Decorum + Discrimination
The theme of this episode is our society’s comfort with silent racism and covert discrimination. We’re diving into the fourth police budget increase of the year so far, the police DNA phenotyping scandal, Alberta's new premier, and the announcement that the provincial province will be providing $187M towards homelessness and addiction supports.
Oumar also got to interview Nicholas Marcus Thompson of the Black Class Action lawsuit against the government of Canada, a landmark case that was recently elevated to the United Nations after the government tried to dismiss it.
The Importance of Criticizing Power
🎵 Intro Music – “Not Alone” by Melafrique
Oumar Salifou (Host)
Hi, welcome back to the podcast and thank you for listening. We actually recorded our intro that you were supposed to be hearing right now, but it all got deleted, so we’re doing it again and hopefully we’re also going to be less rambly this time. So more direct to the point, which I think you’ll enjoy as a listener.
Nicholas Yee (Producer)
Yeah we have a lot to get through. There’s definitely been a lot that’s happened since our last episode came out, which is interesting because we actually recorded the last one like a long time before we released it, but it still almost kind of felt like they were almost part of like the same moment, right? Like we were leading up to some council meetings about the police budget, and it was just in the aftermath of the whole funding of the Chinatown Operation Centre.
But since then, just in the couple of weeks that it’s been in October so far, there’s been a lot of things that have changed in our city and our province. Some important announcements and decisions and things that have come to light, so we definitely have a lot of stuff to get through in this episode. And we also have an interview, Oumar, that you did with the director of the Black Class Action lawsuit, which was just recently escalated to the United Nations. That’ll be later in the episode.
I think we just wanted to start off here with a follow-up from our last episode where we interviewed Michael Janz, current city councillor, who’s known for taking a critical stance on the police. So if you haven’t checked out that interview, you definitely should.
We had some interesting discussion and critique of the interview afterwards. Oumar, do you want to give a little recap?
Oumar
Yeah, for sure. I had a conversation with Michael and we basically talked about the police. But what was kind of brought into contrast were a few points that were made during that conversation.
This theory of change was brought up where there was an emphasis on how people outside of council — like Black Lives Matter or anyone that’s interested in seeing reform or systemic change — should be putting pressure on council to actually do their jobs, according to the interview that we had.
There were also comments that were made that were kind of, I guess, trying to alleviate some of the public perception around people who are asking for defunding the police. So Michael Janz talked about how, you know, he has friends who are police or he’s not “anti-police.” In the interview, I responded with how if you’re anti or not, usually that doesn’t make a difference, and how the whole movement is painted in a negative light.
There was also a comment that was directed towards conservatives and how conservatives should be the ones advocating for police defunding because of the fiscal implications of giving police more and more money. So those are all things that really didn’t resonate with me and I tried my best to, I guess, open up the conversation when the interview was happening to address the difference of opinion and how some of those things can be problematic or I think can lead to inaction, or maybe the wrong action being taken.
And it’s a good opportunity to just address that difference and be open and honest about how we not only want to highlight that, but also say that there are opportunities to evolve the conversation in the future and have more conversations. But also put that criticism and that contrast on a pedestal and I think normalize it, because it can be taken personally or it can be taken the wrong way. But I think ultimately, it’s all in service of trying to reach a better place when it comes to the conversation around policing or defunding the police. So I think that’s kind of my take on the situation.
Nicholas
Yeah, totally. You know, we’re not about backstabbing or disrespecting our guests, but I think when you have someone on who is in a prominent position of power, the whole point is to challenge them. And I think what we’re really trying to do here and, Oumar, what you really do well in your interviews is try and create more of an open space, take the politics out of it, take the performance out of it.
And ultimately, what we were most critical of coming out of that interview was just the fact that we almost couldn’t really get there. Like it almost just seemed like, as a politician, maybe he’s just so used to being in spaces where you have to put on that political mask and you have to hit those talking points. And more often than not, those political spaces are just dominated by very pro-institution, pro-status quo, powerful voices. So if you do have a view that’s critical of those institutions, you end up downplaying it or softening it by saying some of the things that he was saying, like “I’m not anti-police, I’m actually friendly with police.”
We’re trying to get away from all of that on this show. We just want to have more of an honest dialog here and more of like a people-centred dialog. So anyways, just wanted to clear a little bit of the air there, I guess you could say. You know, we would love to have him back on or other people in power. And that’s the whole point, is to challenge that.
And especially with politicians where we see like there might be a little bit more of an opening, right? Like, you know, we’re not going to get someone on who is just very, very pro-police. It might be revealing, but ultimately it’s most productive, I think, to try and talk with someone who seems like they could be sympathetic or understanding of your view and wants to respect that, or wants to try and build that understanding.
So yeah, I guess I look forward to more conversations like that in the future. And Oumar, you said you had a chance to meet up with someone who was on Michael Janz’ mailing list or something like that?
Oumar
Yeah! Someone who got sent the interview and listened to it. So we were able to get a coffee, and they listened to the show as well. And I think what I got from that was they understood how things could be perceived as maybe hostile, but ultimately they appreciated that pushback or at least like that critical conversation that we had at the end.
So yeah, I feel like there's always an opportunity, hopefully on this platform to continue that process because it doesn’t really end. That’s the whole point of it, right? We want to see how these opinions can evolve as these political decisions are made. And as the power shifts between council and the police.
Nicholas
Totally. And yeah, if you’ve got feedback for us, we’d always love to hear it. You can reach out to us at any of our social media. And yeah, we would just love to love to engage with that.
Another Police Budget Increase + DNA Phenotyping
Nicholas
So anyways, jumping into some of the big items. There were a couple council meetings about the police budget. Originally, a decision was supposed to be made earlier in the month and then it was delayed… actually, why was it delayed, Oumar? You said you were at that meeting. Or you were watching you.
Oumar
Ooh, I’m pretty sure it was delayed for about a week’s time because of some confusion about the report and the perceived conflict of interest with the report that council received. So I’m pretty sure they had a few other questions that they wanted administration to answer, so they brought it back.
Nicholas
Well anyways, this whole process played out and ultimately — not really a surprise — but the city council voted to raise the police budget yet again by another $7 million. And I guess this is part of the whole like funding formula that we’re getting back to. And this follows after a string of police budget increases that we’ve, of course, covered in this show.
But just to recap, we went into this year with a police budget of $384 million, and that was then raised in May by $1 million. So they decided they were going to raise it for 2023 by $1 million. And then just a couple of weeks after that, in June, is when they decided that they were going to reinstate the funding formula, which Edmonton is the only city in Canada that has a funding formula. And at the same time, they raised the police budget by another $22 million. And then in August, as we covered in the last episode, they decided to fund the Healthy Streets Chinatown Operation Centre, specifically earmarking another $4.5 million for police out of that. And then with this latest $7 million increase, that brings the police budget now to $418.5 million after we came into this year with a budget of $384 million. So yeah, that's a huge increase.
Oumar
It’s a huge increase. But I feel like it’s important to remember how councillors were talking when they were running for election. Taproot Edmonton, which is a local publication that did some really good municipal election content last year, released a survey asking councillors, our future councillors, what they thought about police funding.
So this question, “what should be done about the police budget in Edmonton?” The answers that were given are really indicative of the shift that happens between engaging with what politicians think public perception is when they’re in need of public approval, and then when they’re in power, how do they actually utilize their power to defend their own interests, or maybe what they think are the best interests for the city?
So in this question, “what should be done about the police budget?” The first answer that was given — “increase it as determined by the funding formula” — only 2 councillors agreed with an increase. Which is surprising, right? Because we just talked about how their budget actually increased by $7 million. And we’re still sticking to the funding formula. The funding formula was removed for a very short period of time and now it’s being brought back on. And it’s still going to be amended next year because there is a lot of confusion.
But the next answer that was given is to freeze the police budget until it’s in line with comparable cities. There you have 4 other councillors. And then we have another answer which is “decrease it somewhat,” we have three councillors and one councillor decided not to have a position on the issue at all, Andrew Knack.
But this is all just to say that there is such a stark contrast between councillors that you could say are more honest and more direct about their unequivocal support for police, and then councillors that are willing to play both sides. But in reality, they’re not playing any side, they’re just playing the police side because like I said, we continue…
Nicholas
Well no, they’re playing us.
Oumar
Yeah, there you go. That’s very accurate, Nicholas. Yeah, they’re playing us to give the police millions more.
Nicholas
Yeah. I think there’s like that difference there between when you were a candidate and maybe wanting to meet public opinion where it’s at. And then once you’re in power, how insulated you then become from public opinion, kind of like what we just talked about in how last episode’s interview played out. And you now kind of have more control to shape the narrative yourself, right?
So you know, something Andrew Knack said when they decided to go back to the funding formula was, “people have been calling for defunding the police, but I’ve also heard people say that they want to give the police more money. So we’re giving the police more money.” And then here this time, when they raised the police budget by the most recent $7 million, he described the increase as the “least bad of two options” where the other option was — rather than giving them a $7 million increase, the other option was to commit to increasing the budget every year for the next three years.
But it’s like, why are those the two options? If council is supposed to represent public interests, and when they were running, a lot of these councillors said we should freeze it or decrease it — actually, the majority of them say we should either freeze or decrease it. Why are we pretending like the only two options are to either raise it again in a year where we’ve already raised it so much, or to commit to raising it even more?
Oumar
And this is all happening under the huge shadow cast by this —I like to think of it like a police gazebo, or a police like tent of racism, of violence, and anti-Black profiling. We’ve seen with this DNA phenotyping story that’s gotten international headlines, where the Edmonton police essentially paid an American company $1700 to produce an image of a criminal accused of a violent sexual assault. And there are no leads. The investigation has essentially reached its end. But as a last ditch effort, what the Edmonton police decided to do is publish a computerized image of a Black person, a Black man, along with a map of a supposed ancestry. All of this taken from DNA. And you can see on the African map these certain zones that are highlighted in Central Africa and West Africa. And you can see this…
Nicholas
Problem areas.
Oumar
Yeah, exactly right. Problem areas. The heart of darkness, as some racists like to say, right? (Laughs) But yeah, it’s like Edmonton police really got a first place medal in racism. And it was difficult to see some of the responses and how focused they were on debunking the science. We had a friend of the show, Bashir Mohamed, who’s written a lot of really smart commentary about race in Edmonton. I think he wrote a similar thing to what VICE and a lot of other people wrote, which is a focus on why the science is faulty, why it’s not reliable, and how this obviously is racist and profiles basically every Black person, right?
But I think that really ignores the fact that racism doesn’t need the science to be right. When scientists — I say “scientists” with air quotes — in the 16th century, when phrenology was being produced and created, when people were using callipers to measure Black people’s skulls, creating ideas around intelligence and IQ and race, ranking and categorizing racial hierarchies, all of that was done under the guise of science.
And there could have been debates, and then there definitely were debates at the time that classified these things as ridiculous and inaccurate. But what they really are is racist. Something that would have been helpful in that conversation would have been to focus on the context of the Edmonton police specifically, and their own history of anti-Black racism and profiling and the impacts that that has on people in this city.
I can tell you it’s a pretty chilling effect, and there are already so many negative interactions that are had in the public between Black people and everyone else. And this profiling just takes things and puts them on a different level.
Nicholas
Yeah, totally. Just looking back at the data — and this is 5 years old now — but the data that like Bashir and Black Lives Matter published about how often Edmonton police stop people. You’re 10 times more likely than a white person being carded if you're an Indigenous woman. If you’re Black you have a 5 times chance of being carded. So it’s well demonstrated, the impact and harm that Edmonton Police Service’s activities have on Black and Indigenous communities.
And yeah, the focus on debunking the science ignores that context and is just ultimately a wasted effort. Because it was never about scientific accuracy. The whole DNA phenotyping jargon, it just needs to be legitimate enough that you have some kind of ground to stand on when you’re making your hateful statement. When you’re putting out that computer-generated image of a Black guy that anyone could look at and say just represents any Black person they know, you’re doing that to shape public perception of Black people. You’re doing that to spread that misconception or promote that stereotype. And you’re just trying to find something to lend just enough legitimacy to it that people feel like they need to engage with it.
And the important thing is that the damage is done. Once they put that out. The damage is already done, right? So by engaging with the scientific debate, it's almost just being fooled into thinking that that’s going to solve anything or that that’s going to undo any of the damage. The whole focus on debunking… and these are old discussions too, right? It’s not it’s not like this is the first time that the idea of DNA phenotyping has been brought up. And there’s of course been similar conversations around like surveillance and using artificial intelligence to recognize faces. It’s always like the same kinds of discussions. And people always jump in to engage.
And a big thing, I think, is that the media is dominated by people in more academic circles. Obviously, people with university educations. So people try and take more of that approach to it, I guess. But I’m just reminded of that CIA playbook on sabotaging organizations, that I think we’ve talked about on the show before. But there’s that one in there that says “refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to reopen the question of the advisability of that decision.”
So by reopening this debate, you’re kind of sucking everyone into spending their energy debating the science while you’ve already done your intended work of spreading that stereotype, spreading that hateful idea out there.
Oumar
And reinforcing that the police are the solution, right? They’re going to bring this stand in for Black people to justice, right?
Nicholas
Yeah. You brought up Bashir’s op-ed there. And the interesting thing is that I feel like it was almost cut off. Like the whole thing almost feels like an intro, and then it cuts off right before it feels like it should have gone into everything that we just talked about here. So I don’t know if he actually wrote something longer, and that’s just like the media bias being like, “no no no, the more substantive, sophisticated take here is to just focus on refuting DNA phenotyping rather than talking about systemic racism or institutional racism within Edmonton Police Service.” It seems almost to be something that they want to avoid, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they actually just cut that out.
And I feel like this also mirrors the whole idea of the funding formula too, right? Even just in the name — funding formula — it’s designed to make it sound more academic and data backed. And when you look at the criteria or actually what goes into that formula, it is very arbitrary. There’s even something in there that they call an “efficiency factor” or something, and it’s just completely arbitrary. So really, they just decide whatever they want to set that as and whatever they want to raise the police budget to. But by calling it a funding formula, you kind of create the image that it’s based on science and it’s academically sound and there’s nothing to see here.
Oumar
Yeah there’s, there’s no valid critique of something that’s scientific or empirical. When we know that it’s constructed with clear aims and clear goals, and its function reflects this political systems’ goals and its aims.
Nicholas
So to wrap it up there, so we’re not just saying what happened and all of that. I think if there’s a takeaway here, it’s to not get sucked into the more petty discussions — whether it’s debunking DNA phenotyping in a specific use case, or going into whether there’s a conflict of interest in that specific report provided to the police commission — it’s just to keep focusing on like who’s in power making these decisions, how are they continuing to reinforce the status quo, and what opportunity is there to hold them accountable?
It doesn’t absolve city council of responsibility if they were shown a dishonest report, or if specific science that was used by the Edmonton Police Service was debunked. Ultimately they’re still responsible for making what decisions are going to be in the best interests of keeping people safe, and keeping people safe from harmful institutions like the police.
Oumar
Absolutely.
Black Class Action Lawsuit + Covert Discrimination
Oumar
I had a conversation today for the podcast about this Black Class Action lawsuit that’s taking place right now in Ontario, in Toronto, with a Black federal workers who filed in 2020 against the Canadian government because of overt and covert discrimination and racism that they faced at work. So this lawsuit has now been escalated to the United Nations with the help of Amnesty International, because the Canadian government refuses to engage on an honest level.
They’ve decided to stall repeatedly. And when they’re not stalling, they’ve insisted on removing the case from the justice system towards arbitration or towards means that are easier to control the results of. They’ve promised Black mental health resources that haven’t been delivered yet. So this is a really egregious situation that is impacting Black workers across the country. So it was great to get the opportunity to speak with Nicholas Marcus Thompson, who’s the executive director of the Black Class Action Secretariat.
So I hope you enjoy the interview. And me and Nicholas will be back after to recap and talk about a few other things.
Nicholas
Yeah… you’re talking about me, right?
Oumar
(Laughs) I guess they should have clarified.
Nicholas
Okay, so you’re going to talk with Nicholas, and then we’ll be back.
🎵 Intro Music
Oumar
To start off our conversation, thank you for taking the time to speak with me. For listeners who may not be familiar with the Black Class Action Secretariat and the work that you do, Nicholas, can you let us know who you are and what the class action lawsuit is all about?
Nicholas Marcus Thompson (Black Class Action Secretariat)
So we are a nonprofit organization that is working to eliminate systemic discrimination throughout Canadian life. We’re presently focused on Canada’s public service, the federal public sector, which is the largest employer in Canada. We’re organized, and our members are mostly public service employees — retired and present public service employees. So we’re really seeking to dismantle and eliminate centuries old barriers that have prevented black Canadians from fully participating in Canadian life.
Oumar
From your own personal experience, I read that you were working with the federal government and, as part of your job, I think you were doing collections, if I’m not mistaken. And you were basically told to clean the office, do things that weren’t that weren’t at the level that you were hired for. Can you explain what discrimination in the workplace looks like and feels like for Black people and what that experience was like for you personally?
Nicholas
Well, what does Black what does discrimination look like for black people in the public service? My answer to that would be discrimination operates in a very covert way in Canada’s public service today, where it is disguised by procedures, it is supported by policies and laws. For example — within the public service, if one was to apply for a job, there’s a lot of discretionary powers that employers can apply that would result in you being excluded and who they want being selected.
And they would be able to say, “well, we’ve followed the process.” I’ll give you one example where I was not selected for a staffing process. During that, I had done everything, I had submitted my reference. And a team leader who conducted my reference check denied me based on items that we’d never brought to my attention before.
I applied for recourse, and during that recourse period, the employer themselves determined that I was treated arbitrarily and there was no basis to exclude me. But by the time you get back around to it, the process is already completed, they’ve already hired who they wanted to, and there’s no recourse really left or resolution really left for you there.
It mostly works in the public service. People might think it’s about calling somebody the N-word. While you may have instances of racial slurs happening in the workplace, the discrimination really happens with those who wield the power over you. And that is used in the procedures and particularly in the staffing processes.
If they want to develop you, they’ll come and tell you, “we want to develop you and we’re going to put out a poster. We’re going to be asking for these things. We know you have these things, and we’re going to tailor this in a way that you’re the only one who can benefit from that.” So there’s all of these discretionary staffing measures that allow the employer to select who they want.
And you can’t prove anything. they’ve followed whatever the procedures were. But when you look at it at a systemic level, that’s where you see. Wait a minute, how come they’re only hiring and promoting and supporting this one group of people and excluding a lot of these groups, particularly the Black group? When you look at the entire picture and you see what the leadership looks like and who’s being appointed, then you realize, “wait a minute — so nobody else is good enough? Only white employees are qualified, have the skills and experience and education for management and leadership positions?” So it leaves you with these questions, and that’s where you realize that something is fundamentally flawed within the system.
Oumar
Once these realizations start really sinking in… I think Black people have known that this has been happening for decades, for as long as settlers have been in Canada, basically. So what was the process like from going from realization to to action now, where things are being elevated even past Canada’s justice system and going to the United Nations and the international community, because of how difficult things have become in Canada?
Nicholas
To put this into historical context, Black people have been in Canada for 400 years. It’s one of the groups that have been here for a very long time, and throughout the passage of time, Black people have endured discrimination for centuries. Starting with being brought to Canada as part of the transatlantic slave trade, sold through slavery. The free labour of Black people was used to help build an early Canada. When slavery was abolished, Black people still still could not fully participate through… You had to own property, and of course coming from slavery you can’t own property. So another systemic way to exclude Black people by following the law again. And if we look back to those early times, we’ll see how those systems were used.
If we go back to the first World War, when Black people were trying to serve in the first World War, and they were told, “this is a white man’s war, we do not want Black people. We do not want to serve alongside Black people.” Back then, the racism was very overt and very well known. “We do not want you based on your skin colour.” Black people pushed back and we were eventually allowed to form a Black battalion. And they could only do construction, cutting down the trees and all of these different things. Very important work still. Defusing landmines. Their efforts to end the war contributed significantly.
When the war finished, they received nothing. They didn’t get any pensions. They didn’t get any homecoming. And when we compare that to over 100 years later, Black public servants are at the bottom, just like the Black battalion. Disregarded, overlooked, bypassed, treated inhumanely. Black people today retire broken, with nothing really to show after serving 50 years, 40 years, 30 years, serving Canadians. It’s the same comparison. It’s just that you likely won’t be called the N-word to your face. But those prejudices, those biases — and it’s very conscious bias. Very conscious bias.
Because to exclude somebody, you have to think about it. You have to think carefully. It’s premeditated. You think, well, this person is going to be better than this. This group is considered a lazy group. This group is considered a hardworking group. You’re thinking about this. It’s very conscious. But the idea of unconscious bias is an excuse to not take responsibility on the issue.
So we’re dealing with centuries old systems of oppression designed to exclude Black people. If we go back to the history of how these institutions were created, and how it was created to exclude Black people. So they’re working very well over 100 years later. That’s how they were intended to work, and it’s still carrying out those functions centuries later.
When we talk about the breaking point for me in starting this particular movement for accountability and justice. I had been pushing for years with the employer as a union president on addressing these issues. What I noticed in my workplace was that there were few black employees. I represented just about a thousand workers in Toronto, and I noticed that there were just about 15 Black people out of a thousand workers that were employed within that office. And there were none in management, not in the executive ranks.
But there were racialized people. They were hiring a lot of racialized people, which was really good. And there were a lot of racialized people in the professional programs and the auditing jobs. There were a lot of racialized people in the management and executive ranks within my office. And I was trying to have more diversity and to utilize some of that discretionary staffing powers to target the exclusion, the disproportionate exclusion of Black employees, to create staffing processes that would target black employees to develop them so that when staffing processes come out at the higher level, they would have had some experience acting at that level to qualify to even apply.
During that time, Black employees did not have the experience to even apply for that position because they’re not getting the opportunity to develop the skills or the experience to qualify for even applying. And at the time, the employer said, “Nicholas, if we did that, it would be discriminatory to white employees. Because then white employees could come and say, how come there isn’t a poster that says white targeting white employees?” And it was just ridiculous.
And what George Floyd happened, I was leading protests in Toronto, and we were in Markham and Ottawa. And when I saw the level of support, it had me thinking. If we have all of this support, why isn’t anything really changing for us? I really thought about it, and my conclusion was, if we don’t take some type of action to bring about meaningful change now, we will never have the opportunity to do so perhaps ever again, especially when we have global support at this time.
And I thought about it and I thought about how Black people were treated in employment and not just in the federal government. We’re talking about everywhere. It’s an issue that exists in the private sector, and we’ve seen in the media what happened with Juggernauth and how she’s been treated by Bell after 11 years in that position. And her story is actually very common for Black women in the public service, Black women who are facing an additional barrier being a woman and then being Black. And then there’s the intersectional aspects of it. Some might belong to the LGBTQ community, some might be disabled. So you have all of those intersectional aspects on top of being Black that really add additional barriers to that exclusion.
That breaking point really culminated around the George Floyd era, and wanting to take action that would have a lasting impact because the protests, I thought, would end. And it did. And then we go back to when we look at how George Floyd happened and the thousands that came about, we had to do something that was meaningful, that would have a significant impact today and for the future generation.
And I want to make that very clear. We’re not fighting for the future generation alone. We’re fighting for today. We shouldn't wait another generation for change. Many people have said to me, “Nicholas, yes, what you’re doing is great. We cannot allow the next generation to endure this.” Well, I’m saying we cannot allow this generation to endure this. Why must my generation go through a hundred years of trauma and then we have to wait for the next for change to come, another 100 years, or for the prime minister to apologize to public servants 100 years from now with nothing meaningful changing.
So we’ve decided to utilize the justice system to attempt to force change. The public service will not change on its own. I can tell you that, because it is those who are wielding that power, those who have benefited from that discrimination, those who have thrived from it, are now responsible for changing it. And they will only do the bare minimum and they will only do whatever is required to check that box.
But any tangible action that would really impact Black people in the public service, it will not voluntarily come. Right now and over the past few years, we’re hearing a lot of “we’re listening and we’re learning and we know about the harms and and we’re working to do this.” But nothing is changing for Black people who are employed. And that’s why we’re escalating and we’re continuing to escalate our fight because Canada is not serious about addressing this issue.
Oumar
On the point that you made about this disproportionately affecting Black women. I think I heard in one of your events that 70% of Black Class Action lawsuits are women. So this is not only a Black issue, obviously, it’s also impacting women very heavily. And you mentioned the pushback you’re getting from the federal government. Can you explain to listeners what’s going on with them reviewing their own data, the constant delays, and how this has led to working with Amnesty International to go to the United Nations?
Nicholas
Well, let’s be very clear here. The government has known this issue existed for decades because it has had the data, it has had reports indicating that Black people were at the entry level positions for a very long time, and were not being promoted. They have known who were in their executive ranks for a very long time. And also to be very clear, the government has acknowledged that that exclusion has caused harm to workers, and that for too many Black people, discrimination is a reality, and that the pain and suffering that it causes is real.
Government continues to say this. So they’re not challenging what we have said and what workers have said. They are acknowledging it and saying that they’re committing to addressing it. The disconnect is that no meaningful action is happening to address that issue. And for example, they’ve talked about creating a Black mental health fund that we’ve called for. And the issue really is that Black, particularly Black women, are serving his country for decades. After 30 years, they’re badly wounded, being excluded, denied over and over for promotional opportunities, being asked to train others. You’re good enough to train others. You might get an opportunity to act in a higher position for a short period of time. But you will never be permanently appointed to that position.
You hear racial slurs in the workplace or you’re treated differently based on your race. And then you go to EAP, Employee Assistance Program, and you tell them what you’re experiencing in the workplace. And they tell you that it’s your “perception” that you’re being discriminated against. Well, what do you do at that point? You go to the union, union doesn’t help you. You go to EAP, they don’t help you. And the workplace is the perpetrator. So workers have nowhere to turn to and have to learn to cope with all of that trauma for decades.
When we’re talking about the impacts on workers, the government is fully aware of the problem. They know it exists, they know what needs to happen, but they’re not implementing it. So we’ve called for a mental health program. They say they’re creating it, and Black workers are at the bottom of that program and the white executives are at the top of that program. So they’re replicating the same failed structures, or it was designed that way. So maybe it’s that same continued design of having Blacks doing the work at the bottom and having to fight to convince white folks at the top that this is the program that’s needed. It’s not going to get anywhere very slowly, not without ever being implemented.
And where are the Black executives at the top giving direction? Those with the lived experience that can really help to steer this program? Why does it always have to be through a white lens? Or a colonizer lens, to be very clear. In order to create the solutions that are needed, there has to be Black leadership, not you picking our input and then you deciding on what that would look like.
And that’s why we have been able to engage Amnesty International. They are the premier human rights body internationally across the globe. They champion human rights in some really bad countries and call out governments across the globe on human rights violations. And for them to call out Canada on human rights violations of Black people, it’s nothing short of atrocious and shameful for this country, this first world leading country, to be called out for human rights violations.
And it’s something that must be addressed. And we’re committed to addressing it. And ultimately, we’re not an enemy of Canada. We want to make Canada a better place. We want to ensure that we can all participate. And just like the civil rights movement, when rights were won for Black people, all underrepresented groups benefited from that fight. And they are today the same way.
Oumar
I think that’s a very good point. And I think it really illustrates what’s at the core of this fight. So from your perspective, what do you think is going to be happening next for the lawsuit and for the complaint to the United Nations, but also for workers that are a part of your movement? What do you think is going to be next?
Nicholas
What we’re doing is empowering workers. And many are coming forward to share their stories, not just in the public service, but outside too. We’re providing a platform that’s empowering to women. It’s giving women a voice to come forward and say, this happened to me and I’m not going to accept that anymore.
So in terms of what’s next, we’re continuing to build a national and international platform to advocate on this issue. As for the legal matter, the government is seeking to dismiss that after acknowledging that there’s a problem and after saying there are harms, and after saying we’re working to fix it, they’re seeking to dismiss the action in the court, saying that the court is not the right forum.
It should go back to the grievance process that the employer controls. It should go back to arbitration that the union is the gatekeeper to. It should go back to these systems that you’ve acknowledged are broken, that you acknowledge needs fixing. And it should go back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has acknowledged that they have a systemic discrimination problem. To go back to that commission whose workers are saying they’re facing discrimination within the commission. It should go back to those broken systems that workers have not been able to get justice from for decades. That’s what the federal government is saying to the workers, those who have been traumatized and treated horribly for decades. Government wants them to go back to that system.
So that’s where we’re at with the legal framework. We are hoping that the court will reject those assertions. And with regards to the complaint with the United Nations, we’re going to continue meeting country after country, and we’re going to let the world know how Canada treats Black people. We’re going to let the world know how Canada treats Black people. And we’re going to ask the international community to hold Canada to account. This complaint, the UN will have to ask Canada to respond to it. And eventually, if they see fit, they may come to conduct an investigation in Canada. Canada can allow or deny them entry. We’ll see how that progresses.
But in the meantime, we will use our voice. We will talk to every athlete, we will talk to every celebrity. We will talk to every every political leader, every politician. And whenever we get the opportunity, we will let the world know about Canada’s track record and human rights violations. It’s well known of the human rights violations of Indigenous people. And we will let the world know how Canada has treated and continues to treat Black people. And when Canada is finally ready to come to the table, we’ll be there as a willing participant to shape and to help change the course that Canada has taken for a very, very long time.
Oumar
Thank you so much for that great answer. And to wrap it up, how can listeners support you and your movement if they want to, are there any places that they can go to or any other ways that they can support?
Nicholas
Sure, there’s a lot of simple things that Canadians can do to support. And I want to emphasize, this fight is not just for Black people. We’re really fighting for the soul of this nation here on the ugly issue of discrimination that really seeks to uphold white supremacy while excluding everyone else, particularly Black people. And what the end result is, if everyone gets an equal opportunity to participate, then we're going to make this country a better place for everyone.
We’re going to have a more productive public service. That means Canadians are going to get a more productive public service and the services that they receive. If we have employees who are coming to work in almost full capacity and not injured and operating at 40%, the outcomes to Canadians are going to be greater, much greater.
So we are fighting for the soul of this nation as it pertains to this issue. And it’s everyone’s fight, from the dinner table to the soccer field, to the classroom, to the church, to the mosque, to the temple. Wherever it is, these issues come up, and using your voice to speak out on these issues is a great starting point.
And if you visit blackclassaction.ca, we have a petition that’s there. A lot of our public advocacy requires funds, a lot of funds. So members of the public can make a donation, organizations can make donations as well as individual donations. We have a merchandise store. You can purchase merchandise from there. You can follow us on social media. You can help amplify or messaging. You can retweet or share a post on Facebook or Instagram or TikTok. All of these little things contribute to filling the bucket, so to speak.
Back to the Racist Comfort Zone (Interview Debrief)
🎵 Intro Music
Nicholas
Sweet, what did you think of that interview?
Oumar
I think it was probably one of my best interviews I’ve done from the perspective of trying to platform someone or a group of people that are doing very, very relevant work to potentially find justice for Black people or improve the lives of Black workers. So it was really cool to not only be able to understand the situation and know what led up to and what’s happening now with the lawsuit, but also really understand what they’re fighting for and why they’re taking this to the international community.
These issues have impacted so many people I know. They’ve impacted me on a much smaller level, because I’m pretty young.,I’m just starting. But yeah, I really enjoyed the conversation.
Nicholas
Was there anything that you thought was unexpected or that you want to scrutinize or dive deeper into?
Oumar
I feel like there’s definitely a tendency to create an idea or an image of what we as Black people are. I’m speaking about this specific part in the interview where the military is brought up, and this battalion in World War One. And it does kind of feel like there is a bit of respectability politics going on, or at least like a model minority situation by comparing the struggle of federal workers today to the struggle of these Black soldiers that were fighting in World War One and didn’t receive the respect or the material return that they expected or that they deserved. Personally, I think that we don’t need to be respectable as Black people to receive justice, to be given opportunities to succeed, whatever that means in this culture. So I would say that was one point that definitely didn’t resonate with me that much. But outside of that, I think most of the conversation and most of the things that were brought up were pretty solid.
Nicholas
I think there’s interesting conundrums there. I think when you’re — I guess even the idea of civil rights and a lawsuit like this… I don’t know, maybe this is not not the right way to view it, but I guess the ask is kind of centred around acceptance into a white system. So whether the acceptance into that system is just for the idea of respect as a human being, there’s an aspect of it that inherently also upholds the values of that system.
And then the other the other conundrum there is if you’re trying to talk about discrimination and you’re trying to talk about racial injustices, especially in the workplace, which is a microcosm of that that system I was just talking about. Almost the only way you can even prove that there is discrimination in that system and according to those rules, is if in the pursuit of those values, you were clearly unfairly denied. You almost have to you have to be the mind be the model minority and then and then rejected or denyed in order to prove that that there is discrimination there. Otherwise, it’s just chalked up to meritocracy, right?
Oumar
Yeah. And I think that’s why I’ve moved towards embracing abolition and just like realizing (laughs). I say that really easily, but I think there’s a lot of merit in understanding that we have to really take it all apart. That we can’t build a new house with the master’s tools, as the cliché goes I guess.
Nicholas
I like what he was saying at the end of the interview about destroying that fake reputation that Canada has. And yeah, I mean that absolutely should be shattered. It doesn’t do anything other than shield our systems and our oppressors from facing any kind of honest accountability, right?
Oumar
Absolutely.
Nicholas
And something — he mentioned the whole listening and learning thing. I was just thinking back to that like Sarah Hamilton tweet.
Oumar
Banger. Amazing tweet.
Nicholas
Yeah, it was. And we’ve posted this before, because she’s this one councillor who, I think she was on the police commission, right?
Oumar
At one point. I think so.
Nicholas
Earlier this year she was talking about why the funding formula actually makes the police more accountable. And then in the last debates around the Chinatown Centre, she was like, “even though we don’t all agree, we’ve had robust debate here. And that’s the main thing.”
But then this thing that she tweeted in 2020 was like, “I’ll be listening and learning and working to do better. March on #yeg, I’ll be in your ranks tonight.”
It’s just obviously interesting here to see that that that performative allyship in 2020, and then speaking in favour of like the police funding formula, and indeed trying to gaslight people into thinking that this is actually good for them and going to lead to more accountability.
Same kind of thing where (pause) Nicholas talks about… it just feels awkward to say.
Oumar
I know, right? (Laughs)
Nicholas
He talks about 2020, seeing like Justin Trudeau kneel and the irony there because he’s the prime minister. But it’s the same kind of thing where there’s that performative allyship and then now it’s like just so out in the open, they’re literally trying to dismiss this case or have it thrown out.
Oumar
I guess it shows how universal these feelings among, like, are white leaders are. It’s pretty universal tactics, at least across Canada. Doesn’t matter if it’s city council in Edmonton or the feds in Ottawa, they’re moving the same.
Nicholas
Yeah, totally. Well, it’ll be interesting to keep up to date with how this lawsuit progresses and if that reckoning or challenge to Canada’s international reputation ever really does come, or with the kind of force that he was talking about.
Oumar
Yeah, well look forward to — I don’t know when this episode is going to come out, but I was told that there’s going to be some pretty big press conferences in a pretty major American city with some big American civil rights leaders. So yeah, keep your eye out. This movement and this group is going to keep doing a lot of important work.
Nicholas
Yeah, totally.
Alberta’s New Premier + Liberal Preference for Silent Racism
Nicholas
Just before we wrap up here, I just want to get your thoughts on our new premier.
Oumar
Oh, man. Danielle Smith is a very special person with a special ability to self-destruct. And I’m speaking from personal experience as someone with a lot of self-destructive tendencies.
Nicholas
Would you say she’s self-destructing? Like, now I mean?
Oumar
I wouldn’t necessarily say now, but I feel like… It’s interesting because I feel like everything that she’s said so far is directly pandering and targeted towards her base of support and people who will listen to things like “unvaccinated people are the most persecuted group.” Or the comments about how Russia and Ukraine, the war there needs to be settled.
Nicholas
Hold on, what did she say? Sorry I keep interrupting.
Oumar
Oh no, it’s fine. I don’t want to paraphrase and get it wrong. But essentially what it boils down to is that the situation in Ukraine needs to be and needs to end in negotiation, and we can’t continue to escalate, nuclear war is not an option. So really, these are pretty reasonable things to say.
Nicholas
Yeah, I was going to say do you disagree?
Oumar
I don’t disagree with anything that she’s saying at all, actually. I feel like what she said, obviously…
Nicholas
About this conflict (laughs).
Oumar
About this conflict, very specifically. I do think that the NDP is being strategic to create a political issue out of this, especially in Alberta with our Ukrainian population, trying to hedge as many votes as they can away from the UCP into their own arms, with a population that they already know is probably leaning conservative. Because the NDP is trying to be strategic.
But it’s sad to see how, instead of focusing on why Danielle Smith is one of the worst politicians Alberta has ever produced because of how indebted she is to big business, how focused she is on austerity and cutting government completely, her conspiratorial thinking and really misguided ideas, like investing in cryptocurrency and placing a lot of unproven health advice over health care experts — and that’s not to say that I’m someone who diverts to experts or thinks that we need to put our systems into their hands — but what Smith is offering isn’t good.
But the alternative and the response to what she’s saying by liberals, I’m thinking of that tweet by Don Iveson, where it’s this proud statement that we won’t be embarrassed to be Albertans because of Smith, and that we have to defend our province against anyone who tarnishes its reputation. I think that’s super pathetic, and that there’s no Alberta worth defending if we don’t actually take any concrete steps to make workers' lives any better, and all we do is just spout rhetoric, give more money to police and then when conservatives make the world think that we’re racist, we double down and try to defend our identity or the label of being from Alberta. It kind of sucks, I feel like it’s pretty lame.
Nicholas
Yeah, that's super lame. Especially when, right after we’ve raised the police budget so many times, this whole DNA phenotyping thing comes out, and then to say — Don Iveson, the originator of the funding formula for Edmonton police — to say “this doesn’t represent Alberta. This person who says offensive things, we’re not about that. What we’re about is silently funnelling power towards oppressive and violent institutions and using the mechanisms of the system to implicitly support hatred and racial violence. We’re not about coming out there and being crass about it.” Anyways.
Oh, yeah. Remember when he was saying the biggest problem that we face today is the lack of decorum in the public square. So he’d totally be the person to condemn Danielle Smith or Trump because of their demeanour and behaviour rather than anything that they represent.
Oumar
Or any policies or any real ramifications. Because there definitely are very clear impacts that happen when conservative governments like the ones that Smith has been in and the ones that are basically being planned right now... People lose their benefits, people lose their jobs. There’s so many different negative aspects when our governments basically shrink and absolve themselves of any responsibility except towards shareholders and businesses, essentially.
So if that isn’t your biggest concern, or if your biggest concern is polarization and how people are talking about politics, and not the fact that people can’t afford to eat, people can’t afford to buy houses, mental illness is spreading across the province and there are very few recourses for people to turn to. It says a lot. I think it says a lot if that’s the focus.
Nicholas
Yeah totally. So then what are your — when’s the next provincial election? I guess it’s next year.
Oumar
It’s in the spring. Yeah, it’s pretty soon.
Nicholas
Yeah. How do you think things are likely to play out? There’s not a lot of time before the election, but there still is enough where there might be a situation that leans things in the direction of Rachel Notley and the NDP. But I really think that Alberta is Danielle Smith’s province to lose. And I feel like they're probably going to form government again.
And if the NDP are lucky, they might make that government. I mean, a minority government. But I really don’t think the NDP have offered a vision. I don’t think they’ve offered people something to vote for. I think they spent a lot of time criticizing Jason Kenney. And then when he resigned, they pivoted to basically doing the same thing with Danielle Smith.
And most people know why the conservatives aren’t great and they still vote for them. So if, as a left alternative, you are basically just giving them more reasons why they aren’t good and not a very clear, very impactful platform that people can connect to and see how those policies will change their lives. If that’s not what you’re doing, then I think it’s a very easy election for them to lose. So yeah, NDP will lose. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Nicholas
I saw people sharing some campaign political photos from Ontario, comparing Doug Ford hugging small business owners and going out there celebrating with them, and then comparing that with like an NDP campaign ad where it’s just some politicians sitting there with their masks on, looking at the camera like “we’re going to make restaurants safe again” or something.
And it’s just like, “well what do you think is going to resonate? Like, this is clearly why it’s not resonating with people.” And here in Alberta, Jason Kenney was able to find success even though he’s also a pretender, he was able to find success in presenting himself as someone who is more in touch, especially in contrast to the old PC party, which had become very elite-based and technocratic. And by uniting Party into the UCP, they kind of brought the more grassroots elements into the fold or leaned into that, and then were able to coalesce it. And ever since then, the NDP has just leaned hard, by contrast, into that expert, elite technocrat approach.
And I don’t know if Danielle Smith is someone who will successfully continue to lean into the more grassroots, “of the people” stance…
Oumar
Well she said that. She said that she’s going to be more of a rural premier.
Nicholas
But you can say it. It's much more whether people actually intuit that. But for sure the NDP aren’t going in that direction at all. And I did some work for the NDP the last election cycle, where I had just done a bunch of videos. And that’s how I met Trent, actually. I had just done like a bunch of videos of different people’s stories, whether it was like a student or like a nurse or a family, like Trent. And it was just a bunch of stories of different people. And then the ads that they chose to put a lot of like ad spend behind were like the ones of [Rachel Notley] and all her like white friends running in the river valley because that’s more the image they wanted to present of their party as opposed to the people that live here. And yeah, I think that just that is just consistent with the kind of the same messaging that they’re running with now.
Oumar
It really, really is. And what you said before about this expert reliance, I’m pretty sure I saw a tweet earlier today from Notley, specifically saying we’re a party of science and we’re going to lean on experts. And that’s all nice and fine, but there’s millions of people in this province that have no connection to any meaningful political vision, have almost no expectation that politics is going to impact their life in a positive way, and are probably pretty cynical and checked out from the political system altogether.
So if you are going to ignore that reality completely and chase after political strategies that are clearly crafted by a very small group of people that are interested in winning votes in Calgary, I just think it’s such a short-sighted and… I don’t even know how to put it. I just feel like it's just useless politics.
The Promised Provincial Funding, Councillors Caught in a Lie
Nicholas
Okay, one last thing we should probably just quickly mention here is the recent announcement that the provincial government was going to be providing $187 million across Alberta — so not just Edmonton, but I think there was something like $70 million going to Edmonton — specifically for addictions and homelessness funding. Good news, at least as it would seem on the surface. And this has been celebrated by politicians like Sohi.
Amarjeet Sohi says “this needed funding will make life better for the many Edmontonians struggling with houselessness, substance use disorder, mental health crises, poverty and intergenerational trauma, and is a true testament of the power of collaboration. Today is a good day for our city.” So that's great news, right Oumar?
Oumar
You know, I guess it is, depending on what angle you look at this announcement from.
Nicholas
Well, I’m looking at it from the angle that every time the issue of police funding has been brought up throughout this year, the answer from politicians like Sohi or even like Michael Janz gave us in the last episode is “yeah, we would all like to defund police or reduce the responsibility that’s on police. But we have a lack of provincial funding to address the root causes of crimes such as mental health crises, addictions, homelessness. So because we don’t have that kind of support from the province, we have to keep funding the police or giving them more money.”
And then what we see here is that the province announces $187 million specifically for addictions and homelessness funding. It’s celebrated by Sohi specifically that this will help Edmontonians struggling with houselessness, substance use disorder, mental health crises, poverty, intergenerational trauma. And then right after that, they voted to raise the police budget again.
Oumar
When you told me that for the first time, I didn’t think of it that way. But I think it really puts it in a very clear way and shows how guarded the police budget is, and how it is from the logic that’s used to defend it to begin with. But even thinking back to 2020 and that summer when the police chief was going in front of council during these hearings and saying things like how 30% of police work is social work. And all these mental health calls are being answered by the police. So we’ve seen hundreds of millions of dollars being invested into the sector. But like you said, the police budget keeps going up. So it raises a lot of questions, but it also answers a lot of questions, too, right?
Nicholas
Yeah. And I’m obviously very cynical that this money is going to go towards whatever you call it, community supports or that it’s actually going to benefit people, just because we know what the political stance of our provincial government is. I don’t think that’s really what we’re saying. Or it’s not that’s not really what I’m saying. Like, I’m not saying the province giving this money or making this announcement actually is going to solve all those issues.
Oumar
Absolutely not.
Nicholas
But it’s being celebrated as if it is by the same politicians that said we couldn’t direct money away from police towards the root causes of crime because we don’t have support from the province. So it’s like these politicians are not being honest about one of those things, right? Either they’re celebrating this thing when it’s not actually going to address those issues, or the whole thing about how we just need support from the province for these issues and that’s why we can’t direct money away from the police budget.
They’re dishonest about one of those things, right? So it’s kind of like, which is it? And clearly, their rhetoric is just directed to, like you said, safeguard the police budget or safeguard that status quo of kind of caving to increasing asks from the police.
So anyways, I saw not just politicians, but a lot of people celebrating this announcement. I think these are just some logical follow up questions that I thought we should pose here and that we should probably be putting towards politicians.
Oumar
No, absolutely. And I think it’s also a moment worth remembering when we look around us in 2 – 3 years in this city. Will we have seen meaningful change when it comes to homelessness, when it comes to addictions, mental illness? I don’t want to be cynical, but I don’t think we will. And I don’t think that $187 million is enough to bring about that kind of systemic, meaningful change that people are acting like it will. But you know, that's for the city and the province to decide how honest they want to be about how serious these problems are and how serious they are about actually working towards solutions.
Nicholas
Yeah, I think it’s not whether it’s enough, whether that’s like a high enough amount of money. It’s almost just like what that’s going to support, what policies it accompanies.
Oumar
Yeah, you could triple it. If all of it goes towards paying for salaries at five different nonprofits, it wouldn’t make a difference.
Nicholas
Yeah. And of course what we’ve seen a lot too is just that so many services are made to be under the purview of the police. And we talked about this and in the past too, everything that the city announced the additional funding for in the immediate aftermath of the two killings in Chinatown was like, this thing that’s in partnership with police, this thing that’s under the purview of police.
So I mean, it's a lot of things other than just the amount. But yeah, I think we're not saying that this actually is the solution. We’re just trying to challenge how politicians are celebrating it, but not then defunding the police like they said they would once we got this kind of solution that they’re celebrating it as.
Oumar
Absolutely.
Nicholas
Yeah, awesome. Well anyways, a lot has happened since the last episode. I think we kind of got into a lot of stuff here. And you know, if you made it to the end, thanks for listening. Let us know if there’s any other thoughts that you had, anything that you think we're off base on, orif you’ve got any suggestions or things you might want to discuss in the future or things we should be paying more attention to.
