Ideas - How to change minds and find common ground

Episode Date: December 17, 2025

In 2024, 'polarization' was Merriam-Webster's word of the year. That division still grows, making it increasingly difficult to connect to one another. But there are people having important conversations and they have advice for us all. From fighting for LGBTQ+ rights in Colombia, championing human rights in Southern Africa and working for a two-state solution post Oct. 7, the winners of the The Global Centre for Pluralism awards tell host Nahlah Ayed about how minds can and do change, and why we need to not only talk, but listen.

There are two kinds of Canadians, those who feel something when they hear this music. And those who've been missing out so far. I'm Chris Howden. And I'm Neil Kuxel. We are the co-hosts of As It Happens, and every day we speak with people at the center of the day's most hard-hitting, heartbreaking, and sometimes hilarious news stories. Also, we have puns. Here Why As It Happens is one of Canada's longest running in most beloved shows. You can find us wherever you get your podcasts. The CBC podcast.

Welcome to Ideas. I'm Nala Ayyed. World today is very polarized. There is polarization everywhere. So look at this, Kelly, polarizing, polarizing figure here. Dealing now with a highly polarized political situation. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary chooses its word of the year based on search volume. And so the word of the year for 2024 for Marion Webster is polarization.

The results suggest that a whole lot of us have been trying quite literally to define what it means to be living in such a divided time. It means division, but it's a very specific kind of division. It means the extremes, which we identify as poles, which originally, of course, was a geographic reference. But now, as we near the end of 2025, there's a number of Another word worth your attention, pluralism. Miriam Webster defines it as, a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization. In politics, pluralism is often seen as an antidote to polarization.

But as remedies go, it's hardly a quick shot in the arm. Finding and cultivating common ground takes dedication and perseverance, not to mention courage. And that is why the global center for pluralism makes a habit of recognizing people and organizations who do the hard work of building bridges all over the world. Now I'm delighted to introduce the winners of the 2025 Global Pluralism Award from

Colombia, Colombia Diversa, from Israel and Palestine, a land for all, and from Southern Africa, Southern Africa Litigation Center. Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for this extraordinary honor. tonight I want to dedicate this award to the countless forgotten activist who paid the ultimate price for believing in a more pluralistic and humane world.

One of them is the executive director of the Southern Africa Litigation Center. It works in 11 countries to advance human rights for marginalized people and to strengthen the rule of law. The center has successfully challenged unlawful detention of refugees. combated hate speech against foreign nationals

and continually defends the rights of women and children. I grew up in apartheid South Africa, where white Christian nationalism shaped the psyche of an entire nation and traumatized that nation. And when Nelson Mandela walked out of prison after 27 years, we proclaimed ourselves a rainbow nation, a vision that was championed by Archbishop Desmond. Tutu, of a country where we could all live in peace and equality.

But without deep social and economic change, that dream has faded, and our country has become one of the most xenophobic countries on the continent. And our story is not unique. Across the world, the pendulum keeps swinging toward and away from pluralism, toward and away from human rights. We know the catastrophic cost. of religious nationalism and exclusion, and still we find ourselves repeating the mistakes of history.

But none of this is inevitable. A different future is possible, but only if we are willing to pursue the legal, political, and economic reforms that make pluralism real, not just rhetorical. Receiving the Global Pluralism Award is therefore not only a profound honor for our organization. It's an affirmation of the communities we, stand beside. We see young people across continents, across the globe, standing up, demanding accountability, gender equality, environmental justice. We see indigenous leaders, people with

disabilities, LGBTI communities, and those displaced by conflict, insisting on their right to belong. For them, pluralism is not just an ideal. It's about survival. Archbishop Tutu reminded us when he said this, my humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. We are different so that we know our need for one another. And with that, I want to thank you very much. It's an honor to be here with you. It's war and all of our staff, I accept this.

with deep gratitude. Marcella Sanchez Buitrago is the co-founder and executive director of Colombia Diversa. It's an organization that defends and advances their rights of LGBTQ plus people in Colombia. But it was their work related to a hard-fought peace deal between the government and the FARC rebel forces that terrorized the country for five decades that led to the honor. Some of you might recall in 2016 Colombia held a referendum in order to approve or reject the final peace accord that had been signed by the Colombian government and the FAR guerrilla. We lost. The public vote rejected the peace accord and part of the reason why that happened was because religious and conservative groups that were against the peace negotiations misinformed the public by misconstruing the gender focus on the accord. That's when the process that is now being awarded started.

For three years, we facilitated encounters between LGBTIQ people and religious leaders from the Pentecost and Neopentecostal Church. Those conversations weren't easy. Nevertheless, some LGBTIQ people started dreaming about a future where their spirituality had a proper place in their church. For me, there has been a road full of doubts, learnings, and finding comfort in halfway places. Colombia is a diverse country when it comes to weather, peoples, natures and religions. That is why I believe that we must build new ways so we can be able to create for the first time a society that cherishes everything that we have in common among all the things that tell us apart. Thank you.

Salam Alec, Shalom de Kbrun. Thank you. It is a profound honor to stand here today, not as representatives of one people, but as two peoples who share the same homeland. A land for all was born. from a painful truth. Force separation and domination

have failed. That is Ja'eel Burda, board chair of A Land for All, which is made up of Israelis and Palestinians who believe in and promote the idea

of a two-state solution in one homeland, grounded inequality and shared governance with open borders and shared resources for all. The October 7th massacre

tore apart Israeli families and communities. In its wake, the ongoing genocide Madhasa has killed tens of thousands, obliterated neighborhoods, and left a whole generation without homes, school. Yael accepted the award with her co-chair, Fabit Aburas. We accept this award not as a requiem. of a dream, but as a call to action. To those who believe our conflict is inevitable, we say,

it is systems that fail, not people. The zero-sum mindset is a choice, not a destiny. We can choose a future in which ending occupation brings safety, sovereignty brings partnership, and pluralism becomes shared ground. We thank the Global Pluralism Award for honoring those Palestinians. and Israelis who refuse dehumanization

and insist on dignity for both people. You strengthening a simple truth. The only peaceful future is a shared one. Yeah, we want to say it together. No way. No way.

No way. We can do it together. One more time. The only peaceful future is a shared one. A land for all. Two states, one homeland. When I sat down with all of these winners, the focus of our conversation was how minds change.

The discussion was recorded in front of a live audience during Pluralism Week in Toronto at the Ontario College of Art and Design. The question this morning is how minds can change. You're all in the business. of doing exactly that. And I'm going to ask each of you, first, about the biggest challenges that you come up against when it comes to shifting very entrenched mindsets or even just opening the door to another way of thinking.

And so, Yale and Fabit, I'd like to begin with you. Just to set the stage, of course, not that it's any surprise to any of us, but after the horrific events of two years ago, October 7th, and the catastrophic war that followed, the barriers to engagement on a two-state solution of any form have certainly shifted and changed. What would you say, starting with UEL, is the single biggest barrier currently

to changing mindsets on this issue where you live? Please. Thank you so much for inviting us and to everyone who takes the time to come listen. It's a hard question. I think one of the most, biggest difficulties that Jewish Israelis have is with acknowledging what has ensued in the last two years. So there's different ways to deal with this, right? So you can deny. You can say, I'm happy

about it and I would like to participate again. You can say it's terrible, but it was inevitable. And you can say, I don't even know how to engage with my society. And it's all about breaking points and it's all about feeling isolated and alone and that you really no longer can trust the world around you. Yeah, some very challenging adjectives there. Thabit, how do you see it from where you live? What that biggest barrier is? Well, I'm a Palestinian citizen of the State of Israel. This duality of identity speaks both languages. So I look to biggest challenge inside Israel, first of all, a lot of ignorance, misinformation, and a fake news media that really goes behind any unreal information. In the Palestinian side, I believe that

the 7th October massacre and the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing within the West Bank is taking the Palestinian issue, the people. some decades back, and people really concern about survival nowadays. Gazans don't want to talk about politics. Yes, they are saying, well, it's a great idea, but listen, we want food, we want to prevent transfer, we want to stop the genocide. This is what we are thinking about. Then we can talk about what you suggest, some plans, something in you, and

And this is the biggest challenge that is facing the Palestinian right now. So the urgency of the situation rather than the political ramifications. Next is Anika. Am I saying that correctly? Yes. Okay. Your organization has been involved in a number of crucial court battles and rulings to protect marginalized groups. What is the main feature of the resistance that you face in changing minds?

I want to echo on what Tabith had said about people's need for survival, and often that the urgency of daily life is something that makes people not really sit back and think about the broader questions. But link to that, there's the structural barriers of an entire legal system and the way in which government operates that contributes to marginalizing people. And if people see that the legal system allows that marginalization, the legal system allows the police to treat certain groups differently, I think that sort of enforces the idea in people's minds that it's okay. That really is the challenge to say, but it's not okay. But if the law does it and the government does it, then why can't everyone else also just discriminate and do what they want to do? So that's, yeah. Yeah, interesting to hear the parallels. I asked the same question of Marcella Sanchez Buetrago,

the co-founder and executive director of Colombia Diversa, who answered with the help of a translator. Last but not least, Marcella, in Colombia, there have been huge strides made in recognizing the rights of LGBTQ plus people to marry, to adopt, to live freely, the way they want to, and free from discrimination. What is the single biggest roadblock, you know, allowing progress on the rights of people?

of LGPTQ plus in Colombia. Well, generally, we think that the form to change the minds is giving information. Generally, we believe that change his mind is all given information or knowledge. But some people have that

knowledge and have that information. But it's part of the political strategy to confuse people. We have an example of work in the Costa Pacific Colombian with We have a work in the Pacific Coast of Colombia with LGBT plus leader and religious leaders,

Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostal leaders. And they didn't want to sit together. Some of them because they had fear, some of them had anger. But we believe it's needed to work on the motions. And there were two opposite sides. But when they sat together, they found out that they're from the same region, the same, the same culture, the same skin color. And they found out that they could actually sit together and work together, despite the religious and also their difference in sexual orientation and diversity.

Thank you. Actually, that's a great jumping off point for my next question to all of you. But it's interesting to hear just a tiny glimpse of what stands in the way, misinformation, fear, anger, more urgent issues. That's just a microcosm of the challenges you face every day. I'd like on the other side of this to hear one story from each of you, just from your everyday field experience, that actually illustrates to you that changing minds is possible. Just a small story. And maybe actually, Rasella, starting with you,

and just maybe pick up on that example that you just started with. One of the examples more concrete in Colombia, is the actual process of peace. A concrete example is the current Colombian peace process. process. They created a strategy with their seat together, demobilized FAR fighters with victims of the conflict. At first, it was rejection all around. Some of the lawyers of the perpetrators were anxious about this being used in the transitional tribunal against them. And they refused to accept this at first. And then we started and divided the strategy in

And first we're with other integrants of FAR that were also LGBTIQMAS. So the first step was to sit together demobilized FARC

fighters that were part of the LGBT plus community and they realized that they were both victims of the conflict. Demobilized FARC members

were victims within the ranks and then victims were also victims of this violence from the FARC. Thank you. That's a great example.

Arnica, same question. Let me give an example of vagrancy laws. When we started working in Malawi, for example, we realized that many people are being arrested simply for being walking around at night or early in the morning or those sort of things under sort of traditional vagrancy laws. Those laws specifically target sex workers, informal traders, people who beg. and we started a process of challenging those laws publicly, having judges and activists peeking out publicly on the radio, on the news,

to discuss why these laws criminalized poverty and to question why are we treating people who are poor as a different? And eventually it led to a number of court cases which were successful, which were then replicated in Tanzania, in Uganda, in Sierra Leone, in Nigeria, and it eventually led to a decision at the African court level which ordered all states to review their vagrancy laws. And it's not so much that you can change sort of just the legal system,

but it's what comes with that, that once you've challenged that, then you can start challenging the way in which police treat people because then they actually work in a way that's contrary to the law and illegal, And then that then creates the basis for discussion on why do we have a police force that works in a particular way, which then leads to discussions around how do we transform our society away from how it always used to be to something that's better and something that sees things differently. Fabid, when you think about the work that you do on the ground and in the field, is there a story? Is there a scene that you remember?

Well, I would like to give you a story from Gaza. Actually, I have a family in Gaza. I lost 37 members of my family, yet I am very active in Gaza trying to help people. Well, I just realized one of the activists in Gaza that I'm working with is using the word, Jews is killing us, Jews bombing us, Jews are starving us all of this time. And I realized that he's talking just like the President of Israel, when he said, no insolent people in Gaza, all are Hamas. and this kind of terminology brought Israel to the ICC, the ICJ, say, listen, this is not the Jews.

This is the Israeli government. It's not the Israeli society even. Well, this man, he just said replies when I told him, there are many Jewish friends that they are actually demonstrates in the streets against the world. And not only this, the tints that you are going to distribute to the needy people, some of them, We are actually contributed about Jewish people. And I was happy that he stopped talking about Jews is bombing us. Yes, this is the Israeli government. It's so important.

It's about terminology, but for me, it's meaning a lot. Because people with this polarization see white and dark. Okay? And this is really bad for our vision. So just to talk in the right terminology, yes, we have a problem with Israeli government, not with the Jewish people. A seemingly small change, but with big meaning. Yeah, what comes to mind? So for us, we advocate for two states and one homeland.

So we're building on a lot of international understanding and about the two-state solution, but in a very, very different way. A confederation, if I understand it currently. It's a confederation, but also a way that sees the entire territory from the river to the sea as the homeland of both people. Because for Palestinians, all of historic, all of that land is Palestine. And for many Jews, all of that land is the land of Israel. For me, the most important inspiration happened on October 10th, 2023. It was our first board meeting, our first joint board meeting taking place. I think I cried most of the meeting.

I don't think I was very much of use. There are Israelis and Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians from the West Bank all across Israel, sitting together during this time as we know so many of the, we knew so many of the victims of October 7th were members of the human rights community of the peace movement. But the bombs on Gaza had already begun. The casualties had already began to rise.

We knew what was. coming, but we were together in it. So when people say to us, show me one Palestinian that will work with us on this, I tell them there's not just one. There are people that I sat with during those hours and days that the deepest darkness you could ever imagine. And we were together. And that it enables you to convince people that it's worth their while to come and listen. It's worth their while to come and sit. It's worth their while to be. It's worth their while to give it a chance. And I think that's where that's the most important thing about a land for all,

that it provides that real space for things to move forward. Maybe it's just staying with you, and I want to ask all of you this question, is how do you respond, not just in that really difficult moment, but in everyday life, when someone says to you, do I really have to talk to everyone?

Especially if they feel personally, their own existence is threatened by another side. How do you talk across different, like what do you say when people say, why do I need to talk to those people? What's your response? So talk is good. Talk is good, but action is much more important. And yes, obviously, if you're a victim of a genocide or if you are fearing your life, you have ontological insecurity like so many Israelis experience, some of them can't talk. I think one thing is, can you listen? Sometimes it's more important. And the second thing is the willingness to be active on the things that you do agree with, on the things that you do support.

And one of the things that we find is that people can say, oh, your solution is just utopian and this and that. But when you ask them about the set of value, so they're 60% with us. Okay. So those 60% we're going to work with. You've got 30% let's work with that. And also, I think it's important to say who's not at the table. We will not work with Jewish supremacists.

And that's important too. You're listening to my conversation with four recipients of the Global Pluralism Awards. It was recorded in front of a live audience at the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto as part of Global Pluralism Week. This is Ideas. I'm Nala Ayyad. I'm Suresh Das. I've spent my career writing about the local favorites that make Canada's food scene truly unique. I've been into a chili. Woo! Yeah, don't get you.

From vibrant street food to comforting traditional dishes. The most important ingredients in jolof rice? Loaf. To innovative, personal twists. Butter chicken lasagna. Butter chicken lasagna. That's what made it all happen. I believe.

Every bite tells a story. Now, I want to share those stories with you. New series Locals Welcome with Suresh Das. Watch free on CBC Gem. We just heard from Ye'Alberta of a Land for All, talking about the importance of communicating even through differences. A Land for All is a joint Israeli-Palestinian group that advocates for a two-state solution in one homeland. I asked the organization's Co-chair, Fabit Abu-Ras, what would motivate people to talk across difference, especially when the gap can be so wide? Well, if we are not talking, we are not going to change anything. Reality will remain as it is.

This is why, first of all, if you want to change the reality, and the reality is really bad inside Israel, within the Palestinian society, but I agree with the Aal that action is more important than talk. We have a real battle right now. especially in Israel, but also within the Palestinian community, there is a lack of leadership. We must engage in a battle to overthrow the Israeli government. We have to do it, but there is a lack of leadership within the Palestinians. Hamas and Abu Mazin should be replaced by others. And I'm telling you, the Palestinian people so aware of this issue and they want to see different reality.

So do you tell them to get more politically engaged, for example? Yes, exactly. How do you respond when they say, well, you know, not me? I'm telling God, I believe that within Israel we see in the coming election, the rise of the turning votes, will people will participate. Among Palestinians are still people in different phases. Then the Palestinians, they are more reluctant to do that because they have priorities to do that. I have to encourage them, this is the right thing to do.

if you want to change things in your own life. It's about values. We talk about values, sharing values that Israelis and Palestinians and really share, and we can do it. Thank you, Thabit. Anika, different contexts, but still, it's about getting people to, you know,

engage on issues they don't want to engage on. How do you respond when people say, no, no thanks? I find that people actually do want to engage. They just don't know how. People want to connect with other people. People are curious about other people. Not just because you like a good gossip story, but we are interested in each other.

We just don't know from what angle to come in. And I find the angle that's often the easiest is to speak about your family, your children, your pets also come in quite handy, but that really depends. It doesn't work so well in Africa, but well, you can speak about your cows or your chickens. So, you know, people do have some very things that they are fond of.

But it's about that human connection. And I think once people start speaking about that, they forget about the ideological differences that they had. It's not that it goes away, but you've opened up that space to discuss. And once you're willing to listen to someone as another person, that's when people can start trying to convince you and you can try to convince each other and those sort of things. But it's opening up the space, really. Marcel, I see you nodding. What's in your mind as you nod? And she wants to retomar

some words that you said is the little change. She wants to go back to something that was said and it's all this small change because this is not a massive change.

It's all person by person one by one. And we're going to see the results very slowly. But it's important because people don't believe in obstruction. When you talk about

LGBT plus rights, that's an abstraction. You're you can be your his companion and when you tell people that LGBT plus people can be your son, your colleague, your friend, then we find something that we have in common that we can share. And one of the strategies that they use is not to change mine,

is to actually sit together, to see each other, to talk to each other, to share the same space. I want to stay with you, Marcella, if I can, to kind of come across you all again about the kinds of tools that you use beyond your persuasive powers. to get people to talk and to talk across difference. And I wanted to say this to you, Marcel, that in Canada, we had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to just begin to address some of the injustices that have been dealt and the harm to indigenous Inuit and Métis people here in Canada who went to residential schools. Colombia has a similar, I understand, Truth Commission, which came out of the 2016 Peace Accord between the government and FARC.

what is the value of formal reconciliation efforts like these when it comes to helping us understand each other? The most important of the Commission of the Verde, is just the fact that, the truth. We're just a process of peace in Colombia created three... So one of the most important things is that, the truth. And the peace accord in Colombia created three structures,

a tribunal, central tribunal justice, a unit to find superior people, truth commission. But the truth commission is really a court to reconciliation because we need to ask why the perpetrators did this to find the clues to that non-repetition. If we focus just on justice, then there's no truth to that because there's all of the punishment and the victims will never get the truth and to see why or to find why that happened. So you think they're fit for purpose? They think they're useful in a conversation, a national conversation about reconciliation?

Total. Can I pick up on that thing? Perhaps from a slightly different perspective. Truth and reconciliation commissions are extremely important to, and quite cathartic I think for people, firstly, to express what they live through, and doing that often helps you to also be a voice for those who aren't there anymore, and I think that's important and that in itself helps us to not forget what happened and helps us importantly to not forget people.

The risk about, and I hear what you say about justice, there has to be some sort of justice. There has to be accountability for the crimes people perpetrated. It doesn't have to be immediate. Everything's a process, right? And your immediate process to find peace and to find reconciliation might put that aside. But if you forget that entirely, it fosters. And you had that initial cathartic reaction where you felt validated in a sense. But then if nothing changes in your life and the rich are still the rich and the privileged

and you're still where you are and your land is still in their hands. And if nothing changes, then it feels a bit sort of like people see through that. And then what happens is people then say, clearly the system didn't work for me, so let me just look after myself and my family. And it breeds almost more separation in a sense. I'm making an assumption that you're speaking from the South African example of a human reconciliation. If you could anchor your just a further answer, just a brief one, about you were speaking

quite hypothetically there, but just how it has unfolded and how it has delivered or not in the South African example. So in the South African example, we had Archbishop. of Desmond Tutu as leading the Truth and Reconciliation Commission immediately post-apartheid. And I was just the young lawyer at the time and part of that process. And then people came face to face with the people who perpetrated horrific things against them. They spoke through that. It all happened on national television.

There was a report at the end of it, and then everything died down. And then we sort of became, we all started living together very nicely. But nothing happened to the people who did. perpetrators, those atrocities. The prosecuting authority didn't really push that. In South Africa now, this year was the first time, we now are 30 years post-Apartite. It was the first time someone was prosecuted for the crime of apartheid in South Africa.

30 years later. And I mean, by then, many of the people who had perpetrated things had died. The family of the people who had died themselves had continued for years and years to just push and push and push and constantly being ignored. And I just want to take it one step further. At the moment, we have a police commission of inquiry because our police commission, we realize the police is entirely corrupt and those sort of things.

And South Africans follow that as much as they did, the truth and reconciliation, we're watching on TV. You want to know what went wrong. It's the trickies you want to see what happens afterwards, and how does that change things. So that's truth and reconciliation. attempts, which we could do an entire panel. Of course, I want to switch with Thabed and Yale to the question as another tool, let's call it, in trying to change minds of the involvement

of outside parties. Of course, we all know that there have been attempts by President Trump and others to find peace in the region. As you mentioned, the land for all is devoted to a two-state confederation model that provides for sovereignty, but also access to both communities to the land You've said that October 7th showed that there had been a patent failure of efforts to manage the conflict. And I was curious from both of you, how is the involvement of outside actors who are invested, say they're invested in resolving the conflict, help or hinder your efforts specifically to change minds? First of all, I want to say that international involvement is very important. It's very important.

It's critical. It's critical at this moment. People think, oh, there's a ceasefire, you could stop pressure. No, absolutely, do not get your foot off the gas. That's one thing. The second thing is, it's obvious that international pressure alone does nothing sometimes make worse. And so, therefore, the issue of agency on the ground, especially now, even the international stabilization force in Gaza, having what they call a peace board without Palestinian agency,

and involvement on the ground that is legitimate, it's just not going to work, it's going to fall apart. As long as you have a situation where you have this total power imbalance with Israel making all the decisions, no equality there, nothing is going to happen. And so, on the one hand,

I think we need to work with whatever is, whatever is offered, whatever pathways are offered we need to work with, but we need to really remain steadfast on the fact that you need people on the ground to be involved and engaged and accountable. I'll say one more thing. The West Bank is burning.

Villages are being burned as we speak. We need involvement. It helps. It prevents. It doesn't stop. But it does change. And it also changes the possibility of the oppositions from within to gains trains. And you got to be smart about this, right?

Because there's all this issue of legitimacy that a lot of. of times when you have authoritarian overhauls like Israel is going through, is that the more international pressure, it's easy for the government to say, ah, we're being attacked from all over, rise up against it. The issue is how to voice that, that there is a hand lent out to those who want a way out and not just, you know, just one way. And so, yes, I said it was complex. I hope that was clear in some way. Thank you. And Thabit, I want you to pick up on that. And to focus on this, this, what Yale said, this idea that an outside power helping two sides or more talk to each other may help or hinder the various parties involved, you know, who want the outcome that you

want. Yeah, well, I have to admit that I really disappointed. The Palestinians are really disappointed from the international community at a whole. We have to admit that. I believe the international community should not wait two years to impose a ceasefire in Gaza. Just imagine if this happened just one and a half year before or immediately when the war just started. Having said that, I believe that without imposing a solution from the international community, this is not going to happen. There is a very powerful force in the ground, which is Israel, expanding its settlements, trying ethnic cleansing right now is taking place in the West Bank. And the West Bank without 7th October massacre, okay? So we are expecting from the international community to engage, to impose, without that's not going to happen.

It took a lot of time for those countries to act, to see European countries acting, okay? Without the support of certain countries in Europe, United States, this war will not go more than one month. And now we understand that the grassroots, the people, it's supporting the Palestinian cause, supporting the independent Palestinian state, and hopefully this trend will continue. Unfortunately, we live in a region where it's dictatorship regimes, Arab regimes, are dictators. We don't trust. We don't want to see another dictatorship regime within the Palestinian community.

Just a quick follow up to both of you. Does the involvement of an outside power bring more supporters to what you're trying to do? So that's a very important thing. So a lot of times you have, especially in Europe, countries discussing the two-state solution as it was proposed 30 years ago. Stale, very stale, never worked, never worked, won't work. And so what we're proposing is exactly not to keep doing that, not to keep doing that, not to suggesting something that not only is not feasible, but also has also a lot of immorality. And we find that there is a beginning of support to be able to listen to say, we've learned

the lessons of Oslo, we've learned the lessons of this stale solution, come with us because we want to show there is another possible path. I mean, it's still in small percentages, but there's a growing support for the Confederation idea. Also for understanding that you need to, you need two states in order to end the occupation, but you need one homeland in order to end the conflict. And that's the thing that we need to get across. Okay. I think what all of us here would like to hear is, and we've only gotten tiny glimpses of the work that you all do, which obviously is very challenging, is an idea or an inspiration or a list, if you were to make a list of the best practices, advice on

changing minds, what that would be? What would you put at the top of the list? And Marcella, I'd like to start with you. I think to start with you. I think we need what we have. We need those rights human, we need those instruments international of the rights

human, the systems that protect the rights human. I'm listening to my colleagues. I realize it's not just about LGBT plus people. In Colombia, when a heterosexual judge supported the rights of LGBT people, LGBT-plus people, there was the idea that the support was to everyone in Colombia in that diversity. No is the rights of the Palestinians, not the rights of the LGBT.

We can't support all the causes, not only the property. It's not all the LGBT-plus rights. It's not our Palestinian rights or Israeli rights. It's all the rights of all and supporting those rights. So I would say our biggest problem is we don't understand each other. to change minds that happens at different levels throughout our society. So on the one hand, you need to change the laws and the legal system to recognize that everyone's equal.

And to do that, you need to create the space at the national level for people who experience violence and discrimination to be able to say and air their experiences and talk about the experiences themselves to lawmakers. But then at a very local level, you need to have people understand why that change in the legal system is necessary, why we are better society if we actually don't have that discrimination and violence. And for that, you need dialogues and engagements at community level for people to realize what the impact of the violence and discrimination

has been and to realize that it is not in any of our interest to perpetuate that in our societies. I want to stay with you for a minute, Anika, because we didn't get a chance to ask you about the role of courts and all of this. Of course, it's at the heart of what you do. But you've spoken in previous contexts about the importance of even setting up the court to change their mind. How do you influence courts

without obviously meddling with the law? But how do you do that? How do you ensure that you set things up so that courts can also come with the right mindset? There's many ways in which you can do that. We've worked over the past decade with judges from across, Africa. And what we found is if judges who have written progressive judgments actually

explain to their colleagues why they came to the decision they came and they just speak to each other, not training or all that sort of things, people are interested in how that analysis happened. And we've had very good experiences where, for example, you take litigants, whether it's the LGBTQ community or refugee community or any sort of disability community, and have the litigants engage with the judges about a judge saying, okay, what was their difficulty in considering the case and the litigants explaining their experience of the litigation process and actually being in dialogue with each other and having other judges listen to that. And I think in highly restrictive societies or societies where there's quite a big hostility

towards pluralism, exposing those courts to discussions, countries where there is more acceptance is very important. Yeah, Marceli, you have something to say about that. I think the judges no tomans decisions if not in the society a debate. I believe judges don't take decisions if they don't listen to this debates and the legitimacy of those decisions

are based in these debates. So it goes back and forth. And a lot of the advancement that has happened in Colombia has been because of the work to the judiciary system too. Thank you for that. Thabit, what's at the top of your list of tools and advice that you would provide for people wanting to change minds? Yeah. Yeah, well, the most important thing, not to give up. Palestinians don't have the lexas and to give up.

We cannot give up to our rights. Now we know that we went back almost a few decades, but we must talk, engage, and try to talk values, try to understand the others really problems and challenges. You know, I have to admit, I live within Israel, and I know that the Israelis are insecure people. There is a very strong fear within the Israeli society. There is a lot of politics of fear. I would like to relate to the people's fear in Israel. Israel is a nuclear power, yet Batul are not safe.

They can win more wars, but still will continue to be insecure. As a Palestinian, I am the victim. I would like to try to understand the Israelis. Yeah. Tool number one, having a counterpart like Thabit, probably. The question is, how do you change minds? Yeah. And I think sometimes maybe the question is,

how do you change the conditions that enable people to change their mind? And those conditions can be economic and social and legal and everything. but they can also be about the way we view what leadership is and the fact that there is leadership everywhere. So working with what is, there are people, they are doing things. The majority is very disappointing, but there are thousands of people that manage to hold together the impossible. And when you focus on them rather than kind of looking for what leadership should look like,

I think you gain a lot more. So this idea of using what is, using all the resources that we have, and then to make frameworks where people can participate and be active in from their own standing point. I guess stemming from that is naturally the question is, how do you know when to walk away? How do you know when your energy is being wasted or not producing the results you want them to produce?

I think that that's a really important question, and we have this tendency to think that taking a break is like being a traitor or leaving. And we forget that there's a cycle. Sometimes we do holding actions to preserve what is. Sometimes we work on building alternative for the world to come. And sometimes we take a rest so we can like be okay and take care of our families and be healthy. And those are all part of one cycle. And so you have to see how, and it doesn't have to be all at once either.

Sometimes you work really hard and do one thing, and sometimes you do the other. But instead of fighting with each other what we should be doing, we could just see that as a spiral that we come back to again again. Fabit, how do you guard against despair or, you know, throwing your hands up and saying, no, it's not doable. Yeah, sometimes really you get to despair or say, well, it's enough, that's it. But I cannot do it. I always will remember my 87-year-old aunt that witnessed the first Nakhba, 1948. And now witnessing one more Nakhba moving from north to the south. I remember her last year.

Her face when she is so thin because of starvation, I will continue. I don't know what's despair all about. I have to continue until to see my aunt living normal life. at least, okay? So I don't have any break. I will continue to do all necessary means for my people, for both people, actually, and to get peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Anika, when do you walk away? Is there ever a time when you just throw your hands up? No. I think you should constantly ask yourself, if it's not working, how can I do things differently. And what I've certainly realized is that it's a team effort. And if all of us work

together and support each other and provide each other also with the emotional support to be able to continue, that strength is immeasurable. And I think it's sometimes very hard. But if we recognize that everyone is going through the same struggle and we're there for each other and we support each other, we can accomplish anything we want to. And I firmly believe in that. Ressela, what is it in this moment? I mean, we don't have to underline the fact that we live in very polarized times. People live in silos.

We all have our opinions. We seek other opinions, but we are entrenched in our little silos. How do you convince yourself that it's worth it to keep going even in this environment? the life of the people. Ocea, those retrocesses

that we have in the lives of people because this backlash has a real

cost in the lives of people and there's very high homicide rates against

LGBT plus people in Colombia but even beyond that daily life to have

that dignity that that everyone deserves that keeps her going. I believe

that yes sometimes we forget about ourselves and that this is an

and that personal cost of this involves. But it's worth it because this is not a job. This is not a profession. This also changes ourselves. Thank you very much, all of you for taking my questions. Thank you for what you do. And many congratulations again. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. You've been listening to my conversation with recipients of the 2025 Global Pluralism Awards talking about how minds change. The awards are given out every two years by the Global Center for Pluralism, a charitable organization founded by His Highness, the late Aga Khan, Prince Kareem al-Husaini, and the Government of Canada. Recipients receive 50,000 Canadian.

to further their work on pluralism. The panel was recorded before a live audience at the Ontario College of Art and Design. The music you're hearing now is by the late Rwandan activist and gospel musician Kizito Mejigo. Ana Kemir Kader, who accepted the award on behalf of the Southern Africa Litigation Center dedicated the award to him.

I want to dedicate this award to the countless forgotten activist who paid the ultimate price for believing in a more pluralistic and humane world. One of them is Casito Mahigo. Take a note of this name. He's a Rwandan musician, a survivor of the genocide, and a gentle voice for reconciliation. His song called The Meaning of Death Challenged the official narrative

and called for empathy for all who suffered For that he was imprisoned His music was banned And five years ago he died in police custody His death was never properly investigated His fellow inmates called him the dove because even in prison he spread peace and reconciliation. So when you get to go home tonight,

I hope that you'll listen to the song from Casito Mahiko. It reminds us of the courage, humility and perseverance that are the true cost of building a pluralistic society. If you like what you've heard today, please subscribe to ideas on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. This episode was produced by Donna Dingwall. Technical production by Orande Williams and Sam McNulty. Special thanks to the team at the Ontario College of Art and Design for hosting the panel and to the Global Center for Pluralism for inviting us to be a part of it.

Lisa Ayuso is the web producer. for ideas. Nikola Lukshic is the senior producer. Greg Kelly is the executive producer of ideas, and I'm Nala Ayyad. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.com.