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 2016

The AIH Transcript for November 18, 2016

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

CO: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

JD: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

JD: Tonight:

CO: Pretty far right and pretty far wrong. In the Eighties, our guest testified against Jeff Sessions becoming a federal judge -- and tonight, he'll testify against the Alabama Senator being Donald Trump's Attorney General.

JD: Breathing uneasier. Dozens of allegations of police abuse in northern Quebec result in just two charges -- and the head of one native friendship centre says women in her community are now more afraid.

CO: Coming forward somewhere backward. While on vacation in Dubai, a British woman reports her rape to police -- only to be charged with "extramarital sex."

JD: His best defense was the prosecution. An Ottawa lawyer says a complacent Crown and an underfunded justice system caused delays -- forcing a judge to free his client on the eve of his murder trial.

CO: Caught between two homes. Adam Crapser hasn't lived in South Korea since he was three, but now he's there to stay -- and a close friend worries that his deportation will be yet another trauma.

JD: And the lack of gravity of the situation. During a baseball game in Japan, one batter's colossal hit rises and rises, and seems never to come down -- until a slow-motion replay helps clear the air.

As It Happens, the Friday edition. Radio that knows sometimes things get weird right off the bat.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Trump Attorney General pick Jeff Sessions: Hebert, Dubai woman detained, court delay follow-up

Trump Attorney General pick Jeff Sessions: Hebert

Guest: J. Gerald Hebert

JEFF DOUGLAS: Since early on in the U.S. presidential campaign, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions served as one of Donald Trump's closest advisers. So it is not surprising that the President-elect has announced Senator Sessions as his pick for the office of attorney general. And plenty of Republicans are pleased with the decision including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who had this to say.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE HUCKABEE: An absolutely wonderful appointment. I gave it a standing ovation. Jeff Sessions is one of the think stalwart conservatives in the Senate. He's also been a loyal, faithful ally to Donald Trump throughout this entire campaign. I've always considered him one my favorite senators. I think it was a great choice. I was thrilled.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Mike Huckabee earlier today. Now this is not Senator Sessions first time in the national spotlight in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan nominated him for a federal judgeship. But in a humiliating turn, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination. It was only the second time they had done so in 50 years. And one of the people who gave testimony on Senator Sessions before that committee was J. Gerald Hebert we reached Mr. Hebert at an airport in Houston.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Hebert, when you heard it today that Donald Trump has nominated Jeff Sessions for attorney general what was your reaction?

J. GERALD HEBERT: I was alarmed and saddened and disappointed because I know Jeff Sessions well from my time in the Justice Department when I worked there when he was the U.S. attorney. I've followed his record ever since in the last 30 years, and I think he poses some of the laws that he would be in charge of enforcing. I don't think he would enforce laws in an even-handed, fair and just way.

CO: In 1986 we know that you spoke before Congress about Mr. Sessions. What did you say in that testimony in that testimony?

JGH: I was asked about comments he had made to me when I was also a United States attorney handling a major voting rights case in Mobile, Alabama where his office was. I was working out of that office to handle this litigation. He made comments to me about the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) being un-American, referring to them as "commie, pinko organizations." Making other racially insensitive remarks that had been a rumor that federal judge had referred to white civil rights lawyer as being a disgrace to his race. I asked him about it, and he said, “well maybe he is.”

CO: A disgrace to his race for what reason?

JGH: Because he was a white person handling cases on behalf of black citizens and challenging the status quo.

CO: Did Mr. Sessions dispute your recollection when you testified before Congress?

JGH: I'm glad you asked that question because he didn't dispute my comments. in fact, he acknowledged that sometimes he has a loose tongue. He said at one point, "I don't dispute that I said those things. I don't know why I would say those things." You know and maybe I just popped off, but you did dispute comments made by others. But he never disputed the comments that I reported to him which I heard with my own ears directly from his mouth.

CO: He disputed what an African-American prosecutor says that - this is Thomas Figures - he testified that Mr. Sessions had referred to him as "boy" and he had made remarks about how he should be careful what he says to white folks. And something else about the Ku Klux Klan. Do you recall that?

JGH: Yes, I remember all three of those comments That Tom Figures made who is now deceased.

CO: And what was the comment about the KKK?

JGH: What he said about the Klan was that he never really thought poorly about the Klan until he found out they smoked marijuana. No that's what Tom Figures said. I never heard Jeff I say that. He denied that he ever said that. He in fact, justified that he abhors the Klan.

CO: But he did remark that if he did say that he was it was a joke?

JGH: I think that's right. I think you're right about that.

CO: So these were things that happened in the early 1980s. Do you have any reason to believe that he continues to hold these views or would make these kinds of remarks now?

JGH: I do. You know it's 30 years ago and a lot of time has passed. But he never really apologized for the things that he said. And he never really said that you know watch my record. I'm going to show you a demonstrated record of pursuing justice and fairness for all regardless of skin color or what language you speak. But my actions speak louder than my past words. And in fact, over the years the last 30 years he's continued to oppose basic civil rights measures in the Congress. He's spoken out against the issues that I think are based on his opinion not based on facts. And in fact, holds views I think that are largely unsupported by facts in cases that civil rights lawyers like me have developed over the years. On the issues of policy about the myths of voter fraud that a lot of people on the right continue to advance in order to support voter suppression laws in the United States. He offers up strong opinions based on no facts and in fact, the facts support the opposite view. So you know he prosecuted some elderly, black citizens in Alabama for voter fraud. They were all acquitted because all they were ultimately found to have been doing was helping other voters who are disabled and shut-in. So you know there's a I think a record over the 30 years of really showing that not only does he believe in some of the laws but he would be responsible for now enforcing as attorney general, but in fact, he wouldn't enforce them in an even-handed and fair way.

CO: In December, when Mr. Trump called for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. There was a resolution in the Senate to say that this was to affirm that the U.S. could not bar people from the country because of their religion. He voted against that resolution. He said it would make "global migration to the United States a human right." Is that consistent with what you think he would continue in his policies and his use as a lawmaker?

JGH: Well, as I say, I think my view is that while he would claim on the one hand to be an attorney general for all people, he would not think that he would instead punish certain people. That he would be unfair to certain groups because of pre-held views based on what I've seen of his record and what I knew about him back 30 years ago when I worked in the Justice Department.

CO: Why do you think that Mr. Trump would want him to be the attorney general?

JGH: You know I really could only speculate he was one of the first senators to come out and support Donald Trump. He's a sitting U.S. senator on the Judiciary Committee. But you know it certainly isn't the nomination that you would pick if you were really trying to unite the United States rather than divide it.

CO: We also heard in the campaign that Mr. Trump believes that Hillary Clinton should be locked up. Do you think that Jeff Sessions would support an effort to go after Ms. Clinton on some kind of grounds of that nature?

JGH: I would hope not. But he you know if he's vindictive individual and you know he has a record of not being very even-handed and fair-minded I think there's a possibility of that. Yes.

CO: As an American how do you feel about this? Jeff Sessions becoming the attorney general of your country?

JGH: Well you know I've devoted my whole life and career to civil rights in the United States and I've never looked at myself as being a white person. I've always looked at myself as being an American and somebody who stands up for what's right and good. I've pursued cases in my 43 years as a lawyer at every level all the way to the Supreme Court in support of equality of opportunity and equal protection. When I heard that Jeff Sessions might be the person Donald Trump was selecting, knowing his history and knowing his record I thought I can't even imagine somebody who's more unfit for that office than Jeff Sessions. So I was deeply saddened this morning when I learned that Donald Trump asked him to serve as his attorney general and to go through the confirmation hearings. It's a very frightening thought for America.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Hebert, I appreciate speaking with you thank you.

J. GERALD HEBERT: Thank you very much.

JEFF DOUGLAS: We reached J. Gerald Hebert at the airport in Houston. He was speaking to us about President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general. Alabama senator Jeff Sessions. We have more on this story on our website www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Dubai woman detained

Guest: Radha Stirling

JD: She went to Dubai on vacation. But while she was there, the twenty-five-year-old British woman was arrested and charged with "extramarital sex". And it's even more disturbing than it sounds: she was charged after telling police in Dubai that she had been raped. For Radha Stirling, it's a familiar story. She's the founder of the UK-based charity "Detained in Dubai." In cases like this, she often recommends that foreigners don't report sexual assaults to police. We reached Ms. Stirling in Marbella, Spain.

CAROL OFF: Ms. Stirling, what can you tell us about this British woman who was on holiday in Dubai? And what did she say happened to her there?

RADHA STIRLING: Well, it was reported that she issued a complaint to the police station that she had been raped by two men at a hotel. And following that they charged her with her outside of marriage which is quite normal in that circumstance. Sex outside of marriage is illegal in Dubai and therefore any report of a rape often sort of leads to this kind of charge.

CO: So she went to the police and said that she had been raped by these two men. And then she was charged with extramarital sex?

RS: Yes that's correct. We're not sure whether they are still there or that they went back to the U.K. there are conflicting stories. But the British Embassy seems to have confirmed that the men were also arrested. In which case, whether it was rape or was and the men will definitely be charged with some sort of a crime no doubt. But it's dubious as to whether the charges might be dropped against her for sex outside of marriage if they believe her story.

CO: Where is that woman now? That one who was arrested in Dubai?

RS: She's staying with friends or family in in a home with some other English people.

CO: So she's not in jail at this point?

RS: No. Fortunately she was bailed.

CO: So what's what is likely to happen to her now?

RS: What's likely to happen is if as a result of the sort of international spotlight on the UAE (United Arab Emirates) at the moment. And also any government lobbying or intervention? If that's successful say the charges against her will be dropped and she'll be able to leave. But it's quite likely that if she had to go to trial and she was found innocent she would still have to spend months and months before she would be allowed to go back the the UK. If she was found guilty she could be looking at a prison sentence for up to seven months followed by deportation or perhaps even more.

CO: What are the chances that she will be convicted for this extramarital sex charge and imprisoned?

RS: Well, I think you know based on her experience I think the chances are actually quite, unfortunately high. In the case of the Norwegian woman who was facing a situation. She benefited from the Norwegian government actually intervening in a diplomatic way and the Sheikh pardoned her. So she was free to go. But that also took seven months. So unless the UK government steps and intervenes so the UAE government reacts to this negative press that this case has been receiving. She could be looking at a very long time.

CO: You've been in contact with some of the woman's family and friends. What are they saying? How are how is she dealing with this?

RS: Well, I mean they're obviously very frightened. They're in a completely different legal system and they would never have expected that a report where they expect support from the government, support from police and the embassy. They would never expect to be on the other end of a charge. So it is extremely frightening she does have legal representation. But in the UAE they generally advise you not to go to the press which in cases like this is usually something that I recommend against because I have seen intervention actually lead to charges being dropped. But it's a whole new legal system for them and they're very frightened. They don't know what to expect and how to trust.

CO: The fact that you head up an organization called Detained in Dubai and that you are helping people with these kinds of situations. How often does this happen that foreigners are arrested and charged in Dubai?

RS: It happens very often. I mean we have received inquiries from all sorts of reports crime every month. I mean hundreds and hundreds. But for cases where people are sort of wrongfully at the end of you know having made a police report this is this is not as uncommon as you might think. When we're talking about rape, it's very standard so you will be charged with sex outside marriage. But there are also other cases of reporting crimes like slander or reckless driving or someone has to frauded me for example. That person usually will take a counter-criminal case against you as a means to reach an out-of-court settlement whereby you both withdraw your cases. And each case is taken quite equally by the police. So if you make a case against someone it's normal for them to retaliate. And most people are not aware that that is the situation which can mean one one small report about some you know crazy driver can leave you held-up in Dubai for six months during court proceedings.

CO: You have warned visitors to the country not to go to the police with these kinds of cases. So if people don't do that how can they ever get any justice?

RS: Yes, I mean when it comes to sexual assault what I usually recommend to my clients is that they consider whether they do want to make a report. It's up to them personally because obviously in a situation like that you want justice, but they have to balance that against the fact that they could be in prison for a year and it's not worth it. So ultimately that's a personal decision on their part. And we support them as much as we can with you know providing lawyers and strategic support or additional services that you know helping with accommodation and various other charities. But ultimately it comes down to a decision that they want to make is it worth reporting crime if I end up in jail for the next year?

CO: And of the people that you have counseled, how often do they decide not to bother doing it because it's just it's going to get them into trouble?

RS: Well, before the recent cases have been reported that there's been several over the past five years in the international press before that people were more likely to report. But also before that most cases didn't go to press. So it's only a recent phenomenon that some foreign nationals have been that the press coverage since then most people I'd say around 90 per cent of people would decide not to report crime. If they have the knowledge in advance that it is going to lead to a potential arrest.

CAROL OFF: Ms. Stirling, Thank you for speaking with us.

RADHA STIRLING: Thank you very much. Have a good night.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Radha Sterling is the founder of the U.K. charity Detained in Dubai. We reached her today in Marbella ,Spain. And if you'd like to hear that interview again or share it, it is on our website www.cbc.ca/aih. Coming up in about half an hour on As It Happens, the story of Adam Crapser. He's South Korean, but hasn't lived in the country since he was adopted out to the U.S. at the age of three. Since then, he's lived in a number of homes, somewhere he says he was abused. After getting in trouble with the law, immigration officials came after him. And this week he was deported -- arriving in Seoul, yesterday. Adam Crapser's friend Jenny Kim tells us how he's doing, later on As It Happens.

[Music]

Court delay follow-up

Guest: Lawrence Greenspon

JEFF DOUGLAS: Last evening Nicole Nayel told us she felt, "robbed of justice." The Ottawa woman's son was found shot to death in 2012. Earlier this week, an Ontario Superior Court judge released the man accused of his murder citing unacceptable delays in bringing the case to trial. Here is some of what Ms. Nayel said to guest host Helen Mann last night.

SOUNDCLIP

NICOLE NAYEL: I waited for years to go to trial, counted the day, counted the moments just to see justice. But I get to the courtroom and we didn't pick the jury. We got a decision that gets the accused murderer to get out.

HELEN MANN: What did you think?

NN: Well, I felt everything crashed right in front of my face. Everything that we worked for four years. All the pain that this guy caused us, it went down like it's like nothing. Victims have no rights. Like everything everybody like the judge was talking everything about the accused, but never mentioned how about the victims?

JEFF DOUGLAS: That was Nicole Nayel, mother of Fouad Nayel, who was shot to death outside Ottawa in 2012 we spoke with Ms. Nayel last night. Adam Picard is the man who was accused of his murder. Lawrence Greenspon is Mr. Picard's lawyer. We reached Mr. Greenspon in Ottawa.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Greenspon, you just heard Nicole Nayel. She says that this decision has, "robbed her family of justice." How do you see it?

LAWRENCE GREENSPON: Well, I've represented bereaved families many times before and I understand why she's feeling the way she is and she has every right to feel frustrated and angry with the system. The judge, Justice Parfett, said in staying these charges that she was well aware that the family of the deceased in this matter will not see justice done as they would want. And so it is not a surprise to me that Ms. Nayel and Mr. Nayel and their family look at this and say justice wasn't done.

CO: How do you see it? Was justice done?

LG: No, I don't think justice was done. I think that Justice Parfett was clearly very reluctant to make the decision that she felt she had to make. The accused in this case Mr. Picard, she says he may find this to be, "a hollow victory." Which is the case, but she said that in the end the circumstances of this case with the delay of four years during which time Adam Picard was in custody in jail for four years. At the same time as he was presumed innocent until proven guilty that the delay was so extreme that the charges had to be stayed.

CO: And why was it delayed for four years?

LG: Well, the real essence of the decision as to why the judge stayed the case she lays it out she says in dealing with the Crown's response she says, "It's this aspect of the delay that is the most troubling in this case." And what she's referring to is she says ultimately far from making every effort to move the matter forward. The Crown chose - very deliberately - to ignore the delay in favor of crown discretion. So I know what she's talking about at that point is we brought a motion to expedite the trial to try and get a speedy trial. The Crown's response was, "We have two senior crowns on this case." They're busy. You're going to have to wait. Mr. Picard you're going to have to wait a period of an additional seven months in custody before you have your trial. And that was the straw that broke the camel's back for the judge when she reached her decision to stay these charges.

CO: The mother, Nicole Nayel, has said that and this is something also that we heard from Pierre Poilievre, the conservative in the house. They give statements in the House that the accusation is that your client was allowed to "game the system," by firing lawyers he fired a lawyer two to three others. Two others dismissed and went three lawyers during that period. And that was a large part of the reason for this delay. How do you respond to the accusation that your client "gamed the system?"

LG: It's absolutely false. And anyone who reads the judgment would see that. Adam Picard fired one lawyer after his unsuccessful bail application. That's it. The second and third lawyers that came on got off the record. Nothing to do with Adam Picard. They had conflicts of interest within their firm and in fact, the judge took that time into account. So even though Adam Picard didn't choose to fire those lawyers the notion that he fired more than one lawyer is without being impolite. Nonsense. So Adam Picard didn't cause the delay. The judge made that very clear in her decision. She described on the other hand defense counsel was making a real and concerted effort to have the matter dealt with expeditiously.

CO: There are many accusations of this nature that the reason why a lot of cases are being tossed is because of "gaming the system" of delaying of changing lawyers. Do you believe that happens? Did the charges of some people gaming the system. Would you concur that that actually does happen?

LG: It does happen. There have been cases where the accused or their defense council have tried to utilize unreasonable delay and have been the cause of the delay. This isn't one of those cases. This is a case where the Crown Attorney's office was described as being complacent about the 11-B rights of a person whose liberty is at stake and it's that complacency that the Supreme Court of Canada condemned and it's the same complacency that took place in this case - in Mr. Picard's case. And that complacency is when given the opportunity to expedite the trial. The Crown Attorney's office chose not to do so and they chose not to do so. In our case, in a case where back in 2013 a judge had warned the Crown they had said, "this case is taking too long to get to trial. Crown you have a duty to move it along." That's what the judge said back in 2013. And you don't hear the family or Mr. Poilievre making any comments about those comments of the Supreme Court of Canada judge back in 2013 in the Picard case.

CO: Of course, that also the argument that the reason for these delays – the reason that justice delayed and then so often denied - is because there are not enough resources, not enough judges, there are not enough people prosecuting and not enough people defending out there?

LG: I agree. And the problem is that the government both provincial and federal don't give their attention or their priorities to the proper funding of the criminal justice system. Which needs more judges, which needs more Crown attorneys which needs more courts. That priority is not given unless until there's a Picard case that comes along. And then all of a sudden everybody's there raising it in the House of Commons. Mr. Naqvi is going to investigate it. The Standing Committee is hearing representations about delays in the criminal trial process, all of a sudden everybody's all up in arms because a murder trial was stayed and it's a very severe example of the system gone wrong. And the problem is that once this case passes, those same politicians will turn their attentions to somewhere else somewhere more vote attractive than the criminal justice system and the funding of that justice system.

CO: We understand that the Crown may appeal this case of your clients. What are the chances that will happen?

LG: We were served today with the Crown's notice of appeal.

CAROL OFF: All right we will be following this case. Mr. Greenspon, thank you.

LG: Thank you for your interest.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Laurence Greenspon is the lawyer for Adam Picard. We reached him in Ottawa.

CAROL OFF: All right we're going to take a brief pause now, but we'll have more As It Happens.

JD: Yes, dozens of complaints of abuse by police to charges. As you can imagine, that brings no comfort to the indigenous women in Northern Quebec who made those complaints or the community where they live. But you won't have to imagine because our guest will be very clear.

CO: OK, baseball very simple right? Someone throws the ball, someone hits the ball and someone tries to catch the ball. But in Japan earlier this week, the ordinary simple game got complicated after someone threw a ball, someone hit the ball, and the ball vanished.

JD: Magic. Stay tuned. I'm Jeff Douglas.

CO: And I'm Carol Off.

CO: We're going to take a brief pause now. But there's still a lot to come on the Friday edition of As It Happens.

JD: Dozens of complaints of abuse by police. Two charges. As you can imagine, that ratio brings no comfort to the indigenous women in northern Quebec who made those complaints, or the community where they live. But you won't have to imagine, because our guest will be very clear.

CO: Ultimately, baseball is simple: someone throws a ball, and someone hits the ball, and then someone tries to catch the ball. But in Japan earlier this week, the ordinarily simple game got extremely complicated -- after someone threw a ball, someone hit that ball, and the ball vanished.

JD: Stay tuned. I'm Jeff Douglas.

CO: And I'm Carol Off.

Part 2: Val d'Or follow-up, Adam Crapser friend

CO: Hello again, and welcome back. I'm Carol Off.

JD: And I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens, the Friday edition. Part Two.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Coming up:

CO: If it's a beach read you're looking for, Mischling is not it. But the new novel is fascinating and compelling and heartbreaking, and its author, Affinity Konar, joined me in our studio to talk about it.

JD: We'll find out how Ms. Konar came to write about twin sisters fighting to survive the genetic experiments of Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. And some of the astonishing details she uncovered in her research for Mischling. A feature interview with Affinity Konar, coming up on As It Happens. Stay tuned.

[Music]

Val d'Or follow-up

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Indigenous woman singing and drums beating in Val d’Or]

JD: That was the sound this afternoon as Indigenous women and their supporters gathered outside the courthouse in Val-d'Or, Quebec. Inside, provincial prosecutors were announcing the conclusion of a Montreal police investigation into 37 allegations of abuse by provincial police, mostly against Indigenous women. Two officers who worked in far-off Shefferville will be prosecuted for rape and sexual assault. But of the six officers from Val-d'Or who had been named, none will be charged. Édith Cloutier was outside the couthouse today. She's the executive director of the Val-d'Or Native Friendship Centre. We reached her in Val-d'Or.

CAROL OFF: Ms. Cloutier, at first we were told that no one would be charged. How are the women who made these accusations reacting to news that two officers from Shefferville will not prosecuted?

EDITH CLOUTIER: Well what we understand is that here in Val d’Or , all of the cases are not going through. So those women are really disappointed, bitter disappointment, I should say, and deep concern. But at this point the are more trying to get through this episode of disappointment and feeling conflicting feelings. I saw a woman being discouraged, fear is raising again, the fear of being judged and treated as a liar. They feel betrayed, humiliated that was their own words.

CO: And, there's a clip I want to play from one of the prosecutors. It explains why so few charges would be laid. And just here is this from the news conference in Val d’Or.

SOUNDCLIP

PROSECUTOR: We have to be clear that the fact that charges are not being laid doesn't mean that the event did not take place. It simply means that the burden on the crown is very high. We have to show that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in the cases that we receive, unfortunately we don't have enough evidence to show that.

CO: Alright, that's the reason why they out of 28 people with 37 files of charges, that only two are actually going to be prosecuted. Does that bring any comfort to the women who brought those charges forward?

EC: Not at all. You know those women trusted the Canadian justice system. It has been a very long journey for them. They filed official complaints a year ago and for some it was the second round of filing complaint. They had to do everything all over again because for some of them, the first complaint went through the SQ process. So some of those women had to start the whole process again. And now the last year was a very intensive year for them. The delay of getting all to finally to the decision today. So those women put their trust despite the reserves that they had in the Canadian justice system and they took part with goodwill in a process of even a police investigation of police officers of another police Corp. And we see the results today and what we, our way of seeing this, is like Aboriginal woman has they have fallen victim yet again to this system. A system that has failed to protect them.

CO: And you said that the accusations, the Sûreté du Québec, where the accusations were made, and that it was the Montreal police that did the investigation. Now some of the reasons they say, why the charges didn't satisfy the burden of proof, that they felt they couldn't establish guilt. They said that, they in some cases, they said the police use of force was not necessarily excessive because police use force. That's one of the things. They said that there was, in some cases, they were third party allegations and not made by the victims. One case the officers actually deceased. Others they said was not criminal acts. Others they said they couldn't prove completely the identity of the officers who were being accused. What do you make of all those reasons why they say they couldn't get successful prosecutions?

EC: Well it's obvious that now the criminal investigations are not a response to the injustices to which woman are victims. The report from the Independent Observer, Fannie Lafontaine, one of the aspects that she is raising is in regards to systemic racism. So what is happening for us is directly linked to that system that is not functioning and is not right and is wrong for the realities of Aboriginal people. We see it now today with the investigations not going through for 100 percent of the cases here in Val d’Or. When we look at the high rate of incarceration in detention, when we look at the high rate of children placed in foster home, there is definitely something wrong and we have to look at it very close in terms of what is wrong in the system and systemic racism is certainly one of those pillars.

CO: The fact that these women came forward and would make these accusations and others we've spoken with say it took a great deal of courage because they will continue to live in the communities where these police officers are. So they brought this forward. They're not going to see the prosecutions go forward. Will anything change in the system because they came forward? Do you see that this will be the way forward? That anything will be different for them?

EC: Certainly with their courage and their denunciation, there is something happening. We don't know at what measure, but there is certainly a pressure on the political establishment, on the Quebec government, because what we are claiming is a very specific commission by the Quebec government. We’re saying this is the police of Quebec, those women were abused in the cities of the Quebec jurisdictions. The Quebec is the employer of those police officers. It's their first responsibility to make sure that we have an in-depth look of what is happening and the woman have claimed that yesterday in the press conference because they say, ‘we want the truth to be heard. Outside of a court, the court won't hear our stories. We want our stories to be heard because we want this to end. So this is where we're at now and looking forward to hearing the position of the Québec government on this.’

CO: And we will continue to follow this story. And Ms. Cloutier, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

EC: Thank you.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Édith Cloutier is the executive director of the Val-d'Or Native Friendship Centre.

[Music]

Adam Crapser friend

Guest: Jenny Kim

JD: Adam Crapser was born in South Korea. But that's where his connection to the country ends. He was adopted by a family in the U.S. at the age of three. And that's where he stayed. Until this week… when he was deported back to his birth country by American immigration officials. Like tens of thousands of other international adoptees living in the U.S., he did not have American citizenship. The 41-year-old man's life has not been an easy one. He was abandoned by the parents who initially adopted him. He was adopted again and endured physical abuse. He was homeless by 17. He has a criminal record. And now, Mr. Crapser finds himself starting from scratch in a strange country. Jenny Kim is a close friend of Adam Crapser. We reached her in Portland, Oregon.

CAROL OFF: Jenny I know you've been in touch with Adam Crapser since he landed in Seoul. What's he telling you about what he's going through?

JENNY KIM: So Adam just arrived basically two nights ago Korea time and the first night was more of a shock than he expected it to be. He said that it hit him that he was in a foreign country and that he needed to figure things out for himself.

CO: Does he even speak Korean?

JK: He doesn't. Adam doesn't speak any Korean.

CO: He has a family a wife and children in the United States. What's going to happen with them? So unfortunately his wife is also not currently a U.S. citizen. She's a green card holder. Therefore she has to wait until she becomes a U.S. citizen and get a U.S. passport to travel to Korea to visit him. We just don't want to risk her losing her chance of becoming a U.S. citizen. So we're trying to make sure that she has her status first.

JK: Why was Adam deported from the United States?

CO: So Adam was actually a green card holder and was a legal citizen when he was flagged by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His green card was about to expire so he was trying to renew. And his burglary record that he got when he was 17 years old, to go back to his adoptive family to get his belongings, is what flagged him as a potential person to be deported.

CO: You've answered something in one sentence, that packs a lifetime into it. So let's just pull a bit of that apart and just start with how Adam capture ended up in the United States being he was three years old when he came to the U.S. What brought him here?

JK: So he was legally adopted by a family living in Minnesota. And then that family eventually moved to Portland Oregon. The couple who adopted him ended up getting a divorce. They gave up their right as parents and so he ended up being under the state of Oregon care until he was adopted later again by the Crapsers.

CO: Now what happened with the Crapser family?

JK: The Crapser family had a lot of adoptive children as well as foster children. And they were not very loving or kind parents to Adam and other children. Adam was forced to do some illegal work for Mr. Crapser, and was told that if he told anybody about what he was doing, or if he wasn't a good boy, that he would be kicked out of the house.

CO: He was also physically abused by that family, was he not?

JK: Yes that's correct. Mr. Crapser was kind of a violent man. When Mr. Crapser was indicted with several counts of physical and sexual abuse for his adoptive and foster children, his adoptive mother kicked all the children out of the home who weren’t their biological children.

CO: So he became homeless. What happened to Adam after that?

JK: Adam didn't know where to live so he was sleeping on the street, trying to keep himself warm by sleeping under bushes. And eventually he did get his high school diploma and try to live his life as a normal person.

CO: But he did develop a criminal record, is that right?

JK: Yes. The first record of him going back to his adoptive family's house to his own bedroom to retrieve his own belongings, has white flagged him to become a felon. And so he served 25 months in prison, and in the U.S. once you become a felon, it's very easy to get second third and subsequent charges.

CO: And then how did he come to the attention of the authorities, the immigration and customs enforcement?

JK: So it was when he was trying to get his green card renewed, it was flagged that Adam had a felony. So what ended up actually getting him deported was that burglary that he committed when he was a teenager.

CO: So that was the offense that had him deported.

JK: Yes, ironically. That is what caused him to be deported. And then how do they decide they're going to send him back to a country where he has not lived since he was 3 years old?

CO: That's a difficult question to answer because a lot of us fighting alongside him and supporting him through this process thought that he would be able to stay in the U.S. because he is actually technically stateless. He's not a Korean citizen either. When he was brought to the U.S. his record in Korea was wiped out.

CO: He is by far not alone among South Korean adults now who were adopted as children and come to the attention of the authorities and end up being sent back. So how can they function, how can they live in South Korea, having not been there for their whole lives?

JK: Several people who have been deported in the last 10 years, they're having a very difficult life in Korea, being deported when you're in your 40s to a country that you don't know anything about. So many of them ended up actually going to jail in Korea or still living from paycheck to paycheck. The New York Times tracked down Mr. Crapser’s biological mother in South Korea and they interviewed her and she said that she feels, wants to apologize to her son for having given him up for adoption and also she assumed that he was being treated well. She was horrified to learn all the things that had happened to him.

CO: Is he aware of that article about his mother?

JK: Yes he just read that last night. He was understandably very upset about the article. I guess from Adam's point of view he didn't want his mom to apologize. She, you know, had no choice, because she was doing it for the sake of her children. Adam understood that you know he is not at all upset or angry at his mom, and just wants her to forgive herself. He has since been in touch with her, is that right? Yes. We actually found Adam’s biological mother around December of last year.

CO: And I understand you facilitated the conversation. You translated for him from his mother. How did that go? It was emotionally very difficult time, for sure, since I understood both Adam’s words as well as his mom’s. And for me to be there and interpret at the same time what they were saying to each other, it was very difficult. They were very happy that they found each other, but they felt a lot of sadness for each other's lives, because they learned a lot about what they've gone through.

JK: Is she able to help him at all?

CO: Unfortunately she isn't. One of the reasons why she had to give up Adam was because she's disabled and she's unable to work to support herself. And so she wasn't able to provide for her children. That's why she gave the children up so that they could be with families who could give them the future that she thought that she couldn’t provide. What kind of future does Adam Crapser have now?

JK: I would like to be optimistic for him, for him to have a life and happiness that he wasn't allowed to have. I think that the U.S. has failed him multiple times and I would like him to have a fresh start in Korea. Having said that, it's not going to be an easy life.

CO: Jenny I appreciate speaking with you and I'm glad you're able to offer this friendship to Adam. It sounds like he's going to have a very hard time.

JK: Yeah I wish I was there physically with him so I can support and more, with him being in the detention center behind bulletproof glass that I wasn't even able to give them a hug and comfort him. I did let him know that I'll always be here for him when he needs me.

CO: Jenny, thank you.

JK: Thank you.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Jenny Kim is a close friend to Adam Crapser, who was deported to South Korea this week from the United States. Ms. Kim is also the vice-chair of the Korean American Coalition. We reached her in Portland, Oregon.

[Music]

Lost Baseball

JD: Baseball can be confusing. That's why we have commentators. When you don't understand what just happened, they explain. It's reassuring. But on those rare occasions when commentators don't know what's going on, it's deeply disconcerting. It is terrifying. And in those moments before they are able to explain what happened, the world turns bleak and meaningless. That's what happened on Sunday in the Tokyo Dome stadium, when Shohei Otani hit a ball so hard it disappeared. It was an exhibition game between Japan and The Netherlands. Mr. Otani, who's also a phenomenal pitcher, took two balls, and then swung at the third pitch. Here's the call.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Baseball stadium ambience, commentator reporting [Japanese], the audience roars]

JD: The horror. You heard the hit. You heard the commentators get excited. And then nothing. Then confusion. What you couldn't see was Shohei Otani running the bases, while the Dutch players… and the commentators, and the crowd looked in vain for the ball. They'd all seen it go up. But they hadn't seen it come down. As I said, when the experts don't know what just happened, nothing makes sense. And for a full minute, the experts had no idea what had just happened. And then, just before everyone succumbed completely to despair, they played slow-motion footage of the ball, tracking it all the way to its disappearance. The commentators watched closely. And if you listen closely, you'll hear the moment when sense was restored and they solved the mystery. Wait for it.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Audience, Baseball commentator [Japanese]]

JD: Oh, sweet blessed relief. What the commentators saw in that slow-motion replay was that the ball Mr. Otani hit went up and up and up… and then went right through the roof. Right through a seam in the fabric. Again, here's the exact moment in the replay when they watched the ball escape the stadium.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Audience, Baseball commentator (Japanese)]

JD: That's the sound of order being restored in the universe. And, by the way, it was ruled a ground-rule double.

Here's Ron Sexsmith with "Disappearing Act."

[Music: Disappearing Act / folk]

JD: From the album "Cobblestone Runway," Ron Sexsmith with "Disappearing Act."

Part 3: Feature interview with author Affinity Konar on her novel, Mischling

Sandra Jansen

JEFF DOUGLAS: Two weeks ago Sandra Janssen was a candidate for the Progressive Conservative leadership in Alberta and a PC MLA for riding in Calgary. Since then, she has dropped out of the PC leadership race citing claims of harassment and intimidation. And yesterday she stepped away from her party entirely and crossed the floor to the NDP. Ms. Jansen spoke to host Doug Dirks on CBC Calgary's afternoon show The Homestretch about what motivated her to switch parties.

SOUNDCLIP

SANDRA JANSEN: Well, I think the moment of realization came to me when I attended the policy conference and it was with an unbelievably uncomfortable weekend. I went there to talk about policy in a room of a thousand people and not a single person wanted to ask me about any of the policy that I brought up but everybody seemed quite intent on appreciating the dog whistle politics that was overheard there. There really was an element to that weekend that was unbelievably concerning to me. A lot of anti-abortion activists harassing me in the hallway obscenities scrawled on my posters. You know in the breakout rooms where policy was being discussed there was a policy at one point that would have outed gay kids in school and I came away from that weekend saying to myself I really felt I had no place in the party anymore.

DOUG DIRKS: So why the NDP and not the Liberals the Alberta Party or sit as an independent?

SJ: When I had the opportunity to sit down with the premier she wanted to talk about policy. We had a great conversation a long one about policy. She was excited about the things I had to say and then frankly in the hours after I stepped out of the PC leadership race I got an overwhelming number of letters calls texts emails from members of the NDP caucus offering their support before I'd even gotten one word from my own caucus. And well, that really said everything to me.

DD: Do you consider yourself a fiscal conservative?

SJ: I would consider myself to be fiscally pragmatic and I was looking for a pragmatic centrist option in this province and I believe that I found it. Because at the end of the day my first job was not to be a party politician it is to be a legislator a lawmaker in this province.

DD: Now, what are you hearing from the people of Calgary-North West who elected you to the legislature as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party?

SJ: You know I think most people will realise in a general election that more than 90 per cent in the last two elections that the people who voted for me in Calgary-North West will never hold a membership in any party. I represent all of those people whether they are not interested in party politics, whether they belong to the NDP, the PC Party, the Wildrose or the other party. And I have a responsibility to every one of them to consider good legislation first and party politics later down the road and I'll continue to do that. One of the reasons I was re-elected, but that the folks felt that I represented them well and I'll continue to do that.

JEFF DOUGLAS: That was Sandra Jansen the Calgary-North West MLA who has just crossed the floor from the Alberta Progressive Conservatives to the NDP. She was speaking to Doug Dirks, host of CBC Calgary's afternoon show The Homestretch.

Feature interview with author Affinity Konar on her novel, Mischling

Guest: Affinity Konar

JEFF DOUGLAS: From the moment they stepped off the train at Auschwitz. Stasha knew that she and her sister Pearl had entered a new world and that the world they'd lived in for the previous 12 years was gone. Stasha and Pearl were twins, so they were not sent to Auschwitz's gas chambers or to the work camp. They were immediately greeted by Dr. Josef Mengele, who took them away to his own part of the camp known as "The Zoo" and there they became the subjects of his cruel and sometimes gruesome genetic experiments. Stasha and Pearl and their fight to survive Mengele's zoo are the focus of Affinity Konar's latest novel entitled Mischling. Ms. Konar joined Carol in the As It Happens studio.

CAROL OFF: Affinity Konar welcome to As It Happens, and welcome to Toronto.

AFFINITY KONAR: Thank you, Carol, it's so lovely to be here.

CO: You spent ten years with this novel in your head?

AK: Ten years that were full of months of hesitation and complete paralysis.

CO: But what made you – what compelled you – I suppose to dedicate so much time to research the stories of Stasha and Pearl?

AK: It's strange because it happened very naturally it was something that I couldn't avoid doing. It felt like a part of my life from very early age. And during those periods where I would try to stop looking at the material. It would always find its way to me somehow and I couldn't help but be compelled by all these stories, many of which never even made their way into the novel. And that was one of the hardest aspects about writing it was just whittling down what I felt I could possibly tell.

CO: And where did you first learn of the experiments the Nazis did in Auschwitz on twins?

AK: I first read about it in a book called Children of the Flames by Lucette Lagnado at and I read that book when I was 16 and it's very interesting because I'm starting to learn as the novel has ventured out. There have been many people who find that around that same age and become similarly taken by the story. I think it speaks to them in a very unique way because it's an interruption of a person's development and an examination of how they sort of re-enter the world.

CO: The book is called Mischling and perhaps you can explain the meaning of that title?

AK: Yes, that title is a word that had scared me for years and it felt also appropriate for the book because it holds this terror in it, a sort of warning which I think is very important and it also to my ear at least has a sort of lilting innocent sound. But the word itself means "mixed blood" or "mixed breed." And it was a term used by the Nazis to classify Jews of mixed heritage.

CO: What happens to these girls – these twins – they're 12-years-old when the story begins. What happens when they arrive at Auschwitz with their Mother and their Grandfather?

AK: The girls are very immediately taken under the wing of Josef Mengele or the "Angel of Death." He recognizes them as twins as little girls who are of great value to him and their mother thinking that she is saving parts with them quite let's say willingly. That's definitely not the word. But she thinks that this is in their best interest and of the girls they don't even really have an opportunity to say goodbye to their mother and their grandfather and that was very important to me to portray. I could not imagine. Every time I revisited these stories I was just struck by the fact goodbyes were were never had and not that a goodbye would have lessened this experience in any way. But I just cannot imagine this complete terror and being parted from your parents and then thrust into a section of Auschwitz called "The Zoo." These were barracks where Mengele's experimental subjects were kept.

CO: The villain of your novel, you just said his name, Josef Mengele. He's a real person but you cannot invent a more evil villain than this man. He had a number of jobs at Auschwitz. What was his involvement with Pearl and Stasha? And Pearl and Stasha actually are works of fiction you imagined these girls. But they were like the children who were there.

AK: Yes, Mengele's role with Pearl and Stasha. He was interested with this set of twins. He was drawn to them in a very unique way because they were bonded to each other in a way that fascinated Mengele. He wanted to explore what might happen to a pair of twins after they were parted. What that separation might do to them on a psychological and physical level.

CO: It wasn't just the physical separation of them then, he began to actually administer substances to them to try and enhance or make more extreme that experience as he observed them.

AK: Yes absolutely. He performed many experiments that were tampering with eye color with hearing as perfect sort of assault on a little child's senses. And there are other experiments that are just so horrific that I did not approach them with in the book. There was a kind of limit that I observed and that was that if a survivor was not speaking about certain acts I wasn't going to refer to them in the book.

CO: And this is – despite that – the stories you do tell of what happened to Pearl and Stasha and to the other children who are in this special barracks are so horrific that it's excruciating to encounter them. However as you point out I then researched what Mengele had done with twins and triplets. And it's true to say that it was worse in how you described it. It's beyond the imagination and you were kept within the bounds of the imagination because you were imagining Perl and Stasha and not the Nazis. But what was the rationale of one could use that word for Josef Mengele. What was he attempting to do?

AK: Understanding Josef Mengele, it was something that compelled the book and it was something that I came to understand that I would never be able to fathom him. He is a bottomless person that he doesn't present any sort of profile that we can begin to comprehend. Obviously he was motivated by his own ambition. He wanted to make a name for himself within the world of science. Beyond that, I'm unable to even fathom him.

CO: And this is within the larger context of the Nazi's desire to experiment with genetics and to find the master race to find perfect people. And he believed that he could do this with children.

AK: Yes.

CO: See if he did one thing to one child and then didn't do it to the other what effect it would have with no regard for their safety or security in fact many of the children died including children. In your book.

CO: Yes, many of the children died there were very few twins that survived. You know so many of his experiments were undertaken with a kind of recklessness that sort of highlight that he had a scientific interest, but he was also motivated by his own sadism experiments done on Stasha and Perl done on them separately. And they don't know what's happening to the other one what was the intent of that? What can you explore? What do you explore about the strength of these two girls and they are remarkably strong girls? through having these two voices and you alternate between Pearl and Stasha as voices what could you reveal about them?

AK: I think writing these alternating voices was the only way that I could approach this book and it was actually the way that I first envisioned it. And they have these varied strengths and their sufferings are also very different. Their coping mechanisms are have been forged out of sort of different journeys within the camp Stasha from the very first she comes in with a sort of imagination, a will to transform what she's experiencing in order to survive it. And that was always very interesting to me because I never wanted it to appear as if her perspective was one interested in magic. It is not magical realism. It is something that is compelled by a will to survive. It is meant to underline the horror. She approaches life there with a sort of mask, she imposes a mask on things and then pulls the mask away. You're supposed to - my hope for the reader - was that the horror would be underlined. Pearl's perspective is to sort of bear a very clear witness. Her strength is so different and it's sort of the aspirational strength for me. I think that it's what we want to do. We want to remember and we want to remember in a way that pays tribute to survivors and those that have been lost.

CO: Were one of the voices easier for you to write than the other?

AK: Stasha's voice comes far more naturally to me. She's emotive and raw, she reacts. Her voice is a sort of howl of grief.

AK: And you know she has moments where there are very sort of delicate reflections. Her voice was the one that came to me first and Pearl's voice, I always worried that it would become a far more paler version of Stasha's. That was my concern because her voice is less embellished and she is an observer. She sits back and she tells you what she sees. So her voice is very difficult for me to arrive at sometimes because it had this need to bear witness to events with the kind of precision and the weight of that was very real to me.

CO: But they are two sides of the same coin. In many respects, I mean they are different - the have different faces - and I think you do achieve some very difficult which is they do have different voices. As you move from one chapter to the next and think, "oh this is Stasha now," and you realize you can hear the difference in voices. It must have been very difficult because they are really two peas in a pod.

AK: You know they were very satisfying to write. I have to say, but there was some difficulty. I would have to spend a whole week just writing Stasha's voice and then go back and re-visit Perl's chapters all at once. There is a kind of continuity that was difficult to strike. And I wanted their tones to be separate. I wanted the moods to be separate but yet you know I wanted them to meet to on these kinds of covenants these things that were important to them family and memory and this bond that they have for each other this absolute love and admiration they have so much character that they couldn't you couldn't survive what they go through if it wasn't for their character and what their mother and their grandfather and their father imparted to them.

CO: These are these are extraordinary girls.

AK: I think of them as little heroines. And it was very meaningful to me when I actually changed the gender of these twins because they originally started out as boys and the whole book strangely just broke open for me when they became girls. It was interesting when I first started the book. It was partially inspired by the testimony of this one boy. His name was Peter. He was 11 years old and he gives this testimony saying that he had this little pocket knife all of the children within the zoo had these little pocket knives and they're very dull. And the Nazis had given them these pocket knives so that they could cut their bread. And Peter said I kept looking at this little pocket knife and sharpening it on anything that I could find because when the time came I swear I would take at least one Nazi with me. And there was this very rebellious spirit coupled with his innocence that partially inspired me to write about the twins. And I very naturally leaned into making them boys. But when I handed that pocket knife just Batia to a girl the whole book changed and it took off in a way that I didn't think I could ever. It was like I started riding a horse suddenly after trotting along by myself for years.

CO: You're listening to As It Happens and I'm speaking with Affinity Konar about her novel Mischling. It's about children who underwent genetic testing at Auschwitz near the end of World War II. Affinity that you use as you just mentioned the children plot taking out Nazis and plot killing Josef Mengele. That's just something that helps keep them going. What did become of Josef Mengele?

AK: Well, Josef Mengele lived out his days very peaceably in Brazil, and not only did he escape apprehension, but he spent his time writing his memoirs and swimming in the sea. I remember reading about that, about how his life ended, without any sort of violence, without any kind of confrontation, any judgment, and that was completely maddening to me. I just kept envisioning this white sandy beach where this man was allowed to leave the world, after inflicting so much pain upon, not just children, so many people.

CO: Did anyone ever get to him to find out what he was doing? What he did? Did he have any remorse? Was there any record of any conversation of Mengele coming to terms with what he did? He had a son. I mean you know that he remarried as well. Do his family members know if he ever had a moment when he thought, maybe I shouldn't have tortured those children to death?

AK: No. As far as I'm aware of, he felt as if he was being persecuted that he wasn't being permitted to live the life that he should have. He felt that he should be able to live in Germany to be reunited with his family. He saw being forced into hiding as a sort of unfair punishment. Absolutely no remorse.

CO: And in describing him and writing him, I mean he is a monster. There's no question. But you make him human or give him human characteristics, which is the most chilling part of it, I suppose. Because you described his dress, his manner, what he smelled like, because the children encounter him, the candies he had that he gave to the children, the sound of his voice. He whistles tunes, he likes. He likes classical music and Viennese waltzes. I mean how difficult... why was it so important that Mengele be like an ordinary doctor in a clinic almost?

AK: Yes. The portrayal of Mengele and how to manage these sort of features of his personality which were quite charming was one of the biggest obstacles in writing the book. I did not know how I could begin to portray a man who could so easily veer into a cartoon of evil. You know he carried himself with an elegance that was remarked upon by so many people, and he conducted himself among the children with this avuncular air. I felt that it was important to show him as a man who was trying to seduce children into this... to lull them into a state of complacency for his experiments. I wanted to show that sometimes evil puts on a very benign face in order to achieve its goals and that was a very difficult task to arrive at the features of Mengele. How to sort of underline the evil at the bottom of the man while not letting it ever veer off into something exaggerated, because his acts were so extreme, and I wanted his acts to speak for him. I wanted all of these crimes that he committed, these unspeakable things, to present his character.

CO: The banality of evil.

AK: Oh absolutely. That kept ringing in my ear. I kept returning to it. And you know throughout the course of writing the book there were times that I was so desperate to understand his motivations and how he lived with himself and I kept reaching a sort of dead end. And there were times when, you know, I tried to write confrontations between him and Stasha. I there was one point in the book. There was one draft and I had spent two years trying to render this particular arc to enable the characters of Stasha and Felix to confront Mengele. And when I wrote this scene it was so hopelessly flat. There was nothing to be found there.

CO: There can be no satisfaction in having Stasha and Felix Mengele what could be had from that Felix was her friend whose twin was killed by Mengele.

AK: Yes. And I thought that that was going to be a satisfying thing. And it just sort of made me realize all over again this this. Message that I had been arriving not since I first came across the book which is that there really is no we can't have an expectation of justice in this world. We have to find another reason for being because there are people that are never going to account for what they've done.

CO: You may have left scenes out, but there's one extraordinary scene because Stasha does see herself as one of Mengele's favorites. And she loves music, and Josef Mengele arranges for a concert performed by other female prisoners. This is the other part of Auschwitz. This isn't where the children are kept. And if you could just read that passage for us, I think we could understand.

AK: "Inside, we arranged ourselves against the brick of the rear wall and watch the members of the orchestra tinker and ready themselves. Saw them empty valves and adjust their reeds. They were a group of women with close cropped hair each aged beyond age, and their premature antiquity was emphasised by the girlishness of their clothes. Uniforms of knife-pleated blue skirts, blouses brimming with scalloped collars. Their throats were sinewy, and every arm that held an instrument was elongated as if their bodies had decided to compensate in length for what they lacked in volume. While the musician's hands moved as if all were well with the world, their faces did not forget where they were, and they didn't let you forget either. Downcast of eye and drawn of lip, these performers were the grimmest figures in the room. Sadder than the Lilliputs, who were mourning the recent loss of their patriarch in their finest clothes. More melancholy than the woman of the pup, faded women in pastel dresses, their heads stooped like two heavy blooms atop tired stalks. All of them milling about the table set up for the enjoyment of the SS. Tables piled high with cheese and sardines and pastries and meats. Even the aggrieved expression of the smoked pig, his scream plugged in his mouth by a lack of red apple, was outdone by the frantic sadness of the musicians. The women had been playing since the early morning even though the transports had ceased, they had orders to play while the prisoners worked, accompanying their struggle with bright music that gave the impression of a hearty and cheerful place none of us were familiar with. It wasn't music that promised the gas or the grave. It didn't mention the forgetful bread, the numbers, or the bones. I don't know what it was supposed to promise us."

CO: That was Affinity Konar reading from her book, Mischeling. And that scene is a breaking point for Stasha, isn`t it? That concert was deeply emotional for her, but also things changed after that.

AK: Yes. This concert was something that I knew I wanted to write about. The absolute horror of these concerts that Mengele would organize for these twins. That gesture. Something meant to supposedly entertain and soothe these children. And yet, you know, you can never dismiss his motives.

CO: There are historical references throughout the book to real things that happened at Auschwitz and how things were handled, how people came off trains how enthusiastically Josef Mengele helped with the separation of the weak from the strong for those who would go into labor and those who would go to their deaths. And the children that he was always looking for, the twins. You describe the historical moments in January 1945 when Mengele flees Auschwitz because it's over, the Red Army is arriving. Auschwitz closes. One of the workers says, "the work is done here." The guard says two to one of the girls. And so in real life, what happened to all the children? Out of three thousand children, I think only a few hundred remain. What happened to the children who actually survived this?

AK: Some were taken under the care of the Red Cross. Some went to children's homes, to orphanages, some were unable to return with fellow prisoners to their homes which didn't even exist anymore. So they were very much scattered sort of cast out, without many avenues to re-enter the world.

CO: And often without their twins, without the sibling that had meant so much to them.

AK: Oh, yes. Very frequently.

CO: On the cover of the novel, there's two poppies that Stasha and Pearl remember their mother and her painting, she painted poppies. And poppies make another appearance at the end of the novel we won't reveal. Why poppies? What was the significance of using poppies for these girls?

AK: That was an image that came to me early on and I've always sort of been struck by their beauty and it's a beauty that's very ephemeral. They are gone in a flash. They are delicate. They're a blare of red and then they're gone they announced themselves. And then you know they disappear very quickly. And they've always seemed to me a sort of a very beautiful stand in for remembrance.

CO: The poppies are the girls, but in many ways they're all the other children.

AK: Yes poppies the poppies are very fragile living beings. They are easily cut down. They're precious. They attract attention.

CO: Yet they have very strong stems.

AK: Yes they do.

CO: Affinity Konar, thank you for being here. Thank you for speaking with us and thank you for this powerful book.

AK: Thank you so much for having me here to speak about it. It's been a real wonder that I'm here speaking to you.

CO: Thank you.

JEFF DOUGLAS: That was author Affinity Konar speaking with Carol in our Toronto studio. Ms. Connor is the author of Mischeling, the story of two girls who were subjected to genetic testing at Auschwitz during World War II. The novel is published by Penguin Random House Canada. It is now available in bookstores

[Music]

JD: That's it for As It Happens for this Friday, November 18th.

CO: The show was produced this week by Jeanne Armstrong, Imogen Birchard, Sam Colbert, Katie Geleff, Chris Harbord, Samantha Lui, John McGill…

JD: Kevin Robertson, Pedro Sanchez, Earvin Solitario and Kate Swoger. Our technician is Reynold Gonsalves. The show director is Kevin Ball. Chris Howden is our writer.

CO: John Perry is the Senior Producer. And the Executive Producer of As It Happens is Robin Smythe.

JD: We'd also like to thank some other people who helped us out this week: Alex Mason in Halifax, Susan Mckenzie in Montreal, Kristin Nelson in Ottawa, Suzanne Dufresne in Winnipeg, Michael O'Halloran in Calgary and Anne Penman in Vancouver, Erin Balser at CBC Books. Keith Hart and Wayne Henning in Radio Archives, Nelson Schwartz in New York, and Kat McMorrow, Jess Shane and Luke Williams in Toronto.

CO: As It Happens will be back again on Monday. I'm Carol Off. Good night.

JD: I'm Jeff Douglas. Have a good weekend.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Nov. 18, 2016 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode