Hart House Changemakers: Building Resilient Democracies with Sabreena Delhon
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
democracy, people, Sabreena, question, Canada, understand, toxicity, pandemic, conversation, civic, space, important, leaders, feel, thought, justice system, happening, democratic, resilient, life
SPEAKERS
John, Sabreena
John
It's my pleasure to introduce our special guest Sabreena. Sabreena is the Executive Director of the Samara Center for Democracy. A leading public sector strategist, Sabreena has over a decade of experience in developing and executing engagement initiatives that deliver complex information to diverse audiences.
Sabreena has directed provincial research studies that examine public perceptions of the justice system. Results of those studies have informed the work of Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General and they are now required reading in many Canadian law schools. About six years ago, Sabreena launched something called Access to Justice or ATJ. A week that brought together, or brings together Government, Community and justice sector partners to tackle multifaceted issues such as Indigenous child welfare, digital inclusion, and public legal education.
Sabreena has also spearheaded architects of justice, which is Canada's premier narrative Forum Podcast focused on current topics and access based issues in the justice sector, It is the very first podcast to be accredited by the Law Society of Ontario, and its episodes have been downloaded thousands and thousands of times. Sabreena has also been featured on CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition and on various legal blogs.
She's a fellow at Massey College here at the University of Toronto, which means that technically we are fellow fellows. And she's also a fellow at Simon Fraser University at the Morris J. WASC. Center for Dialogue. She holds an MA in sociology from Dalhousie, and a BA in sociology from the University of Alberta, from whence she hails, I think I'm saying that properly. So tonight's conversation will focus on the health of democracies generally, but particularly here in Canada.
We also want to talk about what everyday citizens like most of us can do to help keep democracy healthy all the time, not just at election time, but all the time. How can we practice good democracy hygiene? And so with that, because I know you're all eager to hear from Sabreena and eager to hear less from me, Sabreena, welcome.
Sabreena
Thank you, John. It's such a privilege to be here. I'm so thrilled to be part of this program.
John
We are thrilled to have you here. We would like to begin if you're okay, by asking me a little bit about your personal journey and your relationship to issues of democracy. So take a step back, the conversation is built as a series about changemakers. When you hear yourself describe that way, does it feel like a good fit?
Sabreena
Ah, yeah, I guess so. Actually, in preparing for this, I did have to think about, you know, why would they be asking me to be part of this program, and that discomfort with the status quo. It really, it fits. I mean, if I think about my career journey, so far, it's been focused on addressing issues of equity and access. And it's been personal for me, because if you're gonna work on social change issues for a living, you have to care about them. And it's a privilege to be able to do that as well.
I also thought about how, for me, like I started in sociology, like, that's really how this all began, for me was having a really critical view about how power works in our society. And I think, even though a lot of people might not use the label change maker, but there's something about that curiosity, and that critical lens that I think is is fitting in this case for me.
John
So let me follow up with that, because I wanted to ask you specifically, because we're going to be talking about democracy for the next hour and building resilient democracies. What draws you to this work specifically? Is it an exploration of power? Who has it how it's used? Is there a personal connection to the issue of democracy? What motivates you to be interested in the topic?
Sabreena
Yeah, so definitely a personal connection. And I think the way I felt that connection has evolved over my lifetime. So I didn't grow up in a political family, I'm the first in my family to have the kind of job that I do, to have the kind of privilege that I do. And when you're the first generation to be able to make a kind of social jump like that, you're really conscious of power, you're conscious of culture. And in order to make that kind of shift, you have to be really adept at understanding how different cultures work, because you have to work extra hard to belong in that kind of space.
So I think my experience in my work of being either the first or among the few to be like me in a certain space, or in a certain professional culture has shaped my lens in terms of change making and trying to be disruptive of the status quo. And it's really a factor I think, of being - feeling conspicuous and invisible at the same time. And that's a duality, that's actually quite accessible to a lot of people in Canada, but it's maybe one that we don't talk about that much or that is maybe under explored, but it's really shaped my lens on things.
And when you're on the outside, you have the sense of power, and the way it functions as being effort. That's like that's just how it is. But one when you're the new person in that kind of space, and you start to see like, oh well this is who gets access and how and why and this is how decisions get made. Everything is brand new to you and it it gives you a really important lens for identifying potential improvements, or just questions around like, Well, why? Why do we do it like that? So that has also been shaped by how I grew up like that first generation professional identity is a really critical one for me. And it wasn't even something I was conscious of actually, until quite recently. So I think that's like a mid career, middle age kind of reflection, maybe.
But it is heartening right now, to see that kind of lens and approach have a lot of credibility in terms of who leaders and change makers are today, I see increasing value for the perspective you can have when you're first generation professional, because it gives you connection and credibility in a wide range of spaces.
I think it has to do with like an evolution and how we're approaching modern leadership. And to note that, you know, in thinking about tonight's conversation, it, it really, it kind of helped me understand like, Oh, this is a really powerful lens to have right now, and I really am only just awakening to that, because I'm at a stage in my life where different identities like professional, being a daughter, being a mother, being a partner.
There's a fluidity there, there's no more boundaries around that or not as many, maybe it's because I've had to do everything on zoom from home with all of those identities all bound together, which has also been stressful, as we all understand. But there's some cohesion now. And that is helping to drive my contribution to this larger ever effort of making our society more just, it's not just the professional thing I do. So that personal and professional boundary, I think is much more permeable now. And that's really helping to drive the way I want to do things.
John
And I think it's fascinating, you talk about being simultaneously conspicuous and invisible, and how that is likely to resonate very strongly with some people, and maybe not resonate that strongly at all for others. But I'm curious to know, if now that you are the executive director of the Samara Center for Democracy, the leading think bank in Canada on on the practice of democracy Do you have to work to maintain those dual perspectives? Or does it start? Do you start to become only conspicuous and unless invisible? How is that? And is it important for you to maintain both perspectives in order to do your work, as well as you want to do it?
Sabreena
You have to, you have to maintain both perspectives. And it's a real shift for me now, because the the privilege is now a little bit higher, right? So it's like, don't forget where you came from. And don't forget about making this relevant to your mom or dad who are going to still good naturally roll their eyes at whatever you're doing, because they don't really get it. So like calm down, you know, there's still that kind of energy going on.
I am conscious of that being conspicuous and invisible aspect in my work, and that consciousness is helping me to use it. So we have seen a shift now in terms of standards of accountability from institutions and from a range of different spaces. So I get invited to speak on a lot of different panels now. And that wasn't always necessarily the case.
Now that has to do because, has to do with the honor of getting to lead an organization like the Samara Center, but there's also increasing pressure now to not have an all-white panel or all white male panel. So I know that there's multiple reasons that my presence is being requested these days. I'm also at this stage in my life, to understand that I have the credibility to back it up, I have the relationships to back it up.
So I have a comfort and I have more of a comfort, I think then some other actors in the space who are maybe still in different learning stages around how they are approaching power and race in our society. So the the use of that conspicuous invisibility duality is hard. One (1), because it takes a lot of processing and understanding and maturing to understand that you know, power isn't only about a meritocracy. That's not how it always works. And you might think it's going to be this way, but it's not and the struggle to find people who can support you and help you translate what's going on because you don't always have that kind of generational knowledge guiding you as you move through your career.
So I'm conscious of that and I'm also aware of how that would affect other younger people as well. So with my increased visibility comes in certain spaces, increased normalization of my leadership. And when the announcement came out about my joining the Samara Centre, I heard from lots of young people on social media that I didn't even know, it meant a lot to them that like this brown lady's running this think tank, you know, and I was like, what? And then I thought about when I was at age, like, of course, like I didn't see anybody who looked like me.
Like, in an essay that I wrote a few years ago, I talked about how I kind of just made a composite character out of Barbara Frum, Cher and Oprah to like, for my professional ambition. I thought Barbara Frum had like, some South Asian element to her for a really long time as a child, she doesn’t... So it made me realize like, Oh, my goodness, like, there's my journey is very different from other journeys, that I'm popping into now, as well and that's really powerful. It makes me understand that I have to act with integrity and be responsible in it for a group that I didn't even realize was paying attention to me.
John
So somewhere, someone is, is thinking about their career composite role model, and you're in it. I want to be like Sabreena Delhon and Oprah and whoever else was an exciting thought. I want to ask one more question about about your personal relationship to these issues, and then delve more into resilient democracy specifically.
But I think it's very fascinating that the, the area in which you really have marked yourself, or head marked yourself as a trailblazer, before arriving at the Samara Centre was in the area of access to justice and I'm wondering if you just talk a little bit about that?
I as a recovering lawyer, I'm particularly impressed by the fact that you're not a lawyer. Yet, you have done so much substantive work to move important needles on on equity and access to justice. Tell us a little bit about why you bring that passion to the area of justice specifically?
Sabreena
So I've worked at law schools, I've worked at the legal regulator and what got me into those spaces was the sociological lens and my interest in social research. And I didn't understand when I had those opportunities, how rare it was, for someone who is a non lawyer, which is a word that they use unselfconsciously to describe someone like me
John
like I just said the same thing. But yes.
Sabreena
I didn't realize how rare that was. And it, it gave me a really useful lens, because I was an insider outsider in that space. So it's that feeling of duality again. And it's such a an intense, professional culture and so it felt like being in those spaces was like doing an ethnography almost for me. And it helped me identify levers potentially for change, like getting your podcast accredited for professionalism hours, like that is an inside baseball thing to know.
John
Yea it is!
Sabreena
But then just do it. And then it's done, It's free. And now people are motivated, because it's free content. And you know, it goes a long way for their regulator. But also like, what shaped my understanding in that space was the notion that, having a legal problem is such a normal and common experience. And most people don't know that.
Most people at some point in their life are going to have a consumer problem, a problem with their landlord, a problem with their employer. And it's totally normal. But there's a weird sense of shame that people have when they've got a legal problem. And it's because of the cost that it would take to solve it or the perceived cost, it's likely going to be very high. But in some instances, you could maybe get some help. And intimidation and confusion play a big factor in that.
So one of the things that I did a couple years ago was a public engagement initiative where we just wanted to ask the public like, what are your top three ideas? What would you want to do if you could make the justice system better? What would you pick just off the top of your head? And We took this to the CNE, so the annual fair.
We had a booth there, it was by designed to be somewhere happy, positive during the day, a bunch of law and paralegal students wearing matching t-shirts really friendly. We were beside the dog show, like, really positive vibes. And everybody we went up to and said, you know, Hi, we're looking for ideas about how to make the justice system better. What do you think? Their response was “nothing, it's fine”, “I haven't done anything wrong”. And “I don't have anything to say”. And so then we had to, you know, give some assurance like this is a confidential thing, we're just looking for ideas, this isn't going to be attributed to you.
And once we gave that sense of assurance, then we got these really candid and rich responses about ways that the justice system had let them down. How it had been really difficult for them to watch someone that they care about flounder in the legal system trying to resolve a legal problem. And then, you know, they they just shared like, such deep and personal details with us about how they didn't trust the system, it didn't feel like they didn't feel like they had a sense of ownership for it. And any sense of improvement was just around making it more respectful. And so that's an anecdotal example. But it was a really illuminating one for me.
And around the same time, I sought to quantify the sentiment, because most of the discourse around making the justice system better is driven by lawyers and judges, and it's from the perspective of lawyers and judges. And there's more happening around user centered experience, but people don't identify as users, especially when they're trying to solve problems that are, you know, in many cases, life and death. And so the study that I directed, measured the trust that Ontarian’s had in their justice system.
So we're looking for a quantification now, this is a more empirically sound approach to the same question. So not what would you do to make it better? But like, where are you at? Like, where's your relationship as with this core, democratic institution. Across age, income, race, gender, the descriptors were “broken”, “intimidating”, not for me. That's really telling, right? That's a really solid baseline that you need to use to measure responses and improvements against.
But there was sort of just like a weird response to that study. Like, some people were pleased to put it on their syllabi for access to justice courses, which was really wonderful. And there was a lot of uptake in certain spaces. But there were key people influencers, powerful people who were very dismissive, like, what does the public know?
And so for me, like, I understood through that kind of work, that there's a lack of respect and dignity and connection there, that's relationship that needs some repair and attention. And another, like just research tidbit here is that when someone does try to solve their legal problem, they're they're much more satisfied with the outcome if their expectations are managed at the outset. So if they're just told, listen, this is what's gonna happen.
These are the steps this might happen, that might happen, you might not get what you want. But just having that understanding, having someone speak to you in a respectful way, just walk you through it. It leads to a higher sense of satisfaction with the legal system, even if you didn't get what you wanted.
And so when we think about going to the polls, or being civically engaged, like you mentioned in the introduction, like how do you keep democracy healthy between elections? It's really something that we need to shore up because people feel kind of used as voters right now. Right? Like, Oh, you want my vote, and then we're done? Okay, fine, right? It's not a healthy relationship.
So the connection between justice and democracy, for me are those parallels around respect for the public, trust from the public, managing that relationship in a really healthy and an engaging way, like it's okay to be normal in how you communicate. It's okay to use plain language and it's really important to address that intimidation and confusion factor.
John
So, Sabreena, that list of descriptors, would they define or at least defined in part a resilient democracy? What are the hallmarks of resilient democracies? For you?
Sabreena
Yeah! So I think like what we're describing here is struggle. And that's a key word used by a professor I admire named Harry Hahn, who's at Johns Hopkins University. She's a political scientist. And she describes how in our democracies, struggle is important is a source of dynamism.
It's normal and healthy for things to be difficult, because this is, you know, important. And, you know, we've seen with the pandemic conversations about economic and racial justice, accelerate, and they've generated demands from our democratic institutions that have had been a long time coming. But now here they are. So the struggle is definitely a key element of a democracy, of a healthy one. And if we look at data, we work with a consortium on electoral democracy.
And they've collected data that shows that most Canadians are perfectly satisfied with their democracy, but they have very little trust of elected officials. And so there's that trust element. Again, the Justice study showed really low trust in the justice system. And the struggle and the trust relate to another element of you know, what should be a hallmark in our democracy, which is participation.
And we need to approach that as something beyond just voting. And I think that entails normalizing and validating a wide range of, you know, actions and units of civic engagement, like community organizing various forms of advocacy, just gauging how people feel when they think or talk about politics, like, broadly, do we have a culture where people feel equipped to hold power to account? So I think we're in a in a major period of transformation right now, to kind of put it mildly in terms of what we're experiencing.
John
I was gonna say, I mean, Samara is not the only think tank to flag the fact that democracy is going through a difficult phase – Shifting it that way, I think you actually called it a period of democratic backsliding, which is really.... what do you mean by that? Democratic backsliding?
Sabreena
Yeah, democratic, backsliding, democratic recession, those are technical terms used in the academic world to describe this erosion of our democratic culture. So that can entail the proliferation of misinformation, it can relate to polarization. And it can also involve the alienation of the electorate, as we're talking about now.
John
So I mean, I'm thinking about those people at the CNE that you're approaching in those matching T shirts, that were reluctant to even express an opinion about the justice system. I wonder if if it hadn't been the justice system that you were asking about if it had been that political system? Or the or democracy that that slightly, that slightly more vague term, when people have felt more comfortable expressing an opinion was, specifically because it was justice it feels more rarefied people didn't, it didn't want to didn't want to formulate ideas? or do you think that there's a general hesitation among Canadians to express opinion about any of our democratic institutions? What do you think?
Sabreena
Yeah, I think that the Justice factor is significant, because there's so much pop culture messaging around court, in jail and guilty. And I think that is inadvertently affecting the way people approach the justice system in Canada. And this was something that we did, you know, over five years ago, so this was before the mainstream understanding of the legacy of colonialism within our justice system was, you know, made more clear and apparent to people.
So there is some there is some specific intimidation around the justice system as an institution has its core democratic institution because it's just inherent to the culture. But it does relate and it does reverberate out to our democracy. I think if we were to ask What are the top three things we should do to make Canada's democracy better? I think they would feel stupid, they would feel put on the spot. And they would feel like they're being shamed.
And that is a recurring feeling that people have right now, because they aren't sufficiently in our society, equipped for those kinds of conversations, there is a lot of shaming and kind of status oriented approaches to how we talk about democracy in this country. So that, that disconnection and detached reaction, I think is is really important for us to continue to probe and explore and understand better.
John
So I was gonna ask you, what are some of the indicators that you're looking at professionally, that tell you that democracy is being challenged in Canada or is under duress in Canada? Is it the fact that people are intimidated by conversations that people are not sufficiently equipped to have meaningful conversations about about civic matters? Is that is that our challenge? Is that the indication that democracy is, is is having a difficult patch here in Canada?
Sabreena
Yeah, I think that's part of it. But the pandemic is doing interesting things with that feeling. So, you know, we're at a critical juncture right now to define the next chapter for our democracy, because we've been viewing everything with this COVID-19 lens for a couple of years now. And what comes to mind for me, in response to your question, is public schools!
Public schools exist to produce an engaged citizenry. And right now with the pandemic, we've seen deepening and accelerating inequities in terms of education outcomes, because of the school closures, and you know, that's going to be challenging for any child, but it's really going to take a toll on kids who are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Children who are racialized or from indigenous communities, newcomers, children with disabilities, children who are gender diverse, neuro-diverse, like their learning loss, is our civic loss. And I think we are not really paying attention adequately to the generational impact that can have on us. Most of us who are joining this conversation today have had school, you know, elementary, middle high school be a constant in our lives, we could take it for granted. Of course, it was going to be there. And that consistency, and the community and all the other social and civic benefits that come from just going to school has been absent for for two years.
So my daughter is eight years old, that's a quarter of her life. And these are these are really critical years for defining your norms, your values, and just your expectations of society. Because it's not just that schools have had to say to kids, like, I'm just not going to be around right now. Sorry. And like, all of my respect to teachers who have navigated this, this terrible time, but parents have been tasked with managing this message. And that has been so challenging to convey to your child school is really important.
Your education is really important, and so is your community. But it's not there right now. But it might be back but I don't know. And that is sowing seeds of doubt and potential disconnection and exacerbating inequities, which is really troubling.
John
This really troubling and, and I'm wondering if, if most people are connecting the dots or even seeing the dots between the inequities that are being revealed and exacerbated. And the challenges to having a strong healthy democracy I mean, that right now, I think parents and anyone that cares about children right now are just worried about just worried about things like, you know, my child's mental health, their their physical well being, do they have friends? Do they know how to talk to other people?
All of which, of course, are are fundamental to our lives as as atomistic human beings, but there's also that longer term societal impact on on civics on the ability to have healthy democracy, not just today, but in 20 years and 30 years when it's your daughter's generation that are running the country. So I wonder, you know, whose job is it to draw those dots and connect those dots for people to think about those longer term implications?
Sabreena
Yeah, I mean, I think we're, we're seeing something critical happening in terms of our identities as citizens and and then also consumers. And for a lot of kids online, when they had to move to learning online, that citizen identity, I think, just kind of is getting a bit jostled, right, they are now learning through Google Classroom. And, you know, they, they have to have a device and they have to have like, there's all these like consumer elements, because you're using the same device to do other things like play and watch shows, but then you're also learning but using that same thing to learn, and there's just adults have been doing that for a really long time.
But there's something really significant about that happening with kids right now. And so who is responsible for producing an engaged citizenry, like we all are, so that's quite a common, shared the Democratic agenda. And I think, you know, everyone is in survival mode right now. And I am optimistic that when things relent, when the pandemic can Abate, we can build this Civic loss into our recovery plan and have that drive a revitalized Democratic agenda for us.
John
So I'm pleased to hear that you're optimistic, because there does seem to be some reason for optimism. And maybe a little bit of schadenfreude, for mixing with it. And what I'm thinking about is, because how can you not think about living this close to the world's greatest superpower? How are we define that?
And I, it's interesting that that polling, for example, recent polling, you and I talked briefly about this from the Environics Institute, our friends of Environics Institute, points to some positive trends of Canada, relative relative to the United States. And specifically, they've noted that Canadians are generally quite satisfied with the state of our democracy. And the trend is actually towards increasing levels of trust.
You mentioned trust earlier in key institutions. And unlike our neighbors, south of the border, we've become less divided on questions of democracy with Canadian political parties, drawing most of their support from the center of the political spectrum, rather than from the extreme ends of that spectrum, which appears to be the case more and more in the state. So I'm curious to know if that is optimistic, in your opinion, and what do you make those of that contrast? How do you account for it?
Sabreena
Yeah, I think it's important that we take pride in what we have at home, and that we value it and that we talk about it and that it is a part of our discourse, to be thinking about our own democracy and how we're taking care of it.
I think in Canada, we often take comfort in making really selective comparisons about worse instances of racism, voter suppression, violence in the in the United States. And that also leads us to being distracted because we're just focused on like, What's going on over there? What's happened now? oh, my gosh, like this is this is like the latest. And then we forget to work on what's happening in our own house.
So I think we need to see the democratic recession that's happening in the US or democratic backsliding as a cautionary tale and take heart, like take that really seriously, and get ourselves together to respond in a cohesive way. And that is something that considers everything from what our public schools in our society to how are we handling toxicity online.
And I think that relates to this, this general state of awakening and reflection that's happening in Canada right now, as we reconcile colonial history with exacerbated inequality during the course of the pandemic, and kind of are sitting with this understanding about the way we talk about power in Canada and a kind of nefarious politeness with which we, we've you used and approached our common Democratic agenda. And we kind of need to push through that if we're really going To be relevant and just advance as a democracy as well. And I think we have to obviously manage our relationship with the United States. And maybe one underutilized way to do that is to draw on the tremendous social capital we have there in our Canadian diaspora.
John
I just want to say if I were starting a garage band, right now, their name, the band's name would be Nefarious Polite, I just think that is just perfect. So to continue talking about the relative healthiness of our democracy, you're right, and touched on the toxicity here in Canada, you know, we're, we're looking at the log in someone else's eye, or, you know, what's expression where we have specs, with chips in her own eye anyway, our hands are not clean. That's what I'm trying to say. We had a fairly contentious federal election here in Canada just a few months ago.
And I know that at Semara, as part of your efforts to understand the online toxicity, as well as the in-person toxicity that that partly defined that campaign? You've been tracking political commentary, or you've tracked political commentary on Twitter that was directed towards hundreds of the political candidates? I'd like to hear more about that. And and what have you learned by analyzing that, that Twitter traffic?
Sabreena
So we talk a lot a lot about the need to have more diverse leaders in Canada and in the political arena. If you were to ask someone like you're an amazing leader, you know, fill this critical gap, you've got this amazing contribution to make, what do you say? I think if you ask someone who looked like me, they would say no way, because I don't want to deal with any of the online hate. And I don't want to subject my family to it either.
So online toxicity is a barrier to civic engagement it's a key reason why people leave politics, or they don't enter it, or they just steer clear of the political conversation altogether. So we wanted to get into that deeper. And elections are often a period of high toxicity online. So we used the recent federal election as an opportunity to collect some data and also increase public awareness about this problem about the toxicity in the online political conversation.
So one way that, well, the way we did this, and it was a bit novel, because civil society organizations don't always do this. We partnered with a startup tech company called Reto labs based in Edmonton, my hometown. Just a coincidence. total coincidence. Yeah. And we used their machine learning bot, to track tweets received by incumbent candidates and party leaders in the weeks leading up to the election. So we were looking at just a very small slice of the Canadian political conversation online, just one platform.
We were monitoring tweets received by 300 accounts. And we did it for five weeks. And we analyzed over 2 million tweets. We were able to break down the toxicity with the bot that we had. So our findings confirmed what many in the political world and in other professions, as well, like journalism, understand about the intensity of the toxicity online. So about 20% of what we tracked, qualified as being threatening profane had an identity attack, or was sexually explicit or insulting. We shared reports.
Every week, during the campaign period, the last week of the campaign, we captured about half a million tweets. And we found that 4% of those tweets had sexually explicit content. And that number sounds really small, 4% whatever. But it's, it translates to 20,000 tweets, and that's not going to be coming evenly across those 300 accounts. It's coming in one week, it’s just a handful of accounts.
And we also found, and this is probably not a surprise for anyone in the audience, that women get more toxic tweets than men and that toxicities generally misogynistic and personal. So, you know, this data is about measuring the obvious because everybody knows this is happening, but we put some really narrow boundaries around it just so that people could get a sense of like the day in the life what's it like to be on the digital campaign trail, what's coming at a candidate and their staffers? And, you know, what do you do when you're navigating this torrent of vitriol. And, you know, your party is maybe required you to be on a social media platform as part of your campaign. And it's just a matter of fact, like, you have to use social media tools, like that's a key way that you're going to get engagement and get your message in front of people.
So, you know, this is about really illustrating with numbers, what people are asking when they say, well, can't you be more resilient, like, who is going to be able to handle this as a part of the job, like, who is going to be able to tolerate and withstand nonstop digital abuse as their conditions of work. And another element in our finding was that the more well-known you are, the more likely you are to get toxicity online. So Justin Trudeau got the most toxicity.
But if you're from an underrepresented community, and you decide to become a politician, and you get some measure of success, the reality is, the better you do, the worse it's going to get. And that really needs to be addressed because it is really hindering representation and participation in our democracy. There's the fact that people are receiving this content. But there's also the fact that people can just see this content. It's part of our digital public square, and it has a real silencing effect on people that turns them away. They don't want to have anything to do with this ugliness. And if that's what's happening to our electorate, is very damaging to our democracy.
John
Sorry, go ahead. Yeah.
Sabreena
it sends a signal to other sectors and to broader society about whose voices heard, who's a leader who gets to take up space. And it's kind of insidious and kind of difficult to grasp what this impact truly is, in terms of lived experience. And so that was our intention with our bot, Sam. And
John
do we know I mean, one can assume I think, probably safely but do we? Do we know for a fact that candidates are people that might have run unsuccessfully, this time, will not run again, the next time?
I mean, do we do exit interviews to find out if this kind of toxicity actually dissuades people from pursuing their political ambitions participating that active way in democracy? I mean, I assume that it that it would be hard to face that, again, if you've already lived through a once. But do we know that empirically?
Sabreena
Well, with this iteration of the project, we just looked at incumbent candidates and, and party leaders. So we kind of, you know, just worked with that slice, and we see it as a pilot. So we're looking forward to expanding on this later in the year, where we'll be doing a new iteration of our exit interviews, Project, which is a signature Samara Center initiative. So it's really top of mind for us the retention factor here.
John
We have a question from one of our audience members. And I think it's a really good one, this harkens back to, to the start of our conversation, you talked about your double perspective, being outside being inside being seen being invisible simultaneously.
The question is, do you feel that those of us who are situated within marginalized communities constantly struggle with the visible due to our differences or because of our differences, yet? Invisibility with respect to getting our needs and our needs met? So the person says, I'm thinking of myself how it sometimes becomes a Pick Your Battles scenario, should I be visible? Because of my difference? Should I be invisible with respect to having my needs met? How do you manage that struggle? How do you pick your battles? Any thoughts on that as we connect that specifically to engagement in democracy?
Sabreena
Yeah, so I think that gets at like the performative element that we all play in society and at work and who we are and how we want to present, and I am, you know, for lack of a better way of describing it a recovering model minority. I felt like I had to be really nice. Don't take up too much space. Like I've got this agenda and we like want to change the status quo, but then also just like Um, you know one step at a time, right?
And I think what this person's question is about that internal reckoning of, you know, who are you? How do you want to present? How are others perceiving you, and then like just trying to manage their expectations and the emotional labor of that, which is so exhausting?
If you can, I would encourage you to find lots of different tools and supports that liberate you from that, and just, you know, approach it like a really privileged white guy. Is he thinking like that every day? No, he's not. He's just thinking about what he wants. And then he can just, you know, live his life and will encounter challenges and barriers as well.
But just try to like, get that burden off of you. Because that is a part of the colonial history of like, you are not the default image of this. So you must manage yourself accordingly, you must manage how you speak, and how you look and what you say and what you want. And it doesn't really feel like that for someone day to day, you know, if you're younger, you're just trying to figure out who you are.
But it's important, I think, to really probe that further and understand like, where’s that coming from? Like, what's the kind of potential generational messaging around that, or what's everyone else doing in this space, and there's a lot of reading you can do around critical race theory, there's also therapy, there's also just kind of being kind to yourself, and understanding that that's a burden that doesn't have to be yours. And if there are ways that you can get that lifted off of you, then you'll have so much more time and energy for the things that you truly want to be contributing to.
John
Another question from one of our other guests tonight has to do with the difference, if there is a difference between local democracies versus the federal government. So are local democracies. And you can probably extend it to provincial democracies, are they more or less resilient than more senior levels of government? So is there kind of a we're most democratic locally, and then slightly less democratic provincially? And we're the least democratic federally, is that too simplistic? How do you see the different challenges or the different challenges to resilience? And each level of government?
Sabreena
Yeah, that's such an interesting question like that would be a good one for us to take back and think about and see if our academic collaborators have some data to help us understand what are those units of civic engagement? And how do they carry across those different spaces.
What comes to mind for me is how the pandemic has changed expectations for each of those levels, as we have become more tuned in and engaged about how the pandemic is being managed. So I think the mainstream understanding of this is a federal decision, schools are a provincial thing. This is a vaccine procurement happens federally, and then what's happening in my city around, you know, or town in terms of, you know, restrictions and things like that.
So I think our literacy around how what we can expect and hold power to account in those different spaces has evolved. And I wonder if that will be retained as we as we come out of the pandemic, as well. But that's a really interesting question. So
John
there's an interesting question. I don't know, if you would agree, but you've referred to the engagement, the different kinds of engagement in the pandemic of the different levels of government. One thing that I think that Pandemic has done is kind of to reveal for all to see that Canadian federalism it's messy. It's a patchwork. And, you know, I think we can be much better. And maybe we'll come out of this by I don't know that there'll be any kind of motivation for grand constitutional revisit.
But we have seen that in certain areas of public health that different public policy approaches across the country have brought about very different results and outcomes for Canadians. And I think we need to think about whether that's what we want as a country. Do we are we content with there being different outcomes across the country because different provincial jurisdictions or even local public health units are taking different approaches to this very fundamental issue of encouraging public health in order to save lives?
I think it's in I don't think that people are necessarily consciously thinking about federalism, when they're trying to make sense of the competing press releases are really that's kind of almost by osmosis. I think that's something that's happening for people that maybe have never thought about what different levels of government can do.
Sabreena
Yeah, because it's never, you've never really had to think about it. It hasn't necessarily affected your day to day for a majority of people in the country. And people are paying more attention now to other countries like, well, how come New Zealand could do this thing that, you know,
John
there's a question about the current debate, maybe it's no longer current, maybe it's not resolved as of yesterday, but the debate over the filibuster in the US Senate and the issue have been raised, obviously. As to whether or not the Democratic Party, the Democratic caucus and Senate should support the eradication of the filibuster specifically for the purpose of passing the voting rights legislation.
Of course, famously, Senator Christ cinema. And Senator Joe Manchin made that an impossibility. But the question I think, is really interesting, because it compares that whole the vote, the voting rights, tobacco, as it's connected to the filibuster in the States is kind of a central or Central. They call it a centerpiece issue, as an obstruction to democracy in the United States. Are there any obstacles in Canadian democracy? Systemic obstacles?
I'm presuming that should be addressed in a similar way. It's maybe something that we've taken for granted. It's always been done that way. But is there an institution or institutional practice, I don't know, maybe it's the monarchy, maybe it's the appointed Senate, I have no idea. But it's very such an obstruction that maybe is so present in our lives, we don't even see it. But it really needs to be addressed in order to kind of unleash the full potential of democracy in Canada. What do you think?
Sabreena
Um, well, I'm going to go back to hurry Han for this one, because she talks about how, like, who were the leaders we need right now. And I think in this moment of transformation, we're like, we're having this awakening, we've got this reckoning. And there's a sense, like, maybe there's more, that could be better, and we just can't quite put our finger on it.
As you're explaining, I think there is an emerging new wave of leaders right now. And that's something we should be paying attention to. And for Harin Han, she describes, she describes this, this new wave as being adept at navigating all of the shifting terrain that we've explored today. So they can handle the institutional demands, but they're also very connected with their constituents, they have credibility in both spaces, so not talking down to the constituents, not that politicians are doing that.
But they're balancing it, it's not as if they're, you know, feeling this push pull. So maybe one thing that we need to be attuned to right now, and that could be filled with potential solutions, and maybe bring forth a new golden age for Canada's democracy is a new wave of leaders that can balance all the things that we're talking about, that have the credibility and all these different spaces and the training for it, too.
You know, when we started this conversation, I talked about how, you know, I'm, I'm this recovering, model minority, and now my leadership of you know, having been a first-generation professional is more valued than ever, and it's my strength. So maybe that's something that we need to be paying attention to. And when you're in a position where you feel like I don't know what I don't know, it's usually a matter of getting different problem solvers into the mix. And maybe that's what we should be paying attention to.
John
So speaking of the next generation of leaders, let's imagine the next generation of leaders is in grade three, like your daughter, you talked about the need for better civics education for Canadians so that we grow up and we don't shy away from questions at the end or, or at the election booth for stories and media that were actually engaged in those conversations actively and enthusiastically.
So is there currently a good practice of best practice in terms of civics curriculum that you've seen in Canada? Are there any specific projects that you can point to? That should give us some, some sense of optimism in terms of the future of civics curriculum in Canada and? And who can? Who can benefit from it?
Sabreena
Yeah, well, I'll mention the work of civics. They're a fantastic organization, they organized parallel election programs at schools across the country. And they have excellent and very respectful relationships with teachers. I'm a big fan of their Ctrl F initiative, which teaches media, digital media literacy skills to students and teachers.
A key civic skill that we need to equip that generation with is the digital media literacy. And so it would be wonderful to see an expansion of that. But we need to see a culture that is ready to equip this next generation with the Civic skills and understandings that we need. It's you can't just put that on one nonprofit organization, I say, as the executive director of one.
John
Sabreena?
Sabreena
Yeah you are fine. Yeah, I'll just default to model minority mode, and I'm not going to complain. So but it would be wonderful for there to be this kind of civic onboarding process normalized in our society where you learn this at this age, you learn that at that age, and then you feel equipped to conduct yourself accordingly to hold power to account.
You don't feel intimidated or shamed by not knowing this, or that how many MPs are in Parliament, that sort of thing. That would be really, really crucial. And maybe that's something we can get to as part of our pandemic recovery is to have this commitment to a resilient Democratic agenda. And it's one that takes a generational perspective.
John
He talks a little bit about just now about digital media literacy. Thinking about media more broadly, we have a question about the state of journalism, and how it intersects with the state of our democracy. What do you think is the role of professional journalism in rehabilitating our democracy?
Sabreena
Yeah, journalism is critical to the health and functioning of our democracy, they have a critical role to play, especially in this era of, you know, misinformation. When we were talking about the sanbot project or action, we got a lot of media coverage, and the, you know, post interview conversation with a producer reporter, with them saying thank you for doing this kind of work, because it helps validate our experiences.
Because, you know, we all know this happens, but no one really talks about it or quantifies it or makes it real in this way. So thank you for doing that. And so we need to understand what journalists’ conditions of work are. And we've seen instances of abuse online, where journalists have had their personal information shared publicly and have had to deal with abuse and violence. And that's not acceptable. And I think increasing our support and value for journalists as a commitment to healthy democratic culture is, is wise and important.
John
Yeah, it's healthy. I think it's a good sign that the co-winners of the Nobel Peace Prize last year were both journalists. It's a positive sign, but it's a drop in the bucket of what needs to happen in terms of protecting the lives and the rights of journalists. So we're winding down our conversation, Sabreena, and as you know, and as those of you have joined us for previous Changemakers conversations, we'd like to do a quick speed round of questions with our special guest. And you're open for that, Sabreena, I mean, you don't have to rush, but the spirit there is short answer as opposed to essay.
Sabreena
Sure.
John
Okay. So first of all, when we talk about changemakers, we use the term leaders by example, I said that when I was introducing you, what traits do you think make effective leaders?
Sabreena
I think it's important for effective leaders to consult and be decisive and to own their mistakes.
John
Is there an example of a leader that you admire who has been influential in your life, someone that you perhaps maybe even model your own leadership after?
Sabreena
Yes, who comes to mind is Mrs. Newbold, my grade eight social studies teacher she didn’t, this was not in it was not in the curriculum to understand the harms that have occurred against indigenous communities in Canada. She educated us about residential schools when she didn't need to. And they're not schools. We understand that today.
But she took the time to do that, and just have her own accord. And she increased, she introduced me to Amnesty International, she helped me understand human rights. And that sense of like equity and justice was really sparked for me in her classroom. And she spoke to everybody, like in a kind of aloof way. Like we were all adults. And I'd like to kind of she had that attitude about her, it was really engaging.
John
What do you think she would say about you about what you do for a living today?
Sabreena
Well, I hope she'd be proud. You know,
John
I'm positive she would be proud. I don't even know where, but I feel I know where you mean.
Sabreena
Yeah, yeah.
John
So leaders like Mrs. Newbold, you don't always succeed. Many, many leaders talk about the importance of failure in their life, to help them figure out who they are to help them hold their priorities, clarify which strategies and tactics to use. We're wondering if you would be willing to share a failure, or a setback from your own life that taught you something meaningful and valuable?
Sabreena
Yeah, I'm glad you're asking that question. Because it's important to normalize that life isn't just this linear path of things that happened exactly as you planned. So for me, I left my Ph. D. program in my second year. And this was perceived as a failure by my peers. But it was a very liberating decision for me. And I pursued that path because people encouraged me to do it. And then I felt like I would be letting them down if I did it.
And I kind of knew the whole time that that wasn't the right place for me. But I felt like, you know, this is an important to, and, you know, elite space, if I've given if I've been given access to it, you know, I really should go ahead. And this gets out a feeling that I think a lot of people have in their 20s, which is just not being true to yourself, and the social conditioning, back to that model minority thing, again, of, you know, keeping people around me comfortable, avoiding conflict, and then subsequently ending up detached from my own voice and what I actually want it because that those two elements of who I am, at that time really just weren't reconciled yet.
So I would share that if a relationship isn't working for you, if a decision isn't working for you just dig into that early. And if it's not getting better, or if you're not being met halfway, just move on. But try to do so with integrity, because you might go back, you might reconnect, and to just be open to that and to not fixate on quitting as bad, you have to make the best decisions you can with the information and understanding you have in the moment, even when it's about yourself.
John
So my last question, and you might have just answered it, unknowingly. But my last question is, if you could go back and talk to your 18-year-old self about how to be a change maker, what advice would you give yourself? Um,
Sabreena
I would say just focus on doing things and building relationships that don't worry about being a leader or a changemaker. Just get some experience and get to know some people learn, learn some things, and take your time, you have lots of time, so don't worry about the time variable.
And I would also say ask your elders for advice. Like any elder like professors, people you work with. You don't have to always listen to what they tell you to do. And you don't only have to get advice from someone who looks like you or grew up like you. And this will help you understand that your allies along the way might surprise you. It might surprise you who your allies are.
John
Sabreena, thank you so much for joining us tonight. This time has flown by, at least for me, and I hope for you and for our other guests in this conversation. I want to remind everybody that our special guest tonight has been Sabreena Delhon, and I want to thank Sabreena and the great team that works with her at Samara especially Abra Rissi.
We are so grateful to you for sharing your insights, your experiences, your honesty in discussing these very pressing issues around democracy, which obviously affect all of us whether we know it or not it or not. I want to say that this Changemakers conversation was produced and supported by a team of wonderful colleagues at Hart House. Jenifer Newcombe, Lena Yusim, Michele Che, Amy Wang, Christine Lieber, Megan Mueller, and Janine Raftopoulos. Thanks to all of them.
And for those of us who have joined us in the audience, thank you so much for finding us. Thank you for connecting. Thank you for staying connected. I hope that you'll join us for the next installment of Changemakers in 2022. On March 9, I'll be speaking with human rights lawyer Lorin McDonald, the founder and CEO of HearVue.
Last year, Lorin was named one of the top 25 Most Influential lawyers in Canada, one of Canada's most powerful women. That was a top 100, but if you've ever had the opportunity to listen to Lorin speak and share her story. She is you know the very top. She's a remarkable speaker and a true Changemaker. So join us on March 9. Thank you again for coming tonight. We hope that tonight has inspired you to be the change that you want to be. Good night.
John
Thank you so much to Sabreena Delhon, for joining me in conversation.
To learn more about Sabreena and her work. You can follow her on Twitter at Sabreena Delhon D E L H O N follow the Samara Center for Democracy on twitter or Instagram at Samara CDA and on Facebook at Samara Canada. This Changemakers conversation was produced and supported by the team at Hart House. That's Jennifer Newcomb, Lena Yusim, Michelle Che, Amy Wang, Christine Liber, Megan Mueller, and Janine Raftopoulos. The podcast was edited by Janine Al Hadidi. Original Music by Recap, they can be found on SoundCloud.
To learn more about Changemakers please visit Harthouse.ca or follow us on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Facebook. Our handle is @HartHouse U of T and I'm John Monahan.
Thank you for listening
0 notes