Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2024

The Current Transcript for February 22, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

SIMON SHUSTER: He has used his abilities as a showman, as an entertainer, to really grab and hold the world's attention in a way that a more traditional politician I don't think would have managed to do.

MATT GALLOWAY: It was an unlikely career change, to put it mildly. Wisecracking TV star to wartime leader. In the last two years, Vladimir Zelensky has been the face of Ukraine's conflict with Russia, inspiring his own citizens and travelling the world looking for support. Time magazine's Simon Shuster watched the transformation up close. His new book is called The Showman. In 30 minutes, Simon Shuster on how Zelensky has changed, the concerns over what happens with the power he's gained, and why the president prefers to be compared to Charlie Chaplin, not Winston Churchill. Also, this morning, it should be the best of times for Major League Soccer. The Goat Lionel Messi is the toast of the league. There is glamour, there's glitz. Coming up, how a referee strike, outrage in China and more have brought a cloud over the start of a new soccer season. And later: bye-bye check-in line-ups at the airport?

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: This is very personal information. And is it safe? Especially if it's used by a private company as opposed to being run by an immigration services at a border control, for example.

MG: Air Canada is piloting facial recognition software at some Canadian airports. You sign up, you scan your face, and you can skip having to show a boarding pass or a passport. What could possibly go wrong? In an hour, the appeal of an alarm created by this technology. We start, though, with the precarious state of opposition to Vladimir Putin in Russia after the death of Alexei Navalny. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

The state of Putin’s opposition after Navalny’s death

Guests: Boris Akunin, Jan Matti Dollbaum

MG: Alexei Navalny's widow continues to speak out in the wake of her husband's death last week. The longtime Russian opposition leader died in an Arctic prison. Yulia Navalnaya blames President Vladimir Putin for what happened.

SOUNDCLIP

YULIA NAVALNAYA: [Russian speech]

TRANSLATOR: We will have enough of his huge love to continue with his cause as long as it takes.

MG: In that video statement released on Monday, Yulia Navalnaya asked Russians to join her in picking up Navalny's fight.

SOUNDCLIP

YULIA NAVALNAYA: [Russian speech]

TRANSLATOR: I address you with Alexei's own words, in which he believed very much. It is not shameful to do little. It is shameful to do nothing.

MG: Yesterday, the Canadian government summoned Russia's ambassador in protest over Navalny's death and called for a full inquiry and a return of his body to his family. Boris Akunin was a friend of Alexei Navalny and is a longtime critic of Vladimir Putin. He's a celebrated Russian author who now lives in the U,K. Boris, hello.

BORIS AKUNIN: Good morning.

MG: I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. Can you tell me about the moment that you, that you learned that Alexei Navalny had died?

BORIS AKUNIN: It was at the morning. I always write in the mornings, and my wife tries to make no sound. She never enters. This time, she entered without knocking. And I looked at her, and I understood immediately something bad happened. There were tears in her eyes and she said that Alexei was dead.

MG: Were you surprised that after everything that he had gone through, that he had died?

BORIS AKUNIN: I was shocked, but no, I was not surprised because I did not expect this story to end well. You know, this was a Nelson Mandela-like situation. The opposition leader in prison, you know, a sort of Prometheus chained to a rock. We all knew, of course, that a Mandela saga ends with the hero regaining freedom, becoming the leader of the country. But I knew that it was knowing it was not going to end like this. Because Putin knows this saga well, too. And he was afraid. That's why he had Alexei killed or, I don't know, tortured to death. Doesn't really matter. When you put a prisoner 27 times in a punishment cell in a prison which is inside the Arctic Circle, it is a slow execution. No one can survive that for long.

MG: How long, how far back does your relationship with Alexei Navalny go?

BORIS AKUNIN: Like 12 years, maybe a little more.

MG: And to you, what did he mean when it came to being--I said he's a leading, or the leading opposition figure in Russia. What did he mean to you?

BORIS AKUNIN: Well, at the beginning, for me, he was just a politician, a political activist. So, someone who might support, if our opinions coincide. They did not always coincide. There were different times and epochs, but with time when I came to know Alexei better, I liked him immensely. I respected him. And in the past years, after the assassination attempt, after he willingly returned to Russia to become the symbol of resistance, the spirit of defiance, well, I admired him greatly. And this is an awful personal loss for me, too, because I know him and I know Yulia and well, I love them both.

MG: You were in touch with him last year, right? Like you sent out questionnaires to political prisoners in Russia, including him. What were the questions that you wanted answered from him? And what did he say in those answers?

BORIS AKUNIN: It was a project, the aim of which was to support political prisoners in Russia. A group of volunteers, an anonymous group, of course, because they are in Russia. And they made contact with many, many, many political prisoners in Russia. And the idea was that there is the famous prisoner, Alexei Navalny, he'd answer these questions too and he will bring to light the names of all those who are also in prison so that they would get public attention. People will write to them. People would support them. So, I made a questionnaire of 13 questions. They have basic questions like who you are? Why do you do what you do? What do you believe in? What do you like? What do you dislike? What do you think of Russia today? Very basic questions, which when they read all of them, they make, well, a portrait of a person. And Alexei answered all these questions brilliantly.

MG: Is there anything that he said that surprised you?

BORIS AKUNIN: Well, he was. Well. What surprised me... Not really, because I knew him. I had known him well. But a lot of things would probably, would have seemed to people who didn't know him personally as unexpected.

MG: What do you mean? You laughed when I asked you that question.

BORIS AKUNIN: Because he always answered, often answered in a funny way. He had a lot of weight. He always laughed. He always smiled. I don't know.

MG: What did that tell you? I mean, even just in the last videos that we saw of him, he was still cracking jokes while he was in a very dire state behind bars.

BORIS AKUNIN: Because that was what he was. He was unbreakable. He was confident. He was optimistic in terrible circumstances. So, when Putin killed him, it was, of course, to break the spirit of resistance in general. To show to Russians that you cannot fight against this force. It will break everything. And at first it seemed that the plan worked. Because, you know, with Mandela killed, there is no hope. So social networks were filled with, 'it is the end' sort of lamentations. It seemed that Putin's plan worked. But three days later, Yulia, the widow, declared that she will continue Alexei's work, and it became clear that the spirit of resistance is very much alive.

MG: How difficult is it to be part of that resistance? I mean, there's thousands or over a thousand people, currently imprisoned in Russia as a result of politically motivated persecutions. We heard this morning, Vladimir Kara-Murza, speaking, an opposition leader, speaking from behind bars. He was calling for people to not give up. But he also was talking about how he believes there's this assassination squad that is going out, wiping out opponents of Vladimir Putin. In the face of Alexei Navalny's death, how difficult is it for that spirit of resistance to stay alive?

BORIS AKUNIN: It is very difficult. It is very dangerous. I admire people who are inside Russia and who still continue to do what they do. Because if you are in emigration, like myself, it doesn't demand bravery or courage. You just say or write what you think and that's it.

MG: Really? I mean, there are a lot of people who are exiles who speak out against Vladimir Putin who find themselves being poisoned, who find themselves falling out of windows.

BORIS AKUNIN: Still, this sort of risk cannot be compared to the risk which people are taking who are inside Russia. No. When you think of them, you just feel ashamed to be afraid of anything. Living under these conditions? Absolutely. Absolutely.

MG: What do you think those inside Russia who are speaking out, what can they practically achieve?

BORIS AKUNIN: At this moment, the most effective thing which they can do is just talking to people around them. Because the real fight for the future of Russia, and not only Russia, is going on now in the minds and hearts, in the mind, of course, in the general mood of the people. And here the fact that Yulia is now continuing the work is very important because this is going to make a difference. She is different from Alexei. She is different because Alexei, he was speaking to people's minds, to logic, to brain. And Yulia, from her first speech, it is evident that she is going to appeal to hearts, to emotions. And this is much more powerful. Because Putin also addresses Russians, but he relies on intimidation. So, people now will compare these two types of discourse. So, we shall see what is more effective: fear or love?

MG: I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you sound almost optimistic.

BORIS AKUNIN: I am optimistic because Alexei was optimistic, and I am optimistic because I believe that Russia is going to survive this black period and become a normal, healthy country again. Because it is a huge country. And in, well, maybe I am right. I have my own point of view. But for me, the most important thing in a country is the richness of its culture. Whether it has this tradition of humanity, of compassion, of cultural sophistication, and Russia has it all. So, this is going to prevail eventually.

MG: Can you imagine a time when you'll be able to go back to Russia?

BORIS AKUNIN: Of course, of course. I think that Putin's regime is more fragile than it looks. It can break down any minute. It almost happened last summer with this military putsch, and there will be new mistakes that the dictator will make because he is so sure of himself. He will make blunders again and again, and he will do them again in the future. And besides, people like Yulia are going to make a difference.

MG: Boris, I'm glad to talk to you about this. We'll be watching. Thank you very much.

BORIS AKUNIN: Thank you, thank you.

MG: Boris Akunin is a novelist, writer and friend of Alexei Navalny's. He was in the U.K. Alexei Navalny was by far the most visible symbol of the Russian opposition. Under Vladimir Putin, as we mentioned, many other opposition figures have been killed, jailed or have fled the country. Jan Matti Dollbaum is the co-author of a book called Navalny: Putin's Nemesis, Russia's Future. And he's a political scientist at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Good morning to you.

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: Do you share that optimism that Boris and other opposition leaders, surprisingly to some, seem to have in the wake of the death of Alexei Navalny?

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: Yes, in some ways I do. I mean, let me first say that I hope that I can say anything of substance after this wonderful presentation of Boris Akunin's. It's a great honour to be on the same show with him. And I do share the optimism, although I share it mostly for the long-term, for the midterm, perhaps. And right now, it is, as he also said, it is pretty depressing. And that was exactly the goal of the regime by first taking out Boris Nadezhdin, who was a liberal politician wanting to be on the presidential ballot in the upcoming elections, taking him out of the race. He had inspired a bit of hope. That was the first blow. And then, of course, the death of Alexei Navalny. So, the regime, I think is really trying to play with emotions here and creating a sense of hopelessness. And so, and that is pretty successful right now. But we will have to see what Yulia Navalnaya can do, but in the long term, I think it is very, Navalny has left a very important legacy by inspiring people and by giving them also the first experiences of collective action. And, not just in Moscow. And most importantly, I think in the Russian regions.

MG: How fractured is the opposition that remains, do you think?

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: Well, it never was united. And I think that the death of Alexei Navalny may bring them together a bit more. Although it's always a question: what opposition are we talking about? Of course, Russia is a large country, and it is a very diverse political scene. So if you just very, you know, crudely divide between liberals, leftists and nationalists, you see already that there will be very different programs behind these three directions. And many people cannot agree with one another. Even though they're facing this massive adversary, Putin and the Russian regime. And Navalny has, for the better part of his political career, tried to bring these three strands together, sometimes more successfully, sometimes less successful. But they still exist, and they choose different strategies now, too. And even within, let's say, the liberal opposition, which Navalny was part of, there were always, there were conflicts and difficulties. But I think that Navalny's imprisonment was already elevating him a little bit above the current politics and making him a figure that could unite the liberal opposition and many, many people beyond that. And now his death definitely will be able to do that.

MG: It's very difficult to, for Russians to show solidarity with that opposition. What did you make of the footage of people lining up to lay flowers and pay respects to Navalny? Right outside the headquarters of the FSB, the security service. There were flowers that were laid that would disappear, and immediately new flowers would appear.

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: Yes, yes. In some way, this is actually a very powerful gesture. At the same time, it is also, I think, a gesture that speaks a little bit of the emotional state of many in the opposition and in the critical parts of society, that it is a lonely gesture, right? It's not a protest where people march in rows and shout things together, but people come up to these memorials one by one or in very small groups and grieving individually. And I think that is, it is a powerful image, but it's also an image that is speaking to the state of loneliness that has, at least temporarily, I think, affected now Russian-critical society. But I think it will be overcome at some point. We just don't know when.

MG: How significant do you think the role that Yulia Navalnaya could play? His wife. She made a very powerful statement after Alexei Navalny's death. And people are looking for other figures, whether they're inside the country. But she's outside the country. But is she going to be somebody who's going to be able to inspire those within Russia to keep fighting?

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: Of course, I don't know for sure. But I think it is very important for her to come forward. And it was probably a relief for many people that she found the courage to do that. And Boris Akunin has said it already, it's really, really important, the emotional dimension here. The regime is trying to rule with emotions. It has been ruling with positive emotions when it annexed Crimea. We might not like that, but it was a very, you know, powerful, emotional signal that brought people together in pride and happiness, even though it was obviously a violation of international law, etc. But within Russia it was shared widely in positive spirit. But now the regime has turned to negative emotions and it's creating this sense of hopelessness. And to have subtext put something against this. And if it comes from Navalny's family, even more important, I think that can be actually very powerful and effective.

MG: We're just a bit out of time. So, part of this, the last question in the last couple of minutes that we have, is about his political legacy. You said that his greatest achievement in some ways, was the fight for this idea that one's actions, an individual person's actions can actually make a difference. What do you think that's going to mean in the long term?

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: I think that this will, if it remains with people who have been active in his movement, particularly as I said, starting in 2016/17 when he built this country-wide network of supporters and actually an organization that spanned the whole country. And that was I think something that made him very dangerous. And thousands of people gained their first experience of collective action in these moments. And I was in Russia at that time doing field research. And I spoke to many people in these offices. The volunteers and paid staff, etc., and what I got from that is really a conviction that these are people who see Russia in a different light and want it to be a free and democratic and prosperous country. And they take that conviction with them, whether they're now in exile or perhaps most of them are, at some point they will come back and they will remember what they did and they will reinvigorate those old networks. And at least that's the hope we can have. But I think it is realistic. Once conditions in Russia change, these people will be back.

MG: Jan Matti Dollbaum, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

JAN MATTI DOLLBAUM: Thank you.

MG: Jan Matti Dollbaum is a political scientist at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He's the co-author of a book called Navalny: Putin's Nemesis, Russia's Future. The CBC News is coming your way next. And then:

SOUNDCLIP

SIMON SHUSTER: The kind of influence, the kind of power that Zelensky sees himself as having, you know, not as some kind of military commander in uniform moving battalions around on a map, but as a master communicator.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: A TV comedian and satirist. Perhaps Volodymyr Zelensky may not have been the most obvious person to emerge as a wartime leader, but the journalist Simon Shuster explains why their time together has shown that an actor has kept Ukraine in the public consciousness, at the forefront during this war, over the last couple of years. We'll talk to Simon Shuster about what he learned about Volodymyr Zelensky and the concerns he has, as he spent time with him. That conversation coming up in about six minutes. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music fades up]

Zelenskyy’s transformation from television star to wartime leader

Guests: Simon Shuster

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY: [Foreign speech]

MG: That's Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the hours after Russia invaded his country almost two years ago, declaring on social media that he would not flee the capital city. It was a remarkable video and a sign of what was to come. As the war has dragged on, Zelenskyy has been the face of Ukraine at home and also abroad, making stirring speeches in places like Canada's parliament, thanking Canadians for their support.

SOUNDCLIP

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Another extremely important fact about you is that you never, never, ever make a political bet on hatred and enmity. And you are always on the bright side of history. [Applause.] Thank you.

MG: Simon Shuster has had unprecedented access to Zelenskyy over the course of the war, travelling with the leader from his bunker to the frontlines of the conflict in many places in between. Simon Shuster is a journalist with Time magazine. His new book is The Showman: Inside the Invasion That Shook the World and Made a Leader of Vladimir Zelenskyy. Simon Shuster, hello.

SIMON SHUSTER: Thank you. Great to be with you.

MG: Great to have you here. What was Volodymyr Zelenskyy like when you first met him?

SIMON SHUSTER: When I first met him, it was backstage of his comedy show while he was running for president. And he was a very, as you might expect, funny, easygoing, relaxed guy. Very optimistic. Somewhat naive about how easy or hard it would be to manage the many political and geopolitical challenges that Ukraine faced at the time. He was just a lot of fun to be around, and I spent time with his friends as well backstage of the show and his fellow comedians who performed with him. Some of them then transitioned with him into the office of the president, where life became a lot less fun and a lot more difficult.

MG: Why do you think he wanted to run for president? I mean, his comedy was always political, but what changed for him?

SIMON SHUSTER: I think he was deeply frustrated, as were a lot of Ukrainians with the leadership they had had for many years, with the kind of constant cycle of these political clans and oligarchs who seemed to always change places in the leadership positions in Ukraine, like a kind of carousel, without ever bringing any substantial change to the country. Without dislodging the systems of corruption that were pervasive in Ukraine for many years. And, you know, he wanted a change. I think he also thought, because of his abundant confidence in himself, that he could do a better job than all the professional politicians. And the last thing I'd say on that point is just that he had reached the peak of his abilities as an entertainer in Ukraine. He was already the country's most famous comedian, one of the most famous movie stars. There was nowhere really to go for him in that professional trajectory, and I think he did want a new challenge.

MG: He believed that leadership would not force him to change. And maybe this speaks to the naivety that you mentioned earlier. What was he afraid of?

SIMON SHUSTER: At the time, when he was just running for office and early in his administration, he didn't seem to be afraid of anything. When I asked him the questions of, Well, what do you plan to do? How do you plan to, you know, deal with Donald Trump, who was then in the White House? How do you plan to deal with Putin, who was already then, a massive threat to Ukraine and its sovereignty? He said things like, Don't worry, Simon, we'll figure it out. It'll be okay. You know, these kinds of reassuring messages. Reassuring, but rather vague. So, I don't think he was afraid of much. He thought he could really kind of manage the problems that were facing Ukraine at the time.

MG: What did he not want to become? I mean, when he says that he didn't want to change. Because he had, and this came out through his comedy as well, sort of a disdain for the average politician, right?

SIMON SHUSTER: Yeah. He didn't want to become a politician. He didn't want to lose himself, as he put it. And that meant really losing touch with the person he had been that his experience as an entertainer and comedian had forged. He thought that the skills that he had developed in the world of show business were sufficient to manage the role of the presidency. And he promised the people of Ukraine that he would not be a politician, he would not engage in politics as usual, and that he was bringing new approaches, new blood and a fresh face to the political leadership. So that is what he wanted to avoid becoming. A kind of traditional politician. I think he's been pretty successful.

MG: Well, a fresh face, but also a blank space in some ways. Right? Like you say, that he took this approach of being a blank space.

SIMON SHUSTER: Yeah. That was, I think, more devised by his campaign strategists and his campaign team. They, in looking at the opinion polls and generally the condition of the electorate before those elections in 2019, they saw that the electorate was extremely divided on questions of whether to integrate with the West or remain somehow, you know, closer to Russia. You know, on questions of language and generally, you know, there were major issues at the time that were dividing the electorate. They decided that it would be better, smarter politically to avoid taking firm positions and really engaging with the other candidates on the issues. He didn't, up until the very last stretch of the elections, participate in any debates. His electoral platform was vague. They didn't publish a detailed platform. And I think the strategy, as one of his campaign managers explained to me, was to make him a kind of, a canvas onto which voters could project their ideas of the perfect president. And they knew that in taking firm positions on very divisive issues, they would alienate one side of the political divide or the other. So they just chose not to do that.

MG: How did you see that play out before he got involved in politics? I think in part in relationship to his ties with Russia. I mean, he grew up speaking Russian, the language that he was most comfortable with before the war certainly was Russian. That's not uncommon for Ukrainians. But he had close ties with Russia as well as an entertainer. Right?

SIMON SHUSTER: Yeah, he had very close business ties. At a certain point, really, at the peak of his financial business success as a movie maker, about 85 per cent of his income was coming from the Russian market. His TV shows, his films, his comedy performances were in the Russian language, and his audience spanned both countries. Indeed, it spanned many countries in the former Soviet Union where Russian is spoken. So he needed Russian partners and he relied on the Russian audience for many years. I think it was only really in 2014 when Russia first took military action against Ukraine, when Putin first sent his troops to annexe the region of Crimea and begin this war in eastern Ukraine. That is when Zelenskyy had to draw a kind of political line and begin wrapping up his business relationships in Russia.

MG: That's well after what was known as the Orange Revolution, right? When there were thousands and thousands of people out in the streets of Ukraine.

SIMON SHUSTER: Yeah, that was in 2004, 2005. And at that point, Zelenskyy was deeply interested in politics. He was satirizing all the politicians and participants, the leaders of the Orange Revolution on both sides, both the pro-Western and the pro-Russian side. But he didn't take a clear political position. He remained skeptical and distant from all the political forces. He made fun of all of them. I think, yeah, again, it was only about ten years after the Orange Revolution of 2004, 2005, that he took a political stand and his kind of political sensibilities, his political positions began coming to the fore.

MG: Do you think that that was I mean, that reluctance to take a stand initially or to be clear on what his stance was, was that in part because of those business ties? I'm not saying that he was compromised by the business ties, but did they have an influence on him?

SIMON SHUSTER: For sure. Yeah. I don't think, you know, in talking to fellow comedians and people who worked with him at that time, that was that was very clear. They didn't want to alienate their business partners, their partners in the Russian movie industry and their audiences in Russia.

MG: How did his instincts--you write about this in the book--how did his instincts as an actor shape him and guide him as the war took hold? The most recent advance in the war two years ago.

SIMON SHUSTER: I mean, that's why I chose to call the book The Showman, because I think that has been his superpower, both in entering politics in 2019 and in leading his country into war in 2022. So he has used his abilities as a showman, as an entertainer to really grab and hold the world's attention in a way that a more traditional politician I don't think would have managed to do. He is a master of social media. He understands television very well. He understands the power of persuasion and what it takes to use emotional appeals to win hearts and minds. He has used all those skills to keep us engaged in this war and to win us over. And when I say us, I mean, you know, not only our leaders, our elected representatives, but also all of the people in Western democracies. To keep all of us watching this war and engaged in it and rooting for Zelenskyy. That's been his goal. And he's done it effectively, in part because he has these skills as a showman.

MG: Tell me about the pep talk that he gave himself shortly after the invasion.

SIMON SHUSTER: He described this moment of sort of, trying to get a grip on what the moment demanded of him. And just a quote, you know, his recollection, he said, "they're watching," meaning all of Ukraine, all of the world. Everyone is watching you now. "You are a symbol," meaning a symbol of the state, a symbol of Ukraine and its defiance. "You need to act the way a Head of State must act."

MG: This is what he told himself.

SIMON SHUSTER: That's what he told himself. Yeah. And that kind of, as I write, pep talk that he gave himself in the early hours of the invasion was, in my understanding, him stepping into the role of a wartime leader, a position that demanded that he change into something quite fundamentally new. He had to manage the biggest land war in Europe since World War Two. I think anyone thrust into that position would have to quite quickly adapt to a new persona. And I do think that his abilities from his past life as an actor gave him the mental flexibility and agility that helped him do that so quickly without really freezing, without being paralyzed by the scale of the threats that he faced that day.

MG: Two years into the war, how do most Ukrainians see him, do you think?

SIMON SHUSTER: Opinions are pretty divided. You know, if you look at the start of the invasion, we're talking March 2022 or so, the polls I remember were close to 90 per cent approval. I think some of them were above 90 per cent. Now we're talking about in the range of 60 to 70 per cent, depending on the polls you look at. So it's still an enormous amount of support and popularity and trust among the population, but it is declining. I think that's natural enough after two years of such an intense and horrific war. But I think generally Ukrainians do credit him and acknowledge his role in saving the country and being that symbol that he talked to himself about in the first day of the invasion. Being a symbol of Ukraine in the West, in the world being its representative and being that kind of beacon that people in Ukraine, outside Ukraine look to for a sign that Ukraine fights on. Ukraine is defiant. Ukraine continues to resist. You know, he's really embodied that. And Ukrainians that I talk to, even if they have problems with some of his decisions, even if they question his failure to adequately prepare for the invasion, they do give him a lot of credit for the role he's played as an advocate and as a diplomat and as a symbol.

MG: How fair is that criticism, do you think, that he did not prepare adequately for the invasion? I want to ask you about Valerii Zaluzhnyi in a minute. The top military commander that he just fired. But one of the criticisms that has been directed at Zelenskyy is that he didn't listen to some of the people around him and take the threats of an invasion, threats that were coming from the United States and elsewhere, he didn't take them seriously enough.

SIMON SHUSTER: Well, first, I want to admit that I also, you know, I'd been writing about Russia and Ukraine for about 15 years by the time the invasion started. I also did not expect Putin to take such a catastrophic decision. So, I certainly was not prepared or expecting Kyiv to come under attack, tanks to roll across the border. These things seemed farfetched and just improbable. And I think Zelenskyy also had a hard time believing that in the 21st century Putin would start a war on this scale. He also was presented, you know, unlike me, he was presented with a range of intelligence from the U.S. intelligence services who were predicting the most aggressive kind of invasion. From three directions, intending to capture the entire country, unseat Zelenskyy's government, kill or capture him. And then he was also looking at the intelligence and intelligence analysis from European countries, Germany, France and from the Ukrainian intelligence services. So, he was seeing all of this. The Europeans and the Ukrainians had a less stark interpretation of what the Russians were doing, and they were predicting as their kind of baseline scenario, an attack from the east, where there had already been a long simmering war over these separatist regions in eastern Ukraine, but not this wholesale attack from the north, south and east at the same time with bombardment of Ukrainian cities from all directions. So, Zelenskyy essentially chose to believe the milder scenario as the most likely one.

MG: I'm going to go back to the word that you used earlier, which is naive. Was he naive in that? And part of it is about how he thought of Vladimir Putin. You tell the story of how he wished, in some ways, that he could have taken Putin to the site of the massacre at Bucha, the town where a slaughter unfolded. And that if Putin saw that perhaps that might have changed him and that might lead him to the negotiating table. Was he naive when he thought of Vladimir Putin?

SIMON SHUSTER: I think he was confident in his abilities, and this goes back to his first negotiations with Putin in 2019, at the end of 2019, he was confident in his abilities to reach Putin. To somehow reason with him. To find some humanity or pragmatism in Putin that Zelenskyy could use in a negotiation to turn the Russian position somehow in Ukraine's favour. That was naive. People told him that he shouldn't expect Putin to have any such qualities that would make him open to honest negotiations with Ukraine. I know American diplomats also warned him, as one of them put it, not to get sucked in to a negotiation with Putin because he just couldn't be reasoned with. But Zelenskyy wanted to try, and he spent a couple of years trying very hard before the invasion at the beginning of his presidency, trying to reach an agreement and understanding with Putin that could forestall a war on any scale. And then indeed, once the invasion was underway, he was still hopeful that he could sit down across from Putin at the negotiating table and come to terms that were not humiliating for Ukraine. Was that naive? Maybe. That's one way to put it. I think it also speaks to Zelenskyy's supremely high confidence in his own abilities as a communicator.

MG: One of those people who strongly disagreed with that approach was Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who was Ukraine's top military commander. He was recently fired by Zelenskyy. They had a rocky relationship for years, right?

SIMON SHUSTER: Yes. They, I wouldn't say for years, but, before general resolution, he was dismissed. He had been clashing behind the scenes with President Zelenskyy over a variety of issues, you know, including issues of military strategy related to when it was appropriate to attack where along the front lines to attack the Russians, how to use limited military resources to fight back. These are natural disagreements. And they were unfolding kind of away from the public eye. Because I was there and speaking to members of both of their teams, at the time, I was aware of these conflicts going on, but at a certain point, they kind of reached a level of intensity, and they became so distracting that something had to give. And I think that is why the president ultimately dismissed the General. But it took a long time. Those disagreements, to put it mildly, were unfolding for more than a year before Zelenskyy finally made that decision.

MG: They tangled in part because Zaluzhnyi had said that the war was at a stalemate, and Zelenskyy and others had pushed back strongly on that. How was he seen? How was the General seen by those who were fighting the war? Those on the front lines?

SIMON SHUSTER: He's almost godlike in his status there among the rank and file. I mean, he is absolutely adored, revered as a hero, as a saviour of the country. And I think that doesn't only go for the military personnel, but generally across Ukraine. He is absolutely iconic in his status as a national saviour and as a commander.

MG: Is it problematic when there are two heroes in a war?

SIMON SHUSTER: This reminds me of a conversation I had with a journalist in Ukraine. She's the editor of an outlet called Ukrainska Pravda, which is the leading online news outlet there. And her reporters were among the first, I think, to really publicize the conflict between the president and his top general. And she said she'd gotten a lot of pushback from the office of the president. And one thing she told me is they act like there can only be one hero, and that's Zelenskyy. No one else. So, I think her experience is quite illustrative there that indeed, I think the president's team seemed to feel that in order for their diplomatic efforts to be successful and in order to maintain the level of support, Zelenskyy needed to be the undisputed figure in the role of the kind of national symbol, right? He needed to be the face of the country and its war and its resistance against Russia.

MG: That led to some degree in terms of how he treated the Ukrainian media, right? What was his relationship or what is his relationship like with the Ukrainian media? Particularly media that might be doing the job of media and being skeptical about what politicians say?

SIMON SHUSTER: Well, his relationship with the media was contentious from early on in his presidency. The media environment in Ukraine generally after its independence in 1991, a really vibrant and rich media environment developed. Very much in contrast to Russia, where the state basically controls all media. In Ukraine, that was not the case. So as soon as Zelenskyy took office, he faced withering criticism from the media, and he often pushed back. And they had a very contentious relationship. I think, you know, he blamed the media for destabilizing the country, as he once put it. Once the invasion was underway, martial law was declared. And under the terms of martial law in Ukraine, legally, the office of the president, the head of state and his administration, they have control of the airwaves. He is absolutely not shy about instrumentalizing the media during the war, because he says now is not the time to have this messy, kind of divisive media environment. Ukraine needs to stay united. And as he once put it, information is a weapon. And at a time of war, you need to point that weapon in the direction of the enemy and not at one's own head.

MG: What would Zelenskyy, the political satirist, make of that, do you think?

SIMON SHUSTER: Good question. Yeah, I wonder that sometimes. Yeah. It's, these are different characters. And I think he would be critical that. Zelenskyy, the satirist, made fun of all politicians. It didn't matter. But your question reminds me of an interesting conversation I had with the first lady, who was a writer on Zelenskyy's TV shows and a writer for his comedy. And when he became the president, there was an interesting dynamic between his old comedy troupe, which continued to put out these satirical shows, making fun of politicians. And the first lady was disappointed with how they pulled punches, and they were kind of soft on Zelenskyy. They didn't want to make fun of their old friend, in the same ways that they had with previous presidents of Ukraine. And they kind of held back. And she criticized them for that. She said, No, you shouldn't hold back. You know, we need to maintain our relationship with the public as a satirical group that always tells the truth about politics, that always pushes back, that always hits those sensitive nerves of the politicians in our jokes. But it was an interesting dynamic where they couldn't really overcome their loyalty to their old friend in satirizing him as viciously as they satirized previous presidents.

MG: I mean, as the war unfolded, and particularly at the beginning when he put out that video of he and fellow leaders kind of still in Kyiv saying, We're here. You know, and they weren't leaving anywhere. People drew a line between him and Winston Churchill. But in the book, you talk about how he saw a closer ally in Charlie Chaplin.

SIMON SHUSTER: Yeah. That came up in one of our interviews when actually I brought up the comparisons to Churchill, which were pretty constant. And he didn't seem to appreciate the comparisons to Churchill very much. Churchill famously was a supporter of the British Empire and arguably an imperialist. And Zelenskyy sees his war as an anti-imperialist war. And he, in response to this remark of mine about Churchill, he brought up Charlie Chaplin. And he said, look, in history there were also these artists. There were these figures who used the power of their art, the power of the word, the power of their performances to fight against fascism. I mean, what did Charlie Chaplin do? He made fun of Hitler during the Holocaust. And Zelenskyy made the point, as he put it, that sometimes the influence of these artists was stronger than artillery. And that really made the point to me the kind of influence, the kind of power that Zelenskyy sees himself as having and that he strives for, you know, not as some kind of military commander in uniform moving battalions around on a map, but as a master communicator. As someone who uses the power of the word and wages the information war through his charisma, through his messaging, through television, through social media and so on.

MG: Just before I let you go, I mean, how addictive is that power? He has put off presidential elections before because of the war. The elections are due to come up soon. You write that you worry about what Ukraine would look like under his leadership after the war. What specifically are you worried about?

SIMON SHUSTER: I worry about the historical precedents of you know, how often or how rarely leaders are able to part with absolute power.

MG: Do you think he's becoming an autocrat? This is something that Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv has said. I mean, they're political rivals, but you wonder whether there's something in that.

SIMON SHUSTER: Yeah. And I've heard the same notes of concern from Ukrainian journalists, from other politicians in Ukraine, from businessmen. You know, I think these are reasonable concerns. I can't really point to something that Zelenskyy has done. I wouldn't say that there's a pattern of behaviour that suggests he is, he has autocratic tendencies. But I think these are questions that the world, and especially Ukrainians, need to watch very carefully because they are fighting for their democracy. And it would be a horrible shame if at the end of the war, they lose some of those democratic values and democratic institutions that they've fought so hard to maintain. I don't think Zelenskyy intends to do that. When I talk to him about these things he says, It's very simple. We win the war, we lift martial law, and we go back to democracy as normal. But history shows that those transitions tend to be difficult. They tend to be fraught. And I think it'll be a major test not only for Ukraine as a nation and as a democracy, but also for Zelenskyy as a person to have the maturity and the wisdom to say, We've won the war, and now I will give back the extraordinary powers that martial law bestows on the president.

MG: When did you last meet with him?

SIMON SHUSTER: We'll see. I spoke to him in October of 2023. We travelled together to Odesa in the south.

MG: How do you think his morale is now, two years into this grinding war that shows no real signs of ending?

SIMON SHUSTER: It's stronger than one might expect after the challenges and the stress and the exhausting schedule he keeps. I'd say he's still extremely confident in Ukraine's ability to win. He believes it in public and private. He does not betray signs of kind of defeatism of any kind. On the contrary, he always tries to boost the flagging morale among his soldiers, among the population. I think in contrast to some of the people around him, he has maintained a very high level of confidence in himself and in Ukraine's ability to win.

MG: This is a fascinating book. It is a nuanced and really complicated portrayal of Vladimir Zelenskyy. Simon Shuster, thank you very much.

SIMON SHUSTER: Thank you.

MG: Simon Shuster is a journalist with Time magazine. That new book is, The Showman: Inside the Invasion That Shook the World and Made a Leader of Vladimir Zelenskyy. Coming up after your regional update:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: How do you bring Messi and Suárez to Hong Kong and not put them on for anything. It's so disappointing. Shame on them. Shame on the organization. They should refund people here.

MG: Shame on them. Soccer fans in Hong Kong left an Inter Miami match deeply disappointed earlier this month. They were there to see the goat, Lionel Messi, but he didn't play. He just sat on the bench. And the controversy continues to swirl as Major League Soccer's season gets underway. We'll talk about that coming up. I'm Matt Galloway, you're listening to The Current. We're back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

The appeal of — and alarm created by — biometrics use at airports

Guests: John Gradek, Brenda McPhail

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: No need for boarding pass, no need for a passport. It's basically, your face is the passport.

MG: You might think that sounds like the future, but in airports around the world, it turns out that future is already here.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: So you go through this tunnel, and then if it's green, that means you're registered and you're identified and you're all good to go. However, if it's red, you will be stopped and we'll have to figure out why.

MG: Emirates Airlines in Dubai is installing a biometric system that lets passengers through airport security just by showing their face, and this is an idea that is gaining traction. Germany's Frankfurt airport already has a version, as do many Chinese airports, and Air Canada is now testing out this technology. A biometric program in the United States aims to cover all international airports in the next two years. John Gradek is a Faculty Lecturer in supply networks and aviation management at McGill University. John, good morning.

JOHN GRADEK: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Help me understand this. How do these biometric systems work?

JOHN GRADEK: Well, what they do is that they have a record of you as an air traveller in their files. Somewhere deep in the bowels of data collection. And it's you have a record in terms of your travel patterns and your passports, and your customs declarations and all the things associated with travel. And as you go through the airport, they check your facial recognition data, match it against what's on record. And if you are a good match to the systems that are currently in place, you get that green light that your guest was mentioning earlier. And you are cleared to go through all of the processes in the airport that have queues or people interviewing people that are checking your passports or your boarding pass or your baggage or anything else. All of that is cleared.

MG: So, all of your information is scanned in and then when they scan your face, they match that up with whatever's on file. And if you're good to go, you're good to go?

JOHN GRADEK: Yep. That's the way it is.

MG: Why is this out there now? What's the impetus behind this kind of screening as you understand it?

JOHN GRADEK: A couple of things. There's a, there's, you know, one is convenience. And you know and reducing the congestion at airports. Airports are getting busy as you can appreciate. And most of that busyness is really queuing. And you have passengers queuing in front of check in counters. You have passengers queuing in front of baggage drop offs, you have queuing at security, queuing at customs. So, there's a lot of queuing, a lot of waiting going on. And that requires an infrastructure and that requires people, you know, staff to to handle those queues. If you can eliminate those queues and process passengers so that the passenger has very little stoppage along the way, going through the airport, maybe just duty-free or the bathroom or maybe your cup of Starbucks. You know, that's fine, but the airport knows who you are, where you are through this whole journey, and they track you through the airport. And so that, you know, if you're late to board your flight, they know where you are in the airport infrastructure. And they can basically target you very quickly with messaging, saying, please get your butt over here and get on the plane because you're late.

MG: Presumably airlines can also I mean, because airlines like money, they could figure out a way to use this to save money, right?

JOHN GRADEK: Yes. And you know, that's the whole point. So you, when you're talking about, you know, biometrics and how biometrics are being used, particularly at the gate area when you have all of that congestion at the gate and you have those queues at the gate, and you have people checking passports or driver's licenses or stuff like that. That's all done by people today with some technology. The objective is to basically reduce the number of people at the airport.

MG: There'll be fewer people paid to do that work.

JOHN GRADEK: Correct.

MG: Have you ever tried this?

JOHN GRADEK: Yes, sir. I did. It was about seven years ago, six or seven years ago in Saint Martin. Saint Martin was really the pilot that was sponsored by a number of industry standards. I had a and seat and a few others. And it was the tunnel technology that Dubai has implemented today. It was prototyped and it was an interesting concept. You--kind of strange, you walk through a tunnel. To go through it and, it takes about 30 seconds to go through it. And at the end of the tunnel, you get the light, the green or the red light, and away you go.

MG: What did you think of it? I mean, as I said at the beginning, it sounds like something out of the future. But what did you think of it when you're going through? Were you at all concerned about this?

JOHN GRADEK: I was. I was, you know, and me being an aviation geek. You know, I used to be able to go through an airport fairly quickly prior to 9/11, where I would get to the airport, park the car, and then run through the airport to get to my flight. And I could make it in about 15 or 20 minutes from the time I leave my car to the time I get on an airplane. Nine eleven stopped all that, and now I think people, you know are saying, you know, what is it that we can do? We haven't changed much since 9/11, by the way, in terms of processing, probably even gotten a bit more tedious. But, you know, people yearn for the fact that, you know, airports are not, you know, are not our favourite places to hang out. And we'd like to spend as little time as we possibly can at an airport. We'd rather get on an airplane rather than sit around at an airport. So, whatever it takes to basically expedite the process at the airport is something that should be of value to passengers.

MG: How solid do you think this is? I mean, if somebody looks at my passport, they see my photo, they look at me, usually I tend to look like the person who's in the photo. I get waved through. Is it easy, as you understand it, to trick these sorts of systems? To play with the fundamentals of these sorts of systems?

JOHN GRADEK: Well, that's the danger and that's the concern that everybody has in terms of taking this technology and moving it to the next level. And that's why it's taken so long. Remember, my Saint Martin experience was seven years ago. And Canada is rolling, Air Canada is rolling it out in 2024. So, it's a long process to get, to make sure you get all the kinks out of it. And the primary consideration for this technology is, of course, security. And you want to make sure that, you know, the, anybody who's a you know, so-called bad actor, who shouldn't be in an airport or shouldn't be on an airplane is in fact, weeded out way before they even get into the airport community. So that's what the whole process is all about. To basically look at, scanning billions of pieces of information about you and making sure you are who you say you are. And biometrics and facial recognition is probably the technology that has been evolved now that kind of provides that level of assurance that you are who you are, and this is your track record.

MG: Just before I let you go, look into your crystal ball. Five years down the road, how common do you think these sorts of systems will be?

JOHN GRADEK: Commoneplace. It'll be as commonplace as the escalator or the moving sidewalks.

MG: As commonplace as the escalator.

JOHN GRADEK: Yep. Mmhm.

MG: Really?

JOHN GRADEK: It'll--oh yeah, it'll be there.

MG: We're going to talk about the pushback to this in a moment. You don't think people are going to say, Come on, you're going to scan my face? Are you serious?

JOHN GRADEK: Yep. That's what they're--you know. Remember Minority report. Remember the movie.

MG: The movie.

JOHN GRADEK: 2002 science fiction and, you know, and that was, you know, the future is now. And that technology has evolved significantly. And so, we are at the cusp and, you know, the bleeding edge of facial recognition. It is there now, if you will, you go in the subway, you know, you go everywhere, facial recognition is an accepted method of security. And it's just migrating to the airport.

MG: John, we'll leave it there. Good to talk to you as always. Thank you very much.

JOHN GRADEK: All right, Matt. Have a great one.

MG: And you. John Gradek is a faculty lecturer in supply networks in aviation management. Also, an aviation geek, as you heard. And he is a professor at McGill University in Montreal. Brenda McPhail is founder of the Right 2 Your Face coalition. She has long advocated for Canada to modernize its privacy laws. She's director of the Executive Education Public Policy Digital Society program at McMaster University. Brenda, good morning to you.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Good morning.

MG: Your organization has said that this technology is deeply flawed, highly invasive, and its known social harms outweigh its potential benefits. It's that's a pretty blanket statement that you're not particularly supportive of this. What is your biggest concern when it comes to facial recognition technology? Biometrics at airports?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: I think the biggest concern is precisely the scenario that your previous guest outlined, that this will become as common as elevators, that it will become ubiquitous in society, and that the risks that it carries will be then embedded in all the public and quasi-public spaces that we walk through every day.

MG: What's wrong with that?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: So facial recognition technology uses our face, a biometric, something that's irrevocably tied to us that we can't really change to determine who we are. It works by having cameras, often CCTV cameras that are basically just part of the infrastructure for us now. They've been around for so long that we don't think about them. Facial recognition supercharges those cameras by running analytics behind the scenes. So it's a technology that we don't know a lot about. Most normal people don't really know how it works or what the risks are, what the benefits are. It runs covertly behind the scenes often. And it has sort of notable flaws in relation to accuracy and the accuracy--those flaws in particular, are pointed towards equity seeking communities. So people of colour, women, 2SLGBTQ plus people, people who are older, people who are younger, individuals with physical disabilities. So acute, you know, the big spectrum of equity deserving groups who are already impacted by systemic forms of oppression, who are most subject to mistakes by this technology.

MG: The way that this is rolling out here in Canada is that Air Canada is piloting this in the Vancouver airport and in Toronto at one of its lounges. And thus far it's voluntary. And the airline says that the photos will be encrypted and deleted in 36 hours. What's wrong with that? I mean, they're not hanging on to the photos. It's not like the images that they would be taking as you enter those lounges or as perhaps you board one of the planes are going to be stored forever.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Yeah. And I mean, this kind of program with facial recognition technology is really the thin edge of a wedge. It's voluntary. We all know that when voluntary programs become very successful, they're more likely to become mandatory. We also know that if you don't volunteer to provide extra information, that might make you suspect. That might subject you to additional screening, make somebody wonder why you don't want to participate in that program. The other issue is that, that kind of one-to-one matching that Air Canada is using is arguably the least intrusive form of facial recognition. But once we become used to using our faces as a form of identification, it's very likely to be a slippery slope.

MG: Why is your face any different than a fingerprint?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Well, it's not. But if you were walking through an airport, would you consent to run your finger along a railing as you walked so that your fingerprint could allow yourself to be tracked at every location as you walk through a terminal? If you're crossing a street, moving it out into the public sphere, would you be happy giving your fingerprint to be allowed at every crossing?

MG: But this isn't in the public sphere. This is in an airport, and the point of the airport is, I mean, you're not hanging--some people might--but you're not hanging out at the airport. You're moving from place to place. And so when I move through the airport, I have to show my passport and a boarding pass, which is a QR code at a number of regular spots. And that presumably is tracking me as I'm moving through the airport and ensuring that I don't go into places that I'm not supposed to go. I just wonder how your face would be any different than what's already happening now. Aside from the fact that I mean, your face isn't a QR code.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Yeah, well, so you're, a QR code is something that when you leave the airport you crumple up your boarding pass and throw it out. Your face is something that is irrevocably attached to you forever and ever. So, the barcode is a temporary identifier. Your face is a perpetual identifier.

MG: And you don't, you don't buy that idea that these, the data that's stored, the scans of our face and what have you will just be held for 36 hours. That that's just the beginning of a larger collection of...

BRENDA MCPHAIL: I think that they have every intention of only storing. Yeah. And I'm sure that for this program they've every intention of only storing it for 36 hours. The question is: will that storage period be perpetual, or will they change? As that data is collected, will there be a push to say, well, for frequent travellers, we should just store it so we don't have to collect it, renew it every time? For security purposes, and we all know that there are really significant and genuine security concerns at airports, will there be a push to say, Well, we're storing that information for 36 hours, we'll let airport security run it over a watch list of people they're looking for, for example? There's a real risk, again, of function creep with the technology and with the data, because it's going to potentially be very useful in more ways than just seeing if you are who you are to board a plane.

MG: And perhaps not controlled just by us here in Canada. I mean, if you're travelling internationally, that data perhaps would be controlled by wherever, whatever country you happen to be in.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Absolutely. In the United States, for example, when they collect biometrics at the border of their own citizens, they store it for a limited period of time. For anyone who's a foreign national, it's stored for 75 years.

MG: What sort of regulations would you want to see put in place by the federal government? John says this, to your point, this is going to be as common as an escalator in five years. So if that's going to be happening, what are the regulations that need to be put in place to protect us?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: We need rules and guardrails to make sure that if we decide that this technology should be used in these settings for these purposes, that people have appropriate protections. That when a business says we are only going to collect it to match your face one on one and start for 36 hours, that they have to abide by that promise. So we need to define biometric information specifically as sensitive and need of stronger protection in our privacy legislation. And we have a new privacy law on the table of Parliament right now that doesn't do that, despite the fact that, you know, as your guest said, this technology is picking up steam. So we need our privacy legislation updated to define biometric information as sensitive. And then we need to get rid of something called legitimate business purposes exemptions in C 27, which basically is a carve out that says if businesses really, really think they need to use it and they themselves can't think of adverse impacts to their customers, that they should get to do that without knowledge or consent of their customers. And that's creating a huge gap in the new privacy law. That's going to be really problematic for something like facial recognition that is so easy to do covertly.

MG: Just before I let you go, let me ask you just a couple of other quick things. One is, you said if we decide that we want this technology. Do we have any say in this? I mean, is it inevitable, do you think that this technology will be ubiquitous?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: I think that this technology is definitely becoming more and more common. I think that we're past time for really critical public conversation about what settings is it appropriate? What places should be absolute no-go zones? And how do we think that we need to have the right protect--how can we put the right protections in place for those uses that we decide are socially beneficial, not just convenient, but socially beneficial? Just to make sure that we're not sort of sleepwalking into the kind of surveillance state that, you know, your guest described as minority report. I don't think that in a free democracy, we want to live that way.

MG: Do you think that we, do people care about this in some ways? I mean, we trade off our privacy for all sorts of things. And I just wonder whether convenience will trump out the concerns around privacy, because people may not have to wait in line as long at an airport which drives people around the bend if that line goes on for too long.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Yeah. You know, strategically, airports are a really great place to try and get us to accept this technology because anyone who has ever experienced, you know, stood in a really long line at an airport, is going to see the appeal of this. And even people who are rigid about protecting their privacy in other contexts might, you know, want to slip a little bit if it gets them to their gate faster. But, we do need to think seriously about what the risks are and what the consequences are. If these technologies are 98 per cent accurate, which is one of, you know, many of the tools advertise that kind of success rate, when you've got 35 million people passing through an airport and you've got 700,000 people who are experiencing problems in moving through the airport or getting on their plane. And when we know that those people are more likely to be equity seeking groups, belonging to equity seeking groups, that creates a social problem that we need to solve before this technology becomes ubiquitous.

MG: The government has said in its, the Ministry of Innovation said in a statement that: Canadians can be assured that we will never compromise on trust and safety for our digital privacy. You're flying, as I understand it, in the next few weeks through Vancouver?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: I am.

MG: Will you use the technology? Will you be tempted at all?

BRENDA MCPHAIL: As a privacy advocate I will be tempted because it's better to understand what you want to be critical of.

MG: Fair enough.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: So, I would be interested in testing out the system. But would I be happy if it were mandatory, if I didn't have that choice? Absolutely not. I'd be very worried.

MG: Be interested to hear your reaction after the flight. In the meantime, safe travels, and thank you very much Brenda.

BRENDA MCPHAIL: Thank you.

MG: Brenda McPhail is director of the Executive Education in Public Policy in Digital Society program at McMaster University, and also the founder of the Right 2 Your Face Coalition. Your thoughts on this? I mean, there are cameras everywhere in our world it seems like right now. Is this the next step? Is it inevitable? Will we be using this technology as we use escalators? Are you fine with that, or do you have concerns around your face being scanned and then perhaps being used as a form of identification as you make your way through the airport or beyond? You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca.

[Music: Instrumental]

Controversies cloud the start of MLS’s 2024 season

Guests: John Molinaro

MG: This is The Current on CBC radio. My name is Matt Galloway.

[Sounds: crowd chanting]

MG: They're chanting refund there. Some 40,000 fans demanded their money back after a major League Soccer exhibition game in Hong Kong. Many of those fans were there to see one player, Lionel Messi, the greatest of all time. Tickets weren't cheap. Some people paid more than $800 to watch the Inter Miami forward play, but he did not play. He did not make an appearance at all. And as you heard, fans were outraged. This is one of just several controversies that seems to be dogging the MLS (Major League Soccer,) as the 2024 season kicks off. Last night in the first match, Messi's team beat Real Salt Lake 2-0. Messi got an assist in that game. John Molinaro is the founder of the soccer publication TFC Republic News. He is a writer for Sportsnet. A very close follower of the beautiful game. John. Good morning.

JOHN MOLINARO: Hey. Good morning, Matt.

MG: Why didn't Messi play when he was supposed to play? When these fans paid $800 to see him get out on the field and kick a ball?

JOHN MOLINARO: Yeah, it's a really good question. So, when you speak to Inter Miami, and specifically Coach Tata Martino, he indicated that Messi at the time was dealing with a small abductor issue. And with the start of the MLS season, you know, as it was kicked, they kicked off their campaign yesterday, he didn't want to risk him. So, it really came down to, you know, whether it was worth risking he get injured in an exhibition game like this. So, usually when teams, MLS teams, or any team for that matter, when they go on these sort of barnstorming tours where they play, you know, exhibition games abroad, part of the contract is that, you know, player X has to play for 45 minutes. So that way, you know, in this case people who are paying good money to see Messi and that's, they wanted some sort of guarantee that Messi would play. But there's always a caveat in terms of, you know, if the player is injured or ill in any way, that, you know, that the team has an out and it seems like that was the case or they just simply didn't want to risk Messi, you know, getting injured and then possibly, you know, having a prolonged absence for the start of the MLS season.

MG: This is turned into, I mean, a controversy that ropes politics into it. Right? Why has this--it's exploded in some ways.

JOHN MOLINARO: Yeah. So I think there was a lot of sense amongst the fans there that this was some sort of slight against China and Hong Kong, Messi kind of came out and produced a video a couple of days later saying it wasn't politically motivated and just kind of doubling down on the injury issues, so.

MG: Which he had to do in part because of the size of the market in that part of the world.

JOHN MOLINARO: Oh, absolutely. I mean, and let's not kid ourselves. I mean, Inter Miami didn't go, you know, it didn't go on this barnstorming tour for, you know, to spread goodwill. I mean, they're in it to make money, right? I mean, this is a commercial sort of enterprise. And they realize that Lionel Messi is the most, you know, famous athlete in the world. And they want to cash in on that. And that's fine. But it's a tricky situation in, you know, in a situation like this when he is carrying an injury and you have player, you know, fans who have, you know, paid a good deal money to see him play, what do you do? I mean, I can kind of see it from both sides.

MG: The other, just last point on this is this league in some ways has pinned much of its success on one person. Is that a good thing?

JOHN MOLINARO: Yeah, it's an interesting one. I mean, I don't know if it's necessarily a good thing, but I mean, it's the card that they have to play, right? I mean, they'd kind of be foolish if they didn't sort of go full in on Lionel Messi. You know, he's an eight-time Ballon d'Or winner as the best player in the world. He was fresh off winning a World Cup, you know, six months after, you know, he signed with the Inter Miami roughly six months after winning the World Cup. So, I think it's only understandable that they were going to go all in and sort of like cast their, you know, really sort of, you know, just sort of, you know, promote the hell out of Messi and really sort of, you know, link it with him. So, I understand in that regard. But, you know, I think there's a lot of other good qualities about MLS to promote and a lot of good stories and storylines and a lot of good features about the league. But, you know, when you have this one-in-a-generation player it's certainly understandable why MLS would go so heavy in terms of promoting him.

MG: It should be the best of times for the league with someone like Lionel Messi playing for a team in the United States. This season gets underway, and it arrives with a bit of a cloud, not just when it comes to that, but there's an issue with referees. The referees are on strike. Who's blowing the whistle?

JOHN MOLINARO: Yeah. Replacement referees. So yeah, it's interesting because the Professional Soccer Referees Association, they reached a tentative deal with PRO, which is the referees’ employers, and they were the ones who decide the referee assignments for MLS games. But when the referees, the union membership actually voted on the tentative deal, they voted 95 per cent to reject it, to ratify it. And they're fighting for, you know, increased pay and better working conditions and better travel and sort of benefits. So, for the time being, as we saw yesterday, there were replacement referees.

MG: What does that mean for the quality of the refereeing?

JOHN MOLINARO: Well, I mean, you know, I watched the game last night and I didn't notice that much of a noticeable difference, if I'm being completely honest. But I don't think there's any question that, you know, these, these same sorts of referees, these sort of these replacement referees aren't at the same level as the unionized ones because they've been doing it longer. They've been, you know, players and they've been refereeing and officiating games at, you know, at MLS level for quite some time. These replacement referees haven't. So, I think, you know, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out and if just how long this goes because it's the first referees strike, a lockout situation in essentially a year. So, I'll be quite interested to see how this gets resolved.

MG: In the last 90 seconds that we have, Canadian fans will be wondering how their teams are going to do. So run down how the three MLS teams in this country, you expect will perform this season. Start with Toronto FC.

JOHN MOLINARO: Well, the interesting thing there is that with John Herdman coming in as the coach.

MG: Former national team coach.

JOHN MOLINARO: Yeah. And so and with you know whether he can sort of you know revamp this side. Because Toronto finished last place last year. They suffered through their worst ever campaign. They're Italian designated players Lorenzo Insigne and Federico Bernardeschi did not produce at all. So John Herdman has a really big task on hand. And so, again, I'll be watching with keen interest to see what, if he can sort of help this team rebound. Vancouver, I think is probably, of the three Canadian teams, is probably the best positioned to have some success. They're coming off a pretty successful year. They just resigned their star creative midfielder Ryan Gauld who, a Scottish midfielder who is probably one of the best creators and playmakers in the league. And I think they have a lot of sort of just sort of strength from front to back from Vancouver, when you look at their roster, Montreal is pretty much in the same boat as Toronto. They have a new coach, they have a new striker in Josef Martínez a Venezuelan striker who, you know, used to be a really good sort of goal scorer in MLS. But that was quite a while ago. He's had injury problems since then. So, it'll be interesting to see if Montreal can kind of rebound with Martínez leading the way, because they had really big problems scoring goals last year. Monreal did.

MG: A lot of those fans also just wondering when Messi is going to come to town, right? That's the hot ticket. That's no disrespect to the teams that play day in and day out, but they're waiting for him to arrive.

JOHN MOLINARO: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it's a big ticket. I mean I know; you know, fans are sort of I know Toronto fans, a lot of Toronto fans personally who are, you know, trying to scalp their tickets because they want to cash in. Right? So, it's a huge market. I mean, it's a big deal, right? This once-in-a-generation player coming to town.

MG: John, thank you very much for this. Good to talk to you as always.

JOHN MOLINARO: No problem, Matt. Anytime.

MG: John Molinaro is the founder of TFC Republic News. He's a writer as well for Sportsnet. That is The Current for this Thursday. It's the 22nd of February.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: Q is up next on CBC Radio One. If you missed anything, you can find our podcast through the CBC Listen app or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great day and we will talk to you again tomorrow.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Thursday February 22, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This