
Q & A: Black Lives Matter Canada co-founder Sandy Hudson on her new book, ‘Defund'
TORONTO - Sandy Hudson's new book on police abolition comes just ahead of the five-year anniversary of George Floyd's murder, and while much has changed since then, the urgency with which many of the activists call for police abolition hasn't.
With 'Defund: Black Lives, Policing, and Safety For All' (HarperCollins Canada), the 39-year-old Toronto-born, Los Angeles-based co-founder of Black Lives Matter Canada says she wants to give other activists the key arguments in favour of defunding the police and boosting investment in community resources and infrastructure.
'Defund,' which was released in April, traces how the movement has rippled across Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom since 2014. It gained support after Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020, launching a cultural reckoning about race, power and public safety.
Now, Hudson's book comes out amid renewed tough-on-crime commitments by the U.S. government — an agenda that was echoed on the recent Canadian campaign trail.
But defund activists maintain that more police presence does not make all people feel safer — one example is intimate partner violence, which 95 municipalities in Ontario and Nova Scotia have recently recognized as an epidemic; another is increased police presence on school campuses and at demonstrations since the protests over the war in Gaza.
Hudson spoke with The Canadian Press about how some of these issues have changed the movement, and her optimism for the future.
CP: Is there anything you want readers to be thinking about while reading the book?
SH: 'I started the book talking about how we think about policing altogether and the propaganda that's around policing. I want people to really try and suspend whatever notions they have about the police when they're reading the book … I also want people to consider the fact that since the mid-'70s it's been really popular with politicians and policy makers to promise to be tough on crime (and) promise to put more money in policing in order to solve the safety issue. Not one politician has ever claimed victory and they have not solved the safety issue. Regardless of anything else, what they're doing right (right now) is inadequate.'
CP: What got you involved in activism?
SH: 'I was a student activist at the University of Toronto and I had been doing a lot of work on campus at that time surrounding racial justice and the experiences that Black students in particular were having on campus. Around 2014, Jermaine Carby was killed by a police officer in Brampton (Ontario) after what they called a routine traffic stop, even though that's not something that is routine so much … It wasn't huge on the news, and I knew from my own contacts that the family was having a really hard time trying to get the issue of what had happened to Jermaine Carby out in the media and known more publicly. Shortly after that, Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri in the United States. That made a lot of news, with lots and lots of coverage in Canada — far more than what happened to Jermaine Carby — and I, myself, and other folks working on anti-Black racism issues were all really frustrated by this because here was this issue in the United States that deserves the coverage it got in Canada, but there was a similar issue here just before that didn't get the same sort of scrutiny and concern by media here.
CP: You mention in the book that there was a bit of a journey for you to get to the position that defunding policing institutions is necessary. What led you to the position you ultimately hold now?
SH: 'I watched police procedural television growing up, I'm not immune to that. What changed my position was having interactions with police through attempts at democratic participation, through rallies and protests, and seeing how (police) attempt to instigate issues and escalate violence … and also interactions with people in my own family and people that I'm close with (weren't) keeping in line with the myth that we're told.'
'When we're calling the police, we're often trying to deal with some sort of conflict resolution. Are the police solving or resolving this conflict or are they using violence and power on us in a way that just isn't actually a resolution to this, but in some ways could be even more dangerous? I had to ask myself the question 'what do the police do well?' And when I started to do my own study and really investigate it, I struggled to find the answer. I think that a lot of what (the police) accomplish is just being an easy answer for policy-makers who don't want to do the really difficult work of shifting or creating systems and institutions that will actually be helpful in creating conditions of safety.'
CP: You mention at one point in the book that you have a lot of optimism about an alternative to policing. What's driving this optimism?
SH: 'I do think people take safety very seriously and they want to be safe. People will eventually realize that policing isn't the thing that's doing it. I don't think this status quo can go on forever. I'm also optimistic because there was a time before policing. The one thing we know is, change is constant and I think there will be a time after policing. I've seen what it's like when you're really on the fringe of an idea, and we've been talking about this for quite some time in activist spaces, to see (police abolition) be in a place where it's being discussed in the mainstream. That gives me a sense of hope as well, like it's possible to do the education and let people know what police are accomplishing and what they're not accomplishing such that people might decide it's time to do something different.'
CP: You talk about intimate partner violence in the book as an area where police have failed to protect people's safety. (Hudson argues more preventive measures are needed to protect women, and that the police system can sometimes criminalize victims.)
SH: 'I write in the book about how policing can actually make it more difficult for people who are trying to escape a hard, domestic violence situation because you simply don't have the tools to support people who are having that experience. But if we take some of those resources that we're putting into policing to solve this issue that they have not been able to solve and put it into resourcing and making sure that people have the ability to leave a place, a financial support to leave a place, and that emotional support to leave a place.'
CP: What are some examples of services we need to see more of in order to move away from policing institutions?
SH: 'We put a bunch of money into either transit-specific police or the regular police to patrol the transit system to catch people when they evade the fare and make sure they have some sort of punishment, instead of thinking about the problem — (which may be that) that people can't afford the fare, and maybe we can do away with that being an issue altogether by taking the money we're spending by trying to surveil and punish people on the transit system and instead put it into the transit system so that it can be cheaper or free.
'Thinking about how we deal with issues of health that the police are being told to deal with (is another area) … For decades we've been fine with the police showing up and harming people when what they really need is support and treatment. And so we see the proliferation, especially since 2020, of these programs that are meant to provide support and resources to people that are going through an emergency situation. The same sort of approach can be taken to issues of drugs and addiction. For so long we have criminalized drug use, even though we know that addiction is a physiological issue, it's a health issue. What is a police officer going to do for someone who has an addiction? What is incarceration going to do for someone who has an addiction? It's certainly not going to solve the problem or the proliferation of these economies on our streets. In fact, they make these economies go even more underground and even more dangerous. So if we approach this as a public health issue and provide people with the support they need, we will have a better approach and can eliminate certain crimes.'
— This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 2, 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Halle Bailey And DDG Custody Battle, Explained
The custody battle between singer and actress Halle Bailey and her ex-boyfriend, the rapper DDG, has heated up as DDG asked a judge to block Bailey from taking their infant son with her to Italy, alleging she poses a risk to their son's safety because she has previously threatened self-harm. DDG requested a restraining order against Bailey in Los Angeles court on Wednesday and asked a judge to block her from taking Halo, their 17-month-old son, to Italy with her, alleging Bailey would pose 'imminent emotional and psychological risk to the minor child based on repeated, documented threats of self-harm.' DDG, whose real name is Darryl Dwayne Granberry Jr., alleged in court filings Bailey once took his firearm and left their house while threatening to harm herself, stating she 'environment of emotional distress and danger within the home,' and his filings contain text messages appearing to show Bailey threatening self-harm, Billboard reported. Bailey, 25, and DDG, 27, have been locked in a custody battle over their son since Bailey filed a restraining order against him in May, accusing him of physical and verbal abuse, including an alleged incident in which he slammed her face on a steering wheel in front of their son. Bailey also alleged DDG has riled up his fans to send online hate to Bailey by accusing her of keeping their son from him on his livestreams, and she detailed another incident in which she filed a police report after DDG allegedly threw her phone from a car window. A judge granted Bailey temporary custody of their son in May. The couple split in October 2024 after nearly three years of dating, at the time stating they were 'still best friends' and planned to co-parent their son. Forbes has reached out to lawyers representing both Bailey and DDG for comment. Bailey is slated to depart for Italy to film a movie for two months on June 7, Billboard reported, and a judge is expected to rule on whether she will be allowed to bring her son. The court also set June 24 as the date for a hearing on Bailey and DDG's restraining orders against one another. Bailey and DDG began dating in January 2022, though they did not publicly acknowledge their relationship on social media until March of that year. Bailey gave birth to their son in December 2023, announcing his birth in an Instagram post the following month. Bailey had largely kept her pregnancy a secret despite fan speculation, stating months after her child's birth at the Essence Black Women in Hollywood ceremony she 'had no obligation to expose him, me or my family to that unyielding spotlight.' DDG first started his career in entertainment as a YouTube content creator, posting vlogs and prank videos. He dropped out of college in 2016, stating he made more money from his YouTube careers, after which he started releasing music. He has since released four albums, including his only charting hit in the United States, "Moonwalking in Calabasas,' and he has collaborated with artists including Lil Yachty, Gunna and DaBaby. He maintains active profiles on YouTube and streaming platform Twitch, where he has 3.6 million subscribers and 1.6 million followers, respectively. Bailey first rose to fame as one half of Chloe x Halle, a singing duo with her older sister, Chloe Bailey. The two first garnered attention for singing Beyoncé songs on their YouTube channel, racking up more than 22 million views on a cover of her song 'Pretty Hurts' in 2013. Bailey and her sister have been considered protégés of Beyoncé, whose company Parkwood Entertainment signed them for a six-album deal in 2016. Chloe x Halle have released two studio albums, 'The Kids Are Alright' in 2018 and 'Ungodly Hour' in 2020, though they have since pursued solo careers. Halle Bailey achieved wider recognition for a series of high-profile acting roles, including the lead role in 'The Little Mermaid' live-action remake and a supporting role in 'The Color Purple,' in 2023. Her role in the former film made her the target of racist backlash from critics who felt the casting of a Black Ariel was unfaithful to the original animated film, prompting Disney to defend her and Bailey to say it is important for her to 'represent all of these little young Black and brown boys and girls.' Halle Bailey accuses ex DDG of physical and emotional abuse in restraining order request (USA Today)

Miami Herald
37 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
How China Silences Critics From Afar
United Kingdom-based human rights group Article 19 has released a report on the Chinese government's relentless campaigns to silence dissenting voices beyond China's borders. The report, based on existing research and on recent interviews with 29 members of diaspora communities, details "the myriad tactics and actors involved in China's ongoing transnational repression of protesters around the world." Hong Kongers, Tibetans and others who have fled China out of fear of political persecution have reported being targeted by a sophisticated network said to include Beijing's United Front Work Department, embassy personnel and online influencers. Outspoken opponents of China's human rights record, in particular, have been in the crosshairs, amid Chinese Communist Party (CCP) efforts to stamp out or delegitimize international protest movements, observers say. Newsweek reached out to the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C., and the Federal Bureau of Investigation with emailed requests for comment. Transnational repression can take the form of digital threats, abduction, forced repatriation and even assassination Article 19 said in its report, released on June 4, the anniversary of China's bloody 1989 crackdown on protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. While such tactics are also employed by governments like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Beijing is "by far the most prolific perpetrator," the group said, citing Freedom House estimates that millions of Chinese nationals have been targeted in at least 36 countries. "From public acts of physical violence to online intimidation, the targeting of family members-especially against high-profile protest leaders-has a knock-on effect on human rights movements," the report said. In some cases, authorities have gone after the families of prominent dissidents deemed problematic. A recent example of this cited by rights groups centers on Anna Kwok, a U.S.-based activist wanted by the Hong Kong government. In late April, her father and brother were arrested on suspicion of violating the city's National Security Law-a sweeping measure imposed by Beijing following the 2019 pro-democracy protests. "The Chinese government has increased its appalling use of collective punishment against family members of peaceful activists from Hong Kong," Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in May. Michael Caster, head of Article 19's Global China Programme, said in the press release for the report: "The CCP employs its tactics to intimidate people from participating in protests, weakening global support and solidarity for human rights in China and around the world. Transnational repression silences dissent and chills freedom of expression." Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the U.S., told the Washington Post in April: "China firmly opposes the politicization, instrumentalization, or weaponization of human rights issues, as well as foreign interference under the pretext of human rights." With China expected to continue seeking to silence overseas dissidents, Article 19 urged governments to build up their response capacity for suspected cases of transnational repression and improve public awareness. The group also urged tech companies-some accused of complying with Chinese censorship demands-to be more transparent about these communications and to improve digital security and technical support for those targeted. Related Articles Welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger | OpinionChina Reacts to Trump's Steel Tariffs HikeNuclear Arms Race Warning as Warheads IncreaseThe 1600: Now Boarding the USS Idiocracy 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What separates a $1,000 iPhone from a $3,500 one? About 7,000 miles.
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social network to condemn Apple's practices of offshoring jobs to China to manufacture the iPhone and other products in its device lineup. After threatening an individual tariff of 25% on all Apple products, some analysts are already putting in predictions for how the President's proposed rate could affect Cupertino's supply chain, and ultimately what the company would need to charge for products like the iPhone, MacBooks, and more if those threats are made real. For starters, here is some context on what it looks like when a country tries to apply individual tariffs to companies or sectors attempting to reshore. What Trump is suggesting, at least broadly, wouldn't be the first time a government has applied tariffs to a single corporation. Throughout history, the U.S. has placed tariffs on everything from Chinese-made solar panels to Canadian lumber to protect and ensure the growth trajectory of domestic competitors. However it is the first time a president has threatened a domestic U.S. company with tariffs for goods it produces overseas. 'I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,' Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday morning. 'If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S.' The fact that no one has ever tried to do something like this before acknowledges just how unprecedented Trump's threats are. Some economists say it is damaging to the U.S. consumer and stock market. As Apple produces nearly 90% of its entire product stack from within China's borders, this clearly presents a problem for the company. In February of this year, Tim Cook made loose promises that Apple plans to restore over $500 billion worth of manufacturing to the US over the next four years. This timeline feels suspiciously convenient on its own, but Trump has decided to put even more pressure on Cupertino to bring jobs back home nonetheless. Ahead of Trump's latest amendment to global trade policy, Dan Ives, global lead of technology research at financial services firm Wedbush Securities, told CNN in April that bringing iPhone manufacturing back to the U.S. wasn't much more than 'a fictional tale.' 'You build that (supply chain) in the U.S. with a fab in West Virginia and New Jersey. They'll be $3,500 iPhones,' he said. Ives also addressed the sheer logistical nightmare, saying it would take more than three years and $30 billion just to get 10% of the supply chain back to US shores. Whether a tariff or the cost of reshoring is applied, the end result is a more expensive iPhone, MacBook, iMac, or Vision Pro for you or someone in your family going forward. If there's one tech story that points to the potential pitfalls of Trump's overall strategy for the U.S. tech industry, it's Intel. Over the past half decade, the company has lost almost 65% of its total value, a decrease driven by AMD's surprise chiplet attack, which threw one of America's most stable blue chip stocks into abrupt, and up to now seemingly unending, chaos. AMD had spent the better part of its history trailing Intel in sales, innovation, performance, and reliability. However, the company's growing partnership with Taiwan's chip fab specialists, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, or TSMC, created a new attack point. One where the engineering, programming, and design of a chip could be handled stateside, while TSMC would shoulder the actual chip fabrication. A split set of duties allows companies like AMD or Nvidia to offshore many of the dirtier, more heavily regulated parts of producing chips to other regions, while hiring talent willing to work in buildings not attached to silicon manufacturing floors in the United States. Meanwhile, Intel continued to expand domestic fabrication in places like Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and others for years before the CHIPS Act was even a thing. Famously, the company stumbled significantly from the 10nm to 7nm production process (to the tune of billions of dollars). AMD eventually seized its opportunity to close the gap between the two chipmakers. AMD's model isn't unique, of course. Nvidia, Apple, and even a modernized Intel all have to rely heavily, if not entirely, on Taiwan and TSMC to manufacture a significant portion of the chips backed by their engineering and design efforts. Designing a product in the U.S. and manufacturing it abroad has become a core component of the NAFTA-driven economic model since Clinton first passed the bill in the 90s. As such, it's almost strange for Apple to be singled out the way it has been, considering how many of its direct competitors do the exact same thing. In all likelihood, Trump, who famously said 'everything's computer," is no expert on technology trade. This lack of awareness likely allows underdogs like AMD, and even more confusing tech prospects like Nvidia, to fly under the 78-year-old's radar in what's become the status quo for any Silicon Valley company that wants to keep the lights on these days. Currently, the only company seemingly capable of usurping Apple's claim to the number one most valuable company is Nvidia, another tech giant that's doing the exact same thing Trump claims to be against. However, one thing Apple doesn't have that Nvidia does is the backing of everyone around them. What's suitable for Nvidia is good for the world (or the U.S.). So even rivals like Meta, Tesla, and Amazon still line up next to one another to sing the hardware maker's praises. At the same time, they also commit to a competing AI arms race of biblical proportions against each other. Whether Apple's 25% tariff is real, enforceable, or something Trump will even care about next week is likely a whim left to the courts and whatever Fox News complained about last night. But if the company does get stuck with a new sticker price, it could face even fiercer competition from rivals like Samsung and lose shares to domestic winners like AMD, Intel, and Nvidia, which are just as complicit in offshoring US manufacturing as Apple but still somehow manage to escape Trump's ire. Trump warns Apple over India: what it means for the next iPhone Acer responds to tariff question about new Aspire laptops Tariffs and TSMC delays could turn Apple into an Intel Foundry customer Lenovo's CEO has spoken: Tariffs aren't a challenge. It's something else. Sign in to access your portfolio