Introduction: In 1990, seven Black and one Filipino nurse filed complaints of systemic racism against Toronto’s Northwestern Hospital at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Their case, which ended in victory four years later, shone a light on long-standing practices of racism in healthcare and targeting Black workers. June Veecock, then the Director of Human Rights at the Ontario Federation of Labour, played a significant role in helping the nurses launch their case, and win.

In this interview, June speaks about how she came to be involved and the support given by other Black activists including Akua Benjamin, and Zanana Akande, as well as the Congress of Black Women. She also describes the heavy personal toll that the experience of racism in the hospital and in fighting the case took on the nurses themselves. But to start June shares some of the other experiences that were part of her activist history within the labour movement itself.

Margaret McPhail: Hello. I’m Margaret and I’m a member of the Rise Up! Feminist Archive. And I’m very pleased today to be interviewing June Veecock. Thank you so much, June, for agreeing to be part of the Women Unite project.

Women Unite interviews are centered on key moments in feminist history in Toronto, from the 1970s to the 1990s. Our primary focus today is going to be on the Human Rights Commission case against Northwestern General Hospital on behalf of a number of black nurses who charged the hospital with systemic racism. June played a pivotal role in championing this case.

However, June, you have been a feminist, antiracist and labour activist trailblazer throughout your life, for 19 of those years as the Director of Human Rights at the Ontario Federation of Labour. You’ve also been closely connected with a wide range of other groups and issues, including your involvement with the Congress of Black Women of Canada and the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. These contributions have been acknowledged by awards such as the YWCA Women of Distinction Award and the Bromley Armstrong Award for Equity in Human Rights among others. And that’s just getting started.

So, I’d like to begin by asking you, June, to tell us a bit more about your background. What do you think led to you becoming such an advocate and fighter for change so early on in Guyana and has kept you going in Canada?

June Veecock: Well, a little bit about my background. My first job was with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in Guyana where I worked as an inspector. I became involved with the union, which was a male-dominated union at the time, and was very active in many positions – executive positions and on committees. And I guess that more or less fueled my interest in the trade union movement generally.

So, when I came to Canada, I had one objective and that was to get a unionized job. That’s all. That’s the goal I’d set for myself; I must find a unionized job, because by then I had, I could fully appreciate that workers represented by unions are in a much better position. In terms of advocacy, I didn’t really set out to be an advocate so to speak, or an activist. But that just evolved over the years.

Margaret: And I think when you first came to Canada you were a member of CUPE 79?

June: CUPE 79, yes.

Margaret: Right. And you threw yourself into being involved with that union as well? I think you …

June: Well, that was interesting – how I got involved with CUPE was quite interesting. Yes, a unionized job; I worked in the business office of Riverdale Hospital. I was the Patients’ Trust Clerk. And I actually said to the local executive at the time that I was interested in participating.

And they were kind of, “Well, you’re new so this could be complex. Let us handle it.” And I thought OK, and I backed away.

And then we had this strike. I can’t remember what year it was. You know municipal workers didn’t have the right to strike then, but we came out. And I remember the meeting where they were essentially suggesting that we had to return to work. Well I couldn’t understand why we had to return to work at that time when we hadn’t accomplished what we set out to do. And we knew it was an illegal strike going into it.

So I got to the mic and I said just that. At the end of the meeting, Jeff Rose came up to me and he said, “I’d like to encourage you to get involved with this local.” And he said, “What can I …?”

I said, “Well, I tried at the local level, but people didn’t think I needed that.”

He said, “Well what can I interest you in?”

And I said, “Either the women’s committee or the health and safety committee.”

Well, about two or three years later I received a call that there was a position on the women’s committee, the CUPE 79 Women’s Committee, and asking if I was interested. And I said yes, and that’s where my involvement with the union movement in Canada started.

Margaret: And then at one point you were an advocate for the accrual of seniority on the part of women who were on maternity leave?

June: Oh, well that was another defining moment I guess. What had happened was, the hospital was giving pregnant nurses who were on maternity leave, they were accruing seniority. At the time, it wasn’t required. It wasn’t a law.

So, when they realized what they were doing, they not only stopped but they wanted to revert the women. And I thought no, you can’t. And that was quite the struggle.

They said, “But we didn’t have to. It’s a mistake.”

And I said, “Well it’s a mistake you’ll have to eat because you assigned vacations based on seniority. You promoted based on seniority. How are you going to go back and correct those? What are you going to tell those nurses who were denied promotion because they didn’t have the seniority? How are you going to remedy that?”

And it took a while but eventually they realized that the union was right. We were right.

Margaret: That’s great. And then, you know a big part obviously of your activism with the labour movement was as the Human Rights Director of the Ontario Federation of Labour where you worked for 19 years I think, starting in 1986?

June: Yes.

Margaret: You were the first woman from a racialized community to be in such a senior position with a central labour body. Tell me about that.

June: Yeah, well from being active in CUPE 79, I would attend conferences, OFL women’s conferences, human rights conferences. And I came to know Janis Sarra, a woman I respect very much. And Janis called me one day to ask if I think I could get a leave of absence. She wanted me to go to the Federation to organize the conference the Federation was having. That was the first conference on the issue of race, building the participation of workers of colour in their unions.

And I told her I’d try. I said, “But Janis , I don’t know if I can do this.”

She said, “Yes, you can.”

I said, “The only thing I’ve organized is a dinner party and sometimes they’re not successful.

She said, “No June, you’ll be fine. Let’s see if we get you this secondment.”

And that’s how I got to the Fed. I got to the Fed to organize the conference. The conference involved close to 400 racialized trade unionists at the West Berlin Hotel. And strangely enough, it was out of that conference that I got the idea for the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists.

One of the keynote speakers at the conference was Dr. Linda Murray, a very sharp woman, a black woman out of, I think, Detroit. Powerful speech, and I remember clearly she said, “Look, I can’t tell you guys how to organize in Canada, but this is what we did, the student doctors in Michigan.” And she talked about establishing a chapter of the Coalition of Black Trade Unions. So, that’s where the idea came from …

Of course, I have to say though, a number of racialized trade unionists were organizing before I got to the Fed. You know, there weren’t too many. You had Yvonne Bobb. You had Winnie Ng. And you had Ann Newman who became president of her local, the telephonists at Bell Canada. So you had people organizing before. I want to make that clear.

But in terms of pulling it together, I recall that we had 12 workshops at that conference. And I recall taking off 12 sheets of paper, giving it to the facilitators and asking them to see if they could influence people to join the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. Well very few came back. And out of that, you know Madhu Das Gupta…

Margaret: Yes.

June: Well we gave it to Madhu because, now remember I’m on staff and I’m organizing to challenge the labour movement. So we gave those sheets to Madhu DasGupta and Madhu held a caucus upstairs. And that’s how we got moving.

Margaret: So you were involved with the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists throughout your time at …

June: Oh yes.

Margaret: And so, I mean over the years it must have expanded its role in terms of –

June: Oh, it did.

Margaret: – in terms of the Federation. But what about in the member unions of the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Coalition of Black …

June: Well, they would support it. And interestingly, we had a dinner every year, an anniversary dinner, and the affiliates were quite prepared to buy a table and send their members. But we couldn’t get members to join the Coalition per se, you know, because it was perceived … And yes, the function, the main goal of the Coalition was to change the practices of unions, especially the hiring practices. So that was a very interesting time.

Margaret: So you played this role of being, shall we say on staff and also an active supporter –

June: A double agent.

Margaret: So you were a bit of a disturber on the sidelines and I understand that in 1990 you played that role at the Canadian Labour Congress in opposing an all-white candidate slate.

June: Yes.

Margaret: Can you tell me about that?

June: All-white Executive. Well, we had been advocating, right? And we started organizing since Shirley Carr was the president. We would write and bring to their attention the lack of inclusion, not only on their executive but on boards, agencies and commissions, which the labour movement recommended activists for.

So, we got to that Convention and somebody said, “Let’s run a candidate.” Well, people talk, but in those days they were still, what should I say, they were still afraid of the pushback from the union and the fellow white brothers and sisters.

But at the end of the meeting that we had, Dori Smith came up to me and asked, “June, what about if I run?”

And I said, “You don’t have to ask me to run. If you want to run, run.” And so we got together.

But the interesting thing, … We just wanted to make a point, send a message. But Dori Smith started behaving like a candidate [laughs] and knocking on doors and really campaigning. Well at the end of it, I remember Jean-Claude, he was from CUPW. And when he announced the vote, Dori had over 1,200 votes. And Jean-Claude said, “Well, the message has been sent.”

So, out of that Convention and that effort the CLC established a taskforce to look at just that, inclusion representation of racialized groups on the Board. And as it came out of the taskforce, they were giving us one seat. Well I felt, and others, that that was a little too late, that we should at least have two seats. And that’s where we made the button to demonstrate one plus one equals two. And I’m happy to report that in the end we did have two seats.

Margaret: That’s great. That’s a lot of work. And so, over that time, did you notice much change in both the unions and the central labour bodies, both for women’s equality and for racialized members?

June: Well, I think the Federation was a little ahead of the affiliates. And the Federation sets the policy overall. But there’s no capacity for them to implement the policies that they establish. The implementation comes from the affiliates.

So we had these very powerful Convention papers. Women did a lot of work. You had a powerful women’s committee with women like Judy Darcy and Judy Rebick. Judy Rebick was like a dog with a bone at Convention about reproductive rights. You had Jamie Kass with childcare. The OFL Women’s Committee I would say did ground-breaking work. Because of their efforts, a lot of affiliates more or less followed the Federation. But, as I said, the Federation had no mandate. So you had these lofty policy papers seeking change, but there was no change because you can’t force the affiliates to make the change.

One of the things that I’m proud of is that the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists developed a report card on the hiring practices of unions. And no big research – you could look around. And we asked the activists in the union, “How many racialized groups do you have?” or how many Aboriginal people – the target groups – and we made a report card.

And I tell you, I guess that embarrassed a few of them. There was a flurry of activity with respect to hiring. CUPE, my own union, hired a few. OPSEU had hired a few and they increased their number. That’s how Carol Wall got hired. I remember it was coming close to Convention. And I’m going in the elevator and, now I’ve forgotten his name, but one of the Executive said, “June, are you doing a report card this year?”

And I said, “Yes.”

And he said, “Can you wait?”

I said, “Why?”

He said, “I’m trying to get one.” And the one he was trying to get was Carol Wall. [Laughs]

Margaret: Good decision.

June: “Can you wait?”

“Why?”

“Is it ready?”

I said, “It’s about ready.”

“Can you wait? I’m trying to get one.”

Margaret: Wanted a better mark on the report card, obviously.

June: Yes.

Margaret: So, I want to turn to the involvement with the Ontario Human Rights case against Northwestern General Hospital on behalf of the nurses who charged the hospital with systemic racism. Can you tell me about that, what the case was about, and particularly how you got involved?

June: Well, I was at work one day and I got a call. And this woman was very, very upset. She said her name was Sharon and she worked at Northwestern. And she began to tell me all that was happening, very upset. I could hardly hear her. I had to hold the phone away from my ear.

And she said, “I’ve tried here. I’ve tried there. I’ve tried everywhere. Nobody would help me.”

And I said, “Well, I’ll help you. But, Sharon, if things are as bad as you are saying they are at Northwestern, then it can’t be you alone. There’ve got to be other nurses. So, you see if you can find other nurses that have similar experiences and then call me and we’ll take it from there.”

Well about two to three weeks later she called me. She said, “June, I’m as high as a kite.”

And I said, “What are you on?”

She said, “Nothing, nothing. I’ve found a nurse with similar experiences, and she says that she knows of others. Would you see us?”

I said, “Yes, I will.”

Well, Sharon came in – and I remember having to find an office – with 12 women; 11 black nurses and one Filipino nurse. And that’s how I got involved.

Margaret: So these nurses at the time were not part of a union that was part of the Federation.

June: No, they weren’t. That’s the interesting part. They were members of ONA. These are registered nurses, members of ONA. And you know ONA at the time was not affiliated to the OFL. That came after, out of that struggle I would say.

And I remember asking Julie Davis, I said, “Julie, these women are here.”

Well everybody in the OFL wanted to know what was going on. “What’s June doing now? All these people in the office, what’s happening?”

So when I explained to Julie Davis, Julie said, “You know they’re in ONA. They have a union.”

I said, “Yes, and this is what they said. I advised them to go to the union and this is what they’re alleging.”

“And you know that ONA is not affiliated to the Fed.”

And I said, “Yes, but I feel like we should be helping these women.”

And she said, “Go on, do what you have to do.” And she was very supportive. I spent a lot of time on those cases.

Margaret: Tell me a little bit about what started to be uncovered as the case moved forward.

June: OK.

Margaret: I mean, if they were that upset, obviously there were some pretty…

June: Yes, yes, yes. Sharon was alleging… Sharon was born in Nova Scotia. She said she had a very poor background, always wanted to be a nurse, worked, saved her money until she could go to school, became a nurse. And she was interesting. Being a Canadian-born nurse, she felt that she ought to have more rights than the West Indian-born nurses.

It took a little while to say, “Sharon, listen, what is happening to you is happening to them also. So you need to understand that you should be supportive of them. and they supportive of you. And as a group we may be able to break through.”

What others were alleging was differential treatment in terms of where they work, hours of work, in terms of discipline. And eventually, the investigator from the Human Rights Commission said, “June, within a couple of days I could tell a black nurse, and I would say ‘pull that file, that’s a black nurse’.” Why? Because it was so thick. They were being over policed, so to say. They were being watched. They were being documented.

And starting from the inception of work, because I heard a black nurse would need to have three, maybe four references, while a white nurse one, maybe two. So there was a pattern. They were generally on the heavy-lifting floors, chronic floors. They complained of not being able to work in departments like emerg, and generally doing the kinds of shift which didn’t lend itself to them taking classes that would upgrade their skills.

Margaret: So you’re saying that their professionalism was not being acknowledged in the same way. And they were just not being given opportunities …

June: Exactly.

Margaret: I would imagine, if they were involved primarily in the chronic care and, you know, that kind of ward, that there would be a lot of heavy lifting. Like it would be hard work, so there would be more injuries and those kinds of things?

June: That’s right. That’s right. It was laborious work.

Margaret: Right.

June: I mean the work of nursing is not an easy job by any means, but they were concentrated in the heavy-lifting areas.

And discipline, how discipline was meted out.

Margaret: And can you tell me what impact this had in terms of promotions? Or was that reflected in who got to …? I’m imagining that if they weren’t able to get, let’s say, additional training or take part in, you know, workshops or in-house courses, that would have affected their opportunities to move up as well.

June: That’s right. Yes. Those opportunities were denied them because of where they worked. [laughs]

Margaret: So I’m imagining, you know it’s interesting you say that Sharon, the first nurse, was Canadian born from Nova Scotia, because my understanding is that one of the ways in which these attitudes were, the racist attitudes were perpetuated were by referring to people as “foreign-trained” nurses –

June: That’s right.

Margaret: – rather than professional nurses or whatever.

June: That’s right.

Margaret: That was sort of code?

June: Yes, yes. But Sharon wanted to be a team leader. That was her ambition. And she was never allowed to team lead, while some West Indian nurses were leading teams. So she was really offended by that.

Margaret: Do you think that because she was a disturber, calling things into question, that that played a role in what she was able to do?

June: Yes. She was a disturber, and she was a fighter. She had had… One of the reasons why we got the cases to be investigated as early as they did – back then it used to take, it wasn’t unusual to take three, four years – was because she had had a claim at the Human Rights Commission on the grounds of disability. She was seeking accommodation.

So, when we were able to wrestle with the Commission, because they too were the problem in terms of getting the cases heard as a systemic matter, they were able to tag these other cases onto Sharon’s case claiming disability. That is why we were able to get it moving so quickly.

Margaret: I’m interested in what you were saying about the investigators moving forward on this case, and after a few days able to say by the size of the file that they knew…

June: That it was a black nurse.

Margaret: Uh-huh. Did you see this case as affecting how the investigators themselves started to understand these cases?

June: Oh, for sure. For sure. Because we didn’t have an easy time at the Human Rights Commission. It’s like we had to convince the Commission. The first struggle was convincing the Commission. Although they had established a systemic unit, it was quite a challenge and a struggle to get them to accept. And to this day, I don’t know why they couldn’t see that it was systemic. If you’ve got 11 black women claiming almost the same thing, same employer during the same period, how could it not be systemic?

Margaret: So what was the outcome of this case?

June: Well we had a very good – they settled eventually. And they had, I would say, a decent settlement. You know, no amount of money could compensate those women for what they went through. As a matter of fact, several of them never worked again as a nurse; totally destroyed. One had a …..the youngest one, Lana Henry, had a complete nervous breakdown. Sharon herself went down. It was quite a struggle.

We had a mediator, Mr. Lewis, Stephen Lewis. Stephen Lewis became the mediator; a very good mediator, and he was able to convince the hospital, look, you know, this may be in your interest to settle.

Then the same Human Rights Commission came out and hailed it as such a victory and it’s the first successful case of systemic human rights settled in Canada. Meanwhile, we had such a hard time with them.

Margaret: So this case then would have acted as a foundation then for other cases going forward after it?

June: Yes. After them, about a year or two later another group of nurses came. And they were from Branson Hospital. These were older women, very dignified. And they were all in managerial positions and realized at some point that the hospital was reorganizing and they were reorganizing all the black managers out, all the black managers out.

But going back to Northwestern, I want to say I got a lot of credit for work at Northwestern, but Dr. Benjamin was also involved. Akua Benjamin played a significant role.

Margaret: She was involved with the Congress of the Black Women of Canada at the time?

June: Yes, she and I were in the Congress at the same time.

Margaret: So the Congress played a supporting role?

June: Oh yes, for sure.

Margaret: Can you tell me about that a bit? What …

June: Pardon?

Margaret: In terms of submissions or encouraging people? What kind of role did they play?

June: They were very encouraging. They were behind the scenes talking to people. It took a lot. Zanana Akande – she worked behind the scenes helping open doors. It was a community struggle.

Margaret: So, in that period of time, from the late 1980s I would say to the mid 1990s, you referred to Stephen Lewis and he had authored a report at that time. There was quite a lot of –

June: Anti-black racism.

Margaret: – anti-black racism and a lot of outrage at it. And the Congress, I believe, played a role in that as well?

June: Oh yes. Oh yes, we made submissions. And the Congress played a role in policing, in raising issues around carding. They were …. Albert Johnson, the police killing of Albert Johnson in his home; the Congress was very, very active around those issues, and of course in women’s issues generally.

Margaret: So you were active with the Congress during those years as well as all your work with the OFL?

June: Yes, I was active with the Congress. I was active with the Coalition of Visible Minority Women.

Margaret: Can you tell me about both of those organizations a bit, what kinds of work they were involved in?

June: Well, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women were really organizing women and raising – challenging, I should say – mainstream feminist movements about the lack of participation of women of colour. So, that was the work. and both the Congress and, in particular, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women were very, very active in that struggle raising issues around inclusion.

Margaret: One of those organizations would have been the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The Coalition and the Congress were both member organizations of that.

June: NAC – that’s right.

Margaret: And I’m assuming they played a role in pressing the National Action Committee to become more outspoken.

June: Yes. And that was long before we got Sunera.

Margaret: Right. That was in the early ‘90s I think, 1992 or thereabouts?

June: Yes.

Margaret: So, what other kinds of issues would you say that the Congress took up during this time?

June: Well, I think those were the main issues. I know we were very active in terms of policing issues, very active in education issues, very active around women’s issues generally. At one point we did a lot of work around childcare or, not so much childcare but … It’s gone.

Margaret: I think there was a film that the Congress, the Toronto chapter of the Congress of Black Women produced about racism in childcare as a teaching tool?

June: Yes. Now, it’s a ministry and I can’t recall.

Margaret: Yes, I have those moments [laughter] too. If I can go back to the public health nurses, or sorry, not the public health nurses, the nurses, and the case at the Human Rights Commission, how important do you think it was that the bodies like the Ontario Federation of Labour played a role in supporting that? I think it would be very hard for individuals themselves to sustain a case over that length of time.

June: Yes.

Margaret: I’m just wondering what you think about the labour movement, and particularly in this case, the Ontario Federation of Labour.

June: Well, I think they played a very important role. And like I said, the time spent, even my time, the many, many days and nights and the hours spent was very significant. And the Women’s Committee supported the effort. Affiliates supported the effort. So, the input was quite valuable.

Margaret: It has often seemed to me that, through that time, the ‘80s and the ‘90s, that many labour organizations were – and I think you alluded to this earlier with the Women’s Committee and the human rights groups in labour and the Coalition of Black Trade Unions – that they were taking up issues of hiring, of practices within the unions, of bargaining issues, that then became bigger social movements and moved into legislation. And the fact that they were an organized body helped move those issues along.

June: Oh, for sure. But it came, but the organizing came from the workers. It was out of the workers going to the mics at conventions and really embarrassing unions. You know, “Well look at your staff.” You know, you can’t go telling employers, you can’t make a credible case for employment equity when you, as an employer, are doing the same things.

So it was the workers, the activists in the unions that really pushed the Fed and eventually got to some of the affiliates. Some people would say they came to the table kicking and screaming.

Margaret: So I want to ask you, you’ve had a very active and influential career, both through your role, through the Ontario Federation of Labour but also through your engagement with community-based groups and activist groups in a whole bunch of different issues and areas. And today I think we see young activists again stepping up to pick up the mantle around feminist issues, antiracist activism, and in the labour movement, which is, to me at least, quite exciting. And I’m wondering what advice you might give these young activists who are taking up these leadership roles for change.

June: Well, they make me very proud as an old timer. And they have to keep going. But they also have to take care of themselves. You build support for your struggle and you keep moving. But they got to – this struggle against – and I’m speaking here of race – it’s like a marathon. You run your race; don’t drop the baton; make sure you pass it on; and it has to keep going. When you want to solve all the problems, maybe you may not see the benefits of your efforts, but the next leg hopefully will. It’s a marathon, I’m telling you.

Margaret: You must look back on your own career in this and understand very much how it is a marathon. And yet, you must also see such change since you began as well. It’s kind of that balancing act –

June: Yes.

Margaret: – of seeing so much more to do but also recognizing what changes have taken place.

June: Oh yeah,

Margaret: So, if I were to ask you what you would see as, I guess, defining changes, can you point to anything you think is …?

June: Well, the discussions around race, because when I joined the Fed, I mean they got so many complaints when I would go out and speak to affiliates.And it is more acceptable now. At least people listen politely and they don’t, if some don’t take action, at least they listen politely. That’s a change.

At one time, the labour movement seemed to be doing OK in terms of hiring minorities. But now we seem to have peaks and valleys. I think they have to take a good look at their hiring practices again. But then, of course they’re not hiring so you can’t see change if they don’t have opportunities to make the changes that are necessary.

But there seems to be a more – they’re more receptive. They’re more receptive to the issues that people of colour raise in the unions. And there seems to be a little more cohesion. I don’t know. This is from the outside looking in.

Margaret: With the benefit of experience.

June: Yeah, But if I could go back and talk a little bit about the impact of those complaints on the nurses, although it was perceived as a good thing – and it was a good thing that they were able to be compensated somewhat – I want to stress that those nurses were destroyed. Destroyed.

Sharon, one Saturday morning I – I live in Markham, not far from Markham-Stouffville Hospital. And she called and she said, “June, what are you doing?”

I said, you know, “Nothing much.”

She said, “Can you come? I’m in the hospital. I’m at Markham.” And when I went, Sharon handed me this form. This was a form that committed her to the psychiatric ward. And she said, “You keep this and do what you want with it. You know my story.”

So, I keep telling people, this seems to be my claim to fame. But in reality, many of those nurses….. Family breakup. One nurse, her husband was very, very upset that she would settle. He didn’t think that she got enough, because they had lost so much. But the Human Rights Commission don’t, they have this notion that they’re an organization that doesn’t penalize. They want to change behaviour not penalize you for that behaviour.

So, those nurses, I’m still in touch with quite a few of them. And it’s really sad, really sad. One mother told me, “My daughter wanted to be a nurse from the time she was a little child in Jamaica” and that she was so proud of her daughter who came up here, finished high school, went to nursing school, Lana Henry…Lana never worked again.

She tried. She would go to the hospital. She would go to work. And she said, “June, if I last an hour, I could feel myself breaking down.” Several of them, really sad. Very sad.

Margaret: That’s a very powerful, I don’t want to say story, that’s not what I want to say. It’s a very powerful tribute to the painful work that people do to create change, and the personal price that they often pay to do that. So, thank you for sharing that. I think it is important that people understand how personally traumatic this work can be for people, and just how courageous they are to stand up and continue doing it because of the price that they often pay. Thank you for sharing that. And it ties in I think with your advice to young activists today to take care of themselves along the way, because it can take such a toll on you personally.

June: Yes, it can.

Margaret: So, thank you. Thank you very much, June, for this interview. I don’t know if there’s anything else you want to say or add at this point, but I really do appreciate you speaking with us about this case.

June: I’m happy to do it. Thank you.

Margaret: Thank you.