priority to decide how shall we live?

AMT: So when you would go to school would you wear your shawl like you have it now with your face covered? Would you cover your face? How would you move in the crowd to get to school?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Usually girls cover their faces especially in Pashtun society. It does not only mean like you cover your face but it mean to cover you identity, you cover yourself. Your inner self. And I did not like that. I said why should I cover my face? This is my identity. It shows that, yes, this is Malala. And sometimes my mother used to get angry with me. Why don't you call your face? What would your relatives say? Your father would get angry. But my father was really nice to me. He said it's her right to cover her face or not. It's her right and she shall make her own decision.

AMT: But your mother covered up.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes.

AMT: Did you argue with her about that or did you each respect the other's view?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: My mother used to go on her face but I didn't. And she was very angry with me. You don't cover your face. Men are looking at you. And on the way she used to say, see, that man is looking at you and you're not covering your face. And I said I'm also looking at him.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: So like when we say oh it's real and my mom used to say [foreign speech], which means 'Oh God forgive me. Forgive me. Forgive me'.

AMT: It's interesting you grew up in a household where your father was very much in support of you wanting to disregard those rules, and your mother's very traditional, very conservative, very pious.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I guess my father was thinking about human rights and he had a very broad mind. While my mother she was worried about the society in which we were living. She was worried about the traditions, our culture. Other than that she was really good because she supported me and my father too to speak up for women's rights and to speak up for education and to speak up for peace in Swat. Because she was also of the same will that what the terrorists are doing is against Islam, because Islam is a religion of peace. It tells us about equality. It tells us about brotherhood. It tells us about love and friendship and peace. That's why she supported us. But other than that she was also worried about the traditions.

AMT: You know long before you were shot we heard about you and we knew that the schools were being attacked and that they were being blown up. And I'm like it's incredible to me that you and your classmates would still get up in the morning and hide your books and go to school.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: We were really enthusiastic at the time and we wanted to learn. The thing that I noticed in my life during their situation was that, before the terrorism, I used to carry a heavy back to school and I used to learn everyday but I did not know how important education is until we were stopped. Because I realized that the terrorists are against education and especially girls education because they are afraid of it. Why are they stopping it? Because simply they are afraid of educated women. They're afraid of the power of knowledge. And when a woman gets it they get more afraid because at that time they were against education but not against boys education. They are against girls education especially. So at that time we girls said, we women said, that we are not afraid of them, even they are afraid of us. That's why they are killing us. That's why they are blowing up our schools. This shows a sign. They shot me. They are shooting other girls. They're killing people. It shows a great symbol of the-- It shows us that those terrorists who are killing people do not have the courage. They're not brave at all. They're afraid of the power of women and it showed that women are courageous.

AMT: Somewhere, as all of this was happening, Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan. What did you think of her?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: When I think of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed, she was a great leader and she is a symbol for us. She is an example for us that when she became the prime minister it was a message to us that girls can do anything. You can go to politics. You can be the next prime minister. And that's what I thought. And if Benazir Bhutto can be the Prime Minister why can't I. When she was. Assassinated at that time it was like some something in my heart was just pushing me: Malala speak up. But then later on 2008 came I saw more terrorism and we went through a really hard situation. And then later in 2009 in the month of January they said on the radio that no girl is allowed to go to school and if she goes, then you know what we can do. And at that hard time, even we continued our education but then later on we had to leave Swat because the situation was getting really hard and we became IDP. That means internally displaced persons, and we had to migrate to other areas and we sacrificed. We went homeless because we wanted to see peace. We went back to Swat. We got our normal life. Still it was hard because the schools were blown up. Houses were blown up.

AMT: And you were still speaking out with your father and you even had a diary at one point under another name on the BBC Urdu Service. Do you think that if your father was not so outspoken you would have been so outspoken?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: My father was an example for me and he is a great father because he says that I did not give you something extra. And he said that I did not cut your wings. I let you fly and that is the reason that my other friends Moniba Malka and [unintelligible], they all they were also speaking with me when they were younger but when they grew a little bit, when they became 13-14, their parents did not allow them to speak anymore. And that is the reason that they are now left behind. So I think that the parents support is needed. The support of my father is very important in my campaign for girls education because he was the one who supported me. It does not mean that he just pushed me but he only supported me.

AMT: In your book you say he asked your mother if she blamed him for you being shot. What did she say?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: My mother says that - she always say, she always say, even at that hard time - that what you did was right. You are following the path of truth. You were not doing anything false. She always supported us. She is a great mother, although she was against my not covering this.

AMT: How did that shooting change things for your family?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Now we are living in a different kind of society. The street is not the same. And my way to my school is not the same. I can't see that dirty river. So I still miss the dirty river as well. And it's really hard for my mother as well because she is really weak in speaking English and Urdu and it's hard for her to live just in a house and there is no one she can speak to.

AMT: You know I watched you at the U.N. I watched her speech. You know that we were all mesmerized by you speaking at the U.N. I was wondering what was going through your mind as you got up to speak to all of those people and to the people beyond that room.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I had three pages. And I was holding this pages in my hand and I just put that on the pendulum. And when I stood there, there was a mike in front of me and I could see 400 youth, 400 young people in front of me from more than a hundred countries. But I could see more than millions, more than four and five and six millions of people. I could see the people of Pakistan were suffering from terrorism. I could see the children of India who are suffering from child labour. I could see the people of Afghanistan who are suffering from the wildness of terrorism. I could see the people of Syria and Nigeria and that is why I said, Malala, speak up. Speak up for their rights and for your rights and speak up that education is the only solution for it.

AMT: You were wearing Benazir Bhutto's shawl that day.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes. Benazir Bhutto as I said she was a great leader and her daughter gifted me that shawl and it was a really great honour for me, and I still thank her for such a great honour. Because it just reminds you of Benazir Bhutto, her speeches, and she has like an image of leadership in herself. So it was also telling me, Malala, you can also be the next leader in Pakistan.

AMT: That's a wonderful ambition to have. But you know you're 16 years old. Do you ever feel the weight of all of this on you? Do you ever just want to be with your girlfriends and hanging out, reading more novels, watching some movies?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I try my best to read books and do enjoy my life. But I seem really good outside to the world. I'm really kind to everyone but at home things are quite different. I am good but like my brothers are really really an extremely naughty. They always tease me. He just teases me all the time.

AMT: He brings you back to Earth doesn't he? You know I have something I want to show you, because you have two girlfriends who were with you that day, who were also- they were injured and we went to see them and they sent a message to you. So can I play it for you?

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes. Yes.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Hi Malala How are you. I hope you well and I would just ask like to keep going your fight for Pakistan girl, Pakistan woman and for Pakistan girls and education for rights and something. So don't stop because Pakistan, all girls are with you. So keep going. And this is my message like help the poor people.

VOICE 2: Hi Malala. How are you? I hope that you are doing well. I am really happy that you might get the Nobel prize. I was really happy when I heard the news about you and this award because I feel that all of Pakistan is getting this award. And I am very happy. We are all with you in your struggles. Me and Shazia both are with you. Thank you Malala.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Oh thank you.

AMT: Well I'm glad you got to see them.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I didn't know. Thank you so much.

AMT: They want you to continue your work. And we're almost out of time. But tell me about the Malala Foundation. Tell me what you're doing.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: I want to work for girls education and for that reason we said that we would set up Malala Foundation. And it is now that we decided, before [unintelligible] I was telling my father that I want to make a Malala Education Foundation and I want to work for girls education. But then I was shot and I could not continue that. But now I'm happy there so many people are with me and people are supporting me. So we again set up Malala Foundation. And Malala Foundation has three main objectives. The first one is advocacy. We want to tell people how important education is. And our second main goal is that to work on the ground. We want to build schools. We want to do teachers training. We want to do seminars to motivate parents of the children to let them go to school. And then our third goal is to recognize those girls who are speaking up for their rights but not yet known and we want them to get the opportunity to speak globally. So we want to give them a platform to speak.

AMT: You know, the Taliban shot you because they wanted to silence you. Instead they gave you a bigger voice.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Yes because they only thought that they would to silence me. They failed. Now not only I'm speaking but there are millions of girls who are raising their voice, who are speaking up for their rights.

AMT: Thank you for sharing your voice, Malala.

MALALA YOUSAFZAI: Thank you so much.

AMT: My conversation with the extraordinary Malala Yousafzai from October of 2013. She won the Nobel Peace prize the following year. That was just part of our original conversation. We are going to link to the full interview. It was also televised. You can watch it as well. It'll be on our Web site cbc.ca/thecurrent. That's our program for today stay with Radio One for Q. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Thursday June 13, 2019 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This