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 2019

The AIH Transcript for March 21, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

CO: Put to rest. Two sleep-deprived MPs take time from a marathon of voting in the House of Commons to weigh in on whether Canadians will ever hear the end of the accusations about the Prime Minister and SNC-Lavalin.

JD: A coordinated act of malice. With tensions already high, a Birmingham City Councillor says Muslims there are feeling targeted after five mosques were vandalized in the same way on the same night.

CO: Sky's the limit. A young Australian journalist thought she'd found a promising place to start her career -- then the mosque shootings in New Zealand made her rethink what her broadcaster was putting on the air.

JD: What are the odds? A California racetrack says it can find no reason for so many horses to be dying -- so we ask a former trainer why the place is changing the rules for everyone in the starting gate.

CO: Putting the kids in charge. When three students approached a retired senator and ask him to run for American President, he laughed -- then he handed them his campaign and his Twitter account.

JD: And beat ya' to it. We pay tribute to Andre Williams -- the Motown musician, who some credit with laying down the first hip-hop track six decades ago. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that takes an old-school approach.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Why this journalist quit Australia's Sky News after the New Zealand mosque shootings

Vote Marathon

Guest: John McKay, Candice Bergen

JD: "Let her speak, and we will let you sleep." As we go to air, the Conservatives are saying that they would end a voting marathon in five minutes if the Liberal government agrees to allow Jody Wilson-Raybould to speak at the Justice Committee again. The Tories are forcing votes of confidence on every single line of the Liberal's new spending plan -- forcing the Liberals to stay close to their seats. Should the Liberals lose just one of those votes -- the government would fall. Early this morning, the opposition got new wind in their sales -- in the form of a candid interview that Liberal MP Jane Philpott gave to Maclean's Magazine. Ms. Philpott is the one who resigned from cabinet a few weeks ago. Here's Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre.

SOUNDCLIP

PIERRE POILIEVRE: Moments ago, a story broke in Maclean's Magazine in which the out-going Liberal Treasury Board President said and I quote, "that there is more to this story." And she further went on to say that there has been an effort to shut down the story. In light of that news, I know there will be government members who would to shed light on this. I ask they rise now and say so, so that we can agree to end the marathon voting and end the cover-up at the same time -- and let Canadians know the truth.

JD: Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre (speaking) today in the House of Commons. John McKay is a Liberal MP who also read that interview with Ms. Philpott. He's been in the House for the vote marathon as well, of course. We reached John McKay in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. McKay how much sleep have you been getting lately?

JOHN MCKAY: Precious little -- I think I've had maybe a half an hour in the last 24 hours. So if I sound a little punchy I apologize in advance.

CO: Is there a lot of doughnuts going down?

JM: For some, yes. I like to think that I'm a little bit more disciplined than that -- so Tim Hortons hasn't made any money out of me for the last 24 hours.

CO: You know what the Conservatives are saying -- and they're getting a lot of fuel from Liberals who are saying that there is something that the Liberals are hiding: they're not letting Jody Wilson-Raybould speak. Why not let her do that? What is wrong with having Jody Wilson-Raybould come back to the House Justice Committee, and say whatever it is she thinks she has to say?

JM: She has been before the Justice Committee. There has been quite an amount of testimony. Some of the witnesses were called back twice. And it was a conclusion of the members on the Justice Committee that they had heard everything that they were going to hear within the boundaries of the solicitor-client privileged but also within the boundaries of cabinet confidentiality.

CO: I think what people are saying is that, okay get this over with, let the woman speak and see what's there -- and then let's all decide whether that is something that the Liberals need to wear.

JM: Well there's essentially no good reason why she couldn't go onto any form including your show to talk about what she feels she needs to talk about. But the Justice Committee has concluded that that's not the form that they wish to hear from. She doesn't feel -- nor does for that matter Jane Philpott feel confidentiality is binding them. So you know when Jane says that there's more to come, well there's essentially nothing to stop her from going forward and saying what she wishes to say.

CO: You know it's one thing if it was just the Conservatives -- it was the opposition --hammering away at you and saying, let her speak or let the story out -- and saying that there's more to it. It's your own party. It's coming from inside from key people who are very well respected. How do you deal with that?

JM: Well it's difficult to deal with to say the least. And of course there's divisions of opinion in any caucus. You know my own view is that if either one wishes to speak, there's nothing preventing them from doing so other than their own conscience and their own interpretation of what constitutes confidentiality at cabinet.

CO: How frustrating is this for you?

JM: It's pretty frustrating. And it's politically significant. Probably wish -- well we all wish -- to bring this to a conclusion sooner rather than later. So yeah it is frustrating.

CO: So this doesn't make sense at some level because if all could come to an end, if these women got to speak and say what the story is -- it would have come to an end then -- why not make that happen for yourselves? If that is the way to end it, why not use it?

JM: None of us have any idea what has transpired that has brought us to this state. If there is more to be said -- and as I say, they have forms in which they can say that -- but the Justice Committee is not going to be one of them.

CO: You just said that no one knows what has transpired that got us into this state. You mean so you have no idea -- Liberals like yourself have no idea what went on in the background that got you to this place?

JM: The only material that I know about is what's been in the public realm.

CO: I mean wouldn't you like to know -- get some answers to these questions yourself?

JM: At one level, yes. At an another level, I would like everyone to be respecting the oath that they take when they go into cabinet. And you know these oaths don't exist for a frivolous reasons -- they exist because cabinet is a bit of a rough place at times and the conflicts and the issues are at times irreconcilable and people have deeply held different views on what should be the decision. But the oath implies and expects that once the decision is made, everybody stays with the same position regardless of their own personal views.

CO: So how do you feel about what Jody Wilson-Raybould has said and done?

JM: Well there are elements that I actually admire. I think that based on the public record she took a stand with respect to the activities of SNC-Lavalin. You know people interpret undue pressure differently.

CO: Are you angry with her?

JM: Well there are consequences for people like me. You know there's not much doubt that there has been some political damage. And so for people who are going to be seeking re-election -- particularly people in ridings that are more marginal than say mine -- this may cost them quite dearly.

CO: Do you think that Jody Wilson-Raybould cares about those consequences for people like you?

JM: Well that's a good question. I haven't heard that directly from her. I did read the Maclean's article from Ms. Philpott, and she did express the concern that her statements were having on the political realities of her colleagues.

CO: But what they both said is something to the effect that the principle that they are upholding is more important than just winning an election -- that that's too important to them. So what do you say Jane Philpott -- if you could speak to her and tell her what you thought after this morning's article -- what would you say?

JM: I would have asked her how we've got to the point where you feel that you can take your oath of confidentiality and say to a member of the press that there is effectively more to come. It seems to me that essentially you've decided that your oath of confidentiality is no longer binding on you -- in which case why not say what you've got to say?

CO: When you read that article in Maclean's how did you feel?

JM: A little upset. We've had some conversations, and I had expected that those conversations would remain in confidence.

CO: I am not I understand. You've had these conversations with her?

JM: [Agrees]

CO: Can you tell us about them?

JM: No.

CO: But were they about the consequences that you see for people like you?

JM: Well you know I think the consequences are now recognized and they are real.

CO: How do you feel Mr. Trudeau has handled all of this?

JM: I don't know. Again that's the kind of question you should direct to the Prime Minister. I think he found himself in an extraordinarily difficult situation. The only information that is in the public realm is what Mr. Butts said. I think they were -- if you will -- caught by surprise.

CO: Do you think that Mr. Trudeau -- why can't he get a grip on this? Why can't he get in control of the Liberal Party right now?

JM: Well I'm not quite convinced that he's not in control of the Liberal caucus. My experience with the Liberal caucus in the last 24 hours-48 hours is that they're a fairly together group, pretty unanimous in terms of seeing this marathon voting session through. And I don't think there's actually a lot of daylight among caucus members.

CO: Mr. McKay I know you're tired and I appreciate your candor despite the lack of sleep. So thank you.

JM: Okay. Well all the best.

CO: John McKay is a Liberal MP. We reached him in Ottawa. And while the Liberals set up cots outside the House to get some sleep between shifts of voting through this marathon -- the Conservatives have scoffed at sleep. We reached Conservative MP Candice Bergen in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Bergen how long are you prepared to stick it out in the House?

CANDICE BERGEN: Well we've got -- I believe -- about 80 more votes left to do. And we're prepared to just continue voting until all of the votes are completed.

CO: What are you trying to accomplish?

CB: Well we've been standing up actually a number of times throughout the last 24 hours asking the government -- letting them know that we could end these votes right away, that the choice is theirs. And what we are trying to accomplish is that the Prime Minister and the government would give a full waiver for both Jody Wilson-Raybould and, as we've heard just recently, Jane Philpott also -- so that both of them could tell their story. I think Ms. Wilson-Raybould's story especially -- there are gaps that she's not been allowed to speak to, and we've been asking for full transparency.

CO: What do you think it is? What is it do you think that you could find out?

CB: There was a number of questions that my colleague, Lisa Raitt, asked Ms. Wilson-Raybould that she said she was not able to answer. And then when Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick testified -- Mr. Wernick came back for a second time and they spoke about when she was moved from Attorney General and according to their testimony she was offered a different position which she said she didn't want and then they moved her to Veterans Affairs. We have not heard her side of that. We have not heard what her experience was with that. But there were a number of things that she was very clear about, that she was not able to speak about unless a waiver was given, and that she would like to speak about.

CO: We just spoke with John McKay -- a Liberal MP. And we've heard this from others within the Liberal government is that there's no stopping her from doing this. There are other places that Jody Wilson-Raybould could say what she has to say. There are certainly places that Jane Philpott can say what she's got to say. When you say your hashtag is #letherspeak -- why can't they speak?

CB: Well Ms. Wilson-Raybould has hired a very competent legal advice. And I believe that she's principled, she's also has strict attention to detail, and she believes that she needs a waiver. And I guess I would reverse that. And if that would indeed be true, then why wouldn't the Prime Minister just say, Sure we'll waive whatever privilege she feels is hampering her -- we would waive that. And keep in mind the circumstances around this. Not only has the Prime Minister been denying this change in his story -- saying she experienced it differently. There have been five resignations around this scandal.

CO: So I'm presuming when you say five you're including the MP from Whitby...

CB: I am.

CO: And she hasn't said why she's leaving, but you're presuming it's SNC-Lavalin. Do you have evidence of that?

CB: We've seen some of her tweets after Jody Wilson-Raybould -- this all came to light. If I was a betting person I would think it's pretty likely that these incidents are related to her resignation.

CO: We saw Stephen Harper's government for 11 years. He kept very tight control of his caucus. Question gets raised how would Stephen Harper have handled this? Would he have even allowed Jody Wilson-Raybould to have those four hours to speak? Would she have been back in caucus for a couple of hours? Would those two women still be in the Conservative caucus? How do you think that Stephen Harper would have dealt with dissent within his ranks at this level?

CB: I've served in the Conservative government for 10 years as both a backbencher and in cabinet -- and I can tell you that there was freedom respect and there was never pressure put on our Attorney General by the prime minister to interfere in a criminal prosecution. And that is what we're dealing with right now. And we've just learned recently you know the whole reason -- the foundation he tried to build was that he was told jobs would leave, and we've been hearing this week from the CEO of SNC-Lavalin that they are not leaving Montreal, they never threatened to leave Montreal, it never was about jobs. And when the CEO was asked well why would someone have said that? He said I guess people make things up.

CO: But he did say in that interview that 9000 jobs would leave SNC-Lavalin because it wouldn't be functioning. But that those people would get work elsewhere.

CB: Well I think though the snakeoil he was trying to sell was that SNC-Lavalin had told him and his good old boys that a whole bunch of jobs would be gone. Not only was there no evidence of that, it was an outright lie.

CO: Okay. But if you know it's a cover up, if you know all of these things already, then what more do you need to learn from anybody testifying?

CB: Do you believe we have all the answers? I can tell you Canadians don't believe we have all the answers. Jane Philpott says Canadians don't have all the answers, don't have all the information that they need. Jody Wilson-Raybould says we don't have all the information we need. It's pretty clear that there are a lot more questions that need to be answered.

CO: Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said that look you guys I understand what you're trying to do, but this is a huge waste of public funds and resources to be holding things up like this. Do you think that Canadians are respecting what the Conservatives are doing right now?

CB: You know we've been standing up probably once every 15-20 minutes giving the government an opportunity; we say, we can wrap these votes up in five minutes and (if they) just would give the waiver. And this is a decision of the government and the Liberals. And frankly it's the prime minister -- that's who's making this decision.

CO: The hashtag #bagelgate is trending -- and it's of course in reference to a very mocking trend to your colleague Scott Reid accusing Mr. Trudeau of smuggling a bagel into the House which turned out to be a chocolate bar. Any concerns that this at some point turns into a bit of a comic farce?

CB: No. It's very serious. This is incredibly serious. And even this morning, people woke up seeing the interview that Jane Philpott gave to Maclean's. Jane Philpott a well-respected doctor, known as one of their strongest and most respected ministers who quit, who doesn't have confidence in the prime minister. And when she tells Paul Wells of Maclean's that she says there is more information and that she believes inappropriate sustained what she calls bullying and harassment was put on the former Attorney General to interfere in a criminal prosecution -- this is incredibly serious.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Bergen thank you.

CB: Thank you.

CO: And I appreciate -- you're tired -- so I appreciate you speaking with us. [Chuckles]

CB: Thanks very much Carol.

JD: Candice Bergen is a Conservative MP. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music]

NZ Folo: Sky News

Guest: Rashna Farrukh

JD: For any aspiring young journalist, it is a big deal to score a job at a major news outlet. Rashna Farrukh was hired at Australia's Sky News as what is called a "liaison" -- it is someone who brings guests into the studio and answers phones. After a while, however, the job wore her down. And on Saturday, Ms. Farrukh handed in her resignation. The event that tipped her over the edge: the mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand. We reached Rashna Farrukh in Canberra.

CO: Rashna these attacks on the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, shocked the world. But for you, they pushed you to quit your job at Sky News. Why is that?

RASHNA FARRUKH: I worked at Sky News for three years. And I specifically worked at Sky News for what we call "after dark" here in Australia -- where you know the morning is full of journalists who are talking about the news and current affairs, but "after dark" there are commentators who come on-air and basically just talk about their opinions. And over the past three years where I worked at, I could just see that there was more and more hatred, more and more division, more and more misinformation. And I don't mean just about you know Islamophobia, but about you know even climate change. There was stuff about LGBTQI people. And I could just see that it was getting worse and worse. I had been talking about quitting for a long time because I didn't feel like it was the place for me. I didn't feel comfortable there. I didn't feel welcome there sometimes.

CO: What is it about the attack on Friday that finally was the last straw for you? How was that been covered by your news network?

RF: Yeah so on the news network they aired part of the footage -- the live footage -- which I found really disturbing. They didn't air the inside of the mosque. But you know I think that the outside of the mosque, when he's driving to the mosque -- if anyone has seen it -- is just as disturbing because of the amount of calmness and normalness that he adopts at that time. And then you know the following days there were people who were banned from coming to Australia because they were right-wing -- people with really racist views. And what Sky News commentators did was start to talk about how they shouldn't be banned because you know we're attacking free speech. And that completely misses the point -- 50 people lost their lives. And it was because of vitriol and hatred that was spread by not only organizations like in the mainstream media but you know on social media and all of that.

CO: We also saw -- I mean it was quite startling for people in New Zealand and everywhere -- when there was an Australian senator, Fraser Anning, who made remarks about that well this is what happens when you let Muslims in -- that they bring violence with them. Was that aired on your news network?

RF: I'll be honest, I didn't keep watching the network. But the thing is that like that kind of sentiment was already present on Sky News for a long time. I'm not sure if you've heard of Pauline Hanson -- she's the leader of One Nation, it's a (political) party here. And she would come on-air all the time to talk about how you know Muslims and immigrants were ruining the country, how they were bringing Sharia law, how halal certification was funding terrorism. And that was allowed to be just spoken and not criticised. They were not critiquing her. They were just giving her a platform.

CO: And there were others. You've mentioned in your comments, Cory Bernardi, a man who called on the government to remove offend and insult from your discrimination act. Those who insist that there was a war being declared against white culture. What was it like -- for you as a Muslim, as you were covering it, as you were there working -- to hear these comments being made?

RF: I think when I first started out, I was more shocked. I think you can become really desensitized really quickly. And I think that's what's happening to a lot of people who watch these kinds of shows or watch any kind of mass media which allows for these views to be shown and not criticized or questioned. For me what was most shocking and I talk a little bit about this in the article that I wrote was, they were so nice to me just before they would step into the studio and they would start talking about people who were just like me. So I really wasn't sure what they actually believed -- whether they were saying what they believed or whether they were just doing that for you know more views and more votes.

CO: And you also had to field viewers' calls who made all kinds of remarks to you and there you were as a Muslim listening to this kind of racism.

RF: Yeah. It wasn't nice. I would have a really hard time listening to those kind of things and responding to those kinds of things. Again, it wasn't just about Muslims and immigrants. I had calls about how back when there was the plebiscite on same-sex marriage how the government was just wasting their time giving these people the right to marry. No. They deserve that right.

CO: Last Friday during these absolutely shocking events -- the massacre in those two mosques -- was there anyone in your family? Did you know people who were there?

RF: No. I just can't even imagine what it would be like to have a family member or friends who were in that place at that time. For me it seems a little bit selfish now, but as soon as I heard about what was happening my first thought was you know my dad goes every single Friday to go and do the prayers. And so the first thing I did was call him to make sure that everything was fine where he was. And he is in Sydney so it was okay. But you know he could have just easily go into western Sydney where there are a lot of mosques, and done it there. But he chose to do it in a place to give that message that you know Muslims aren't safe anywhere -- even in what's considered one of the safest places on earth.

CO: Now did you take up any of your concerns with Sky News -- when you were getting this, you said you were getting desensitized -- but did you address this with them?

RF: There's a number of factors at play I guess. I was in a very junior position, and I wanted to keep my employment just because I have bills to pay. And the other thing is that I thought I would be fired if I said something about this -- if I spoke up in any way. So, no, I unfortunately didn't say anything.

CO: The spokesperson from Sky News said that they respect your decision to leave -- but this is a quote, "As a news and national affairs broadcaster, Sky News is committed to debate and discussion which is vital to a healthy democracy." What do you say to that?

RF: I mean I believe in healthy debate, but when it comes to things like immigration I can understand that people have two different sides they take a pro-immigration stand and anti-immigration stand. When you put someone like Cory Bernardi or Pauline Hanson they say that immigration increases crime. That's not a stance. It's actually just misinformation. It's not true. And they shouldn't be allowed to say stuff like that without being questioned. That's not debate. And that's not what democracy is.

CO: And is Sky News typical or atypical of what the media or how the media covers events and covers immigration in Australia?

RF: So it depends. Most of the media that's owned by Rupert Murdoch, I would say they're all kind of the same. There was this study done in 2018 that talked about how almost 3000 articles were written by those media outlets which referred to Islam and Muslims alongside what's like violence and extremism and terrorism -- just in one year -- so in 2017. I haven't seen studies of 2018 and what's happening in 2019. But you know I can imagine that it's been growing and growing.

CO: But for you, you're out of a job now. You've quit. So what are you going to do?

RF: We'll see. I think I'm going to be freelancing for a while because I still have university -- I do full time uni. Luckily I have parents who are very supportive. And I can understand why people in my position can't actually leave this kind of workplace because it's hard to support yourself -- the cost of living is really high especially in Canberra. So yeah I'm not super worried at the moment, but hopefully when I graduate in July I'll have a job lined up like a proper job.

CO: Rashna it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

RF: Thank you so much for having me.

JD: Rashna Farrukh is now a former employee of Sky News in Canberra, Australia. That is where we reached her. And for more on why Ms. Farrukh felt that she had to quit that job at that news outlet go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: This 88-year-old ex-senator is letting 3 teenagers run his presidential campaign

UK Mosque Defaced

Guest: Majid Mahmood

JD: The mosque attacks in New Zealand have put Muslims around the world on edge. And in Birmingham, England, there is fresh cause for concern. Last night, the windows and doors of five of that city's mosques were smashed with sledgehammers. Luckily no one was inside at the time. Majid Mahmood is a city councillor in Birmingham. He attends one of the mosques that was damaged. We reached Mr. Mahmood in Birmingham.

CO: Mr. Mahmood how did you first hear about what was happening at your mosque last night?

MAJID MAHMOOD: Well this morning around about 7:00 a.m. a friend of mine -- he texted me to say that the mosque that I pray at on occasions on Friday, had been attacked. And I actually texted him back well what has actually happened? Anybody hurt? He says no. He goes it looks like they came overnight, and they've smashed all the windows and the doors.

CO: So when you saw the damage and then you began to hear about other mosques that have been attacked -- what news did you get?

MM: Well that's right. I got there about half past eight this morning. And we just went inside the mosque to have a look and then one of the guys from the other mosque further up the road -- they came down. They go, did you get hit as well? Says yeah. What's happened? He goes oh our mosque has been hit as well. And then gradually over the next 10-15 minutes, we started getting texts and WhatsApp messages from the other mosque that had been attacked.

CO: As this news came to you, as you heard about this, you saw your own mosque, you heard about the others, what was going through your mind?

MM: Just disgusted initially. Shocked as well because it's not something that you would expect -- even though it's always in the back of your mind because of what's happened in New Zealand. And more so in this country, we've got a number of right-wing politicians who have been stoking up anit-Muslim prejudice over a number of years. And your neighbour, President Trump, who is probably the most Islamophobic president of all time. It's been stoked up for a number of years. So there has been random attacks where you know females with hijabs have been attacked or you've had hate speech on Twitter. But here in England a lot of mainstream media now does stoke up anti-Muslim prejudice. And I'm actually afraid because the police have lost 2000 police officers over the last nine years. What are the resources to protect people -- not just Muslims -- but other minority groups who are under attack as well.

CO: And this is of course -- not quite a week -- since this massacre at these two mosques in Christchurch. Has that been on people's minds a lot this week?

MM: It has been. We've had a number of vigils that have taken place in the city to express solidarity with the family and friends of the victims. And that is the most horrific attack we've seen. People are scared. People are afraid. And it's not helped with people stoking anti-Muslim prejudice on the mainstream media and by right-wing politicians who should actually know that their words can lead to disastrous consequences.

CO: And of course the manifesto that the New Zealand shooter posted said that his intention was to spread this kind of hate around the world, he wanted others to pick up where he left off, to do what he was doing, to be inspired. So how concerned are you that something like this might happen in the U.K. given what you just saw at all your mosques last night?

MM: Very concerned. In Birmingham itself a few years back, a right-wing extremist murdered a gentleman, Mohammed Saleem, when he was leaving mosque to go home after evening prayers. So it's always on the mind of citizens of this city especially because we've suffered as a result of right-wing extremism. And just three years ago I think it was where we had right-wing extremists who had planted bombs at several mosques just outside of Birmingham. So it's always on the back of our minds that there's going to be some attack. And the manifesto that you saw by the murderer in New Zealand, that's effectively given a book to followers to carry out such atrocities across the world. So there's always a risk now.

CO: But what does that do for tomorrow -- for Friday prayers? Do you think people will be hesitant, will be afraid, even to go to their mosques?

MM: Friday prayers -- this is a conversation that I've had with police. And police keep saying (they) will increase visibility. Friday prayers is not really an issue in my mind for two reasons. The first reason being that you have lots and lots of people there. So there's always going to be people that can keep a watch when people are praying. Secondly a lot of the mosques tend to have two Friday prayers -- so one congregation can keep an eye out while the second congregation are praying. The most dangerous situation for me personally would be at this time of the day just after school where we have lots of children who go to mosque for religious studies. So they go to mosque for about two to three hours in the evening, and they are just there with three or four adults who look after 90 to 100 children. That's where the risk is. And secondly you have lots of elderly people who pray early morning before sunrise and after sunset. I think that's where the danger is more so than Friday prayers. Friday prayers -- you have the numbers, but you also have that sense of comradeship with other people being able to watch what's happening.

CO: But it shouldn't be that people who are going to pray should be having that on their minds -- watching out for each other, looking out for the children, worrying about what might happen.

MM: Unfortunately it is one of those things now, isn't it. It's because of the anti-Muslim prejudice that we've witnessed. And with these attacks it's always going to be on people's minds. I've had a number of people call me and say, oh Friday prayer is canceled. [Inaudible]...you carry on as normal. And I've lots of female Muslims call me to say, is it safe to wear the hijab? And that's quite shocking. It's quite frightening that people are worried about their dress in you know one of the most developed countries in the world -- here the police don't even carry guns.

CO: Mr. Mahmood this is very distressing news. I appreciate you telling us what's going on in Birmingham. Thank you.

MM: Thank you.

JD: Majid Mahmood is a city councilor in Birmingham, England. That is where we reached him.

[Music]

Homes

JD: Tonight we are featuring a reading from the youngest creator ever to have their work championed on Canada Reads. 18-year-old refugee, Abu Bakr al Rabeeah and his family left Iraq in the hope of a safer life. They settled in Homs, Syria -- and then of course the civil war broke out. He is the storyteller behind "Homes," which was written by his English teacher, Winnie Yeung, based on their conversations. The passage you're about to hear comes from the first chapter of "Homes" -- and begins on what seems like an ordinary April day in Syria. On that day, Abu Bakr was walking home from the mosque laughing with his friends -- when suddenly, a taxi exploded nearby.

SOUNDCLIP

ABU BAKR AL RABEEAH: Time expanded and stretched. I saw unfold everything in a disjointed way that seems too slow to be real. As I fall back I hear the low whoosh of the taxi fall of explosion shooting straight up into the clear blue sky. Blocking out the sunlight. In that moment all I can think was, where did the sun go? The car came crashing down -- twice as fast. We were thrown to the ground and showered with the gravel and sand. In action movies, the hero always has ringing ears after an explosion and all sound is muffled. That wasn't true for me. The world was muffled for only a split second, and then screams filled my ears. And father's voice burst through the mayhem. Abu Bakr! Abu Bakr! That's the sound I still hear when I think about my first car bomb.

JD: Abu Bakr al Rabeeah is the storyteller behind the memoir "Homes" -- written by his English teacher, Winnie Yeung.

[Music]

Senator Presidential Campaign

Guest: Mike Gravel

JD: Two nights ago, the dormant Twitter account of a retired senator from Alaska twitched and came back to life. A hashtag appeared: #Gravel2020. It appeared the 88-year-old anti-war pot entrepreneur was throwing his hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. Some people found the idea that Mike Gravel was running so out there, they wondered if perhaps his account had been hacked. It had not. Instead he had handed it over to three teenagers who had drafted him to run. To explain, we reached Mike Gravel in Seaside, California.

CO: Mr. Gravel, what did you think when these teenagers approached you and asked you to run for president?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well I turned around and asked them, do you know how old I am? And I said I'll be 89 in May. And they said well that doesn't make any difference. [Chuckles] That's when I started laughing. But then I realized as they sent me information of the research that they had done on me -- which was awesome -- they discovered many things that I had long forgotten. So I knew that they were serious people.

CO: So the teenagers you are referring to: David Oks -- I believe 17-years-old, Henry Williams -- who's 18, Elijah Emery -- another 18-year-old. And they met at Model United Nations in their high school in New York. But they've convinced you to agree with this, right?

MG: Well they agree with all of the issues that I'm concerned with, so that's how they persuaded me. When every issue they talked of, I was really sold on it or everything that I've been involved with, they're sold on.

CO: Like what? What are some of the issues that they sold you on?

MG: Well one was anti-war, anti-American imperialism, the decriminalization of drugs -- particularly marijuana and cannabis as was done in Canada. And I'm very much involved with that.

CO: So they put together an exploratory committee, they've started to fundraise. And well do you think you have a shot at becoming 'President Gravel' of the United States?

MG: At my age, that's ridiculous to even entertain the thought. But what they want to do -- and of course what I want to do also -- is to raise, in the course of the campaign, the attention we get to raise it on issues that they think and I think are extremely important for the American electorate to become aware of.

CO: Do they think and do you think there are no candidates -- there are a lot of those who are running for the Democratic nomination -- do you not think that those issues of yours, the things you care about, are represented by any of those people?

MG: No. Not at all. Except one with respect to American imperialism and war -- the only one who has attacked that is Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, and I'm very supportive of her, and will be contributing to her campaign. But on the issues of American imperialism -- they're all tied into that. That's the conventional American wisdom. They do talk about decriminalization of drugs. Cory Booker has introduced something, but it's not going anywhere.

CO: What do these young folks know about your own record -- why did they approach you?

MG: They did research. Of course we have a lot of YouTube clips about the debates that occurred in the 2008 cycle against Hillary and Obama and others. And so they did research and they just were enamored of the positions that I took in the course of the debates. And that's what catalyzed their interest in me. You know because I was driven out of the debates in 2008 because I was an embarrassment to the Democrats by telling the truth that the Democratic Party is as guilty as the Republican Party when it comes to war.

CO: In reference to that 2008 campaign -- we were watching the campaign ad or one of them that you put, that is quite something, it's you basically looking into the camera for several minutes and then you turn, you pick up a big rock, and throw it in the water, and you walk away. And we were commenting that if Andy Warhol were to make campaign ads they might look like that.

MG: [Chuckles] At this point in time from what I've heard, that it's the most famous campaign ad in history. But what it is is -- and it was not me, this was done by a couple of kids from Los Angeles who drove up and did this and two or three other ads. And what the ad is, it's a metaphor of life. You focus on what you're going to do, you do it, and you throw the rock in the water which is your actions to do it, it causes ripples in society, and then you march off to your demise. That's a metaphor for life. And interestingly enough when the ad came out, the young people understood it -- the older people just thought it was bizarre.

CO: What do you make of the fact that the young people are drawn to you -- in your late 80s -- these young people see something in you -- what does that say to you about their generation?

MG: It says that they're fed up and want to see fundamental change. And the normal electoral process is not going to bring about fundamental change. The structure of representative government just is not able to do that. There's only two venues for change -- the government where the problem exists and the people which do not have the power to exercise their sovereignty. And that's why I've devoted the last 25 years writing legislation to amend the Constitution and to develop a legislative procedures act. And the government will never permit this law to take place. But I've devised a way to go around the government to get it enacted into law.

CO: I presume they want you to be part of the debates -- they want to hear your voice represented.

MG: I'm not sure -- if I can control the senior moments and I think I may be able to -- so they called me on that today because MoveOn apparently is going to try to get a petition up to get me in the debates. Once I'm invited into the debates, I'll make that decision if I'm up to it. But clearly I'm up to it to write a book. I'm up to it to make this interview. And when it comes to the issue of empowering the people to make laws, I'm very articulate on that.

CO: But now these things can take on a life of their own as you know, and so what does...

MG: [Chuckles] Tell me about it. It has a life of its own and it will continue -- I asked them if it had legs. He says well we got over five million hits, and 50 people that have volunteered to be part of the inner workings of the campaign.

CO: All right we will be watching to see what happens. Maybe we'll be talking about President Gravel one day.

MG: Well hardly. But the pleasure is mine. Thank you.

JD: Michael Gravel is a retired U.S. Senator who is campaigning with the aid of three teenagers for President of the United States. We reached Mr. Gravel in Seaside, California. And if you would like to see some photographs along with that unusual campaign video Carol described and Mr. Gravel spoke about -- go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Andre Williams

JD: Was it "Rapper's Delight" by Sugarhill Gang? "Rapture" by Blondie? Real hip-hop heads might say "King Tim III" by Fatback Band. It is an endless debate trying to pinpoint that first rap record. But whenever these conversations make the rounds, one track that rarely makes that list is "Bacon Fat" by Andre Williams. It was released in 1956. And it starts out like a doo-wop dance record from the day. But then incomes, Mr. Williams with his laid back, behind the beat rhymes -- provocative rhymes that ought to place him among the rap originators. Andre "Mr. Rhythm" Williams died Sunday. He was 82 years old. And to claim that Mr. Williams was the first rapper to ever bless the mic would only be a minor footnote in his long and illustrious career. Williams got his start in doo-wop bands during the '50s, and eventually ended up in Detroit where he landed a job with Motown Records. He went on to produce and write for artists like Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, and Ray Charles. But in the '80s Mr. Williams fell on hard times, and he had to put his music on hold. He was without a home for a while. He started working as a cook at a shelter. And as he told the Bergen Record in 1996 quote, "I was in a state of depression. I felt that I had contributed a lot to the business and it hadn't been given back to me." But in the '90s, a new generation of listeners discovered Mr. Williams and gave his music a new life. He started performing again, and released his last album "Don't Ever Give Up" in 2016.

[Music]

Part 3: Drug charges meant to discredit Chechen activist: human rights activist

Race Track Deaths

Guest: Jenine Sahadi

JD: Santa Anita Park is known as one of the top horse racing tracks in California. Unfortunately, it is also becoming known for something else: dead race horses. In just the past few months, 22 horses have died as a result of injuries suffered at Santa Anita. The track is owned by the Stronach Group and their experts say that they could not find a definitive explanation for what is going wrong. But earlier this week, the Stronach Group announced a number of rule changes at the track. They include a ban on giving horses medications on race day. Jenine Sahadi was a horse trainer in California for 19 years. We reached Ms. Sahadi in Del Mar, California.

CO: Ms. Sahadi why do you think that all these horses -- 22 horses -- why do you think they have died of these injuries?

JENINE SAHADI: I think it's a pretty complex question. This winter we had a lot of rain -- probably more than we could handle -- and so I think it's a culmination of things that really did quite literally turn into the perfect storm. The guy that had maintained the track was no longer there. Dennis Moore, who is you know a lifelong sort of track expert -- he is now back. And I think it really was just the culmination of a lot of things but mainly the weather.

CO: Right. We're talking about the conditions at Santa Anita Park. So what did the wet weather do then? What kinds of conditions were there on that course?

JS: Well we just had a lot of rain. And so in California the practice -- it's a long involved process -- but it's a practice called 'sealing the track' where they try to roll it down to the point where the water won't penetrate down into the actual surface of the track. So it becomes very firm.

CO: And so then what happened when the horses are on it? For people who don't understand how this could happen. Because these were injuries the horses had that resulted -- they had to be put down afterwards, right?

JS: Right. And you know the necropsy reports are not back yet. Some of the horses may have had you know maybe a pre-existing type condition. All the circumstances could be very different.

CO: The Stronach Group that owns the track has decided that what they must do is to change policies around the medication of the horses and the drugs they take particularly on the day of races. What do you make of that decision?

JS: Well there is absolutely no correlation or evidence that directly a trip of Lasix does not have anything to do with it.

CO: Lasix is the drug that's in question here, is that right?

JS: Well Lasix is the drug that they wanted to originally ban -- full stop. That they have now agreed to take from 10 cc's of Lasix on race day to five cc's of Lasix on race day. Lasix is a diuretic used to stop horses from bleeding. And it doesn't have any pain relieving properties, and would have nothing to do with horses breaking down. I'm just curious as to how this all correlates with you know singling out one jurisdiction. California horseman are very talented. A lot of good horses come out of California. And I just don't understand why one jurisdiction is being singled out. You know it seems like a knee jerk reaction to me. And anytime you do anything in thoroughbred racing you know it's always a bit of a battle because we have no governing body. And so it's also hard to stop something cold turkey. It can affect your horse populations dramatically. And I just don't think anybody saw this coming. So it's been quite controversial here. I'm hearing that they've come to some sort of an agreement. But it's just a little bit curious that none of the other Stronach Group race tracks were or are implementing this protocol.

CO: Well is there another course that you can point to where there have been this many fatalities of horses dying in just a few months -- 22 horses -- isn't that unusual?

JS: Right. But what everybody's trying to do is to blame the horsemen, and the horsemen are not...you know everybody played a part in this. And I think management's decision to continually seal and reseal the racetrack you know maybe had something to do with it so. But you know horsemen, trainers in particular are not responsible for how management handles a racetrack. And I don't know you know why the medication review -- how that came about. Like I said certainly the Stronach Group is entitled to their opinion. Lasix has nothing to do with it. I'm convinced of that.

CO: But what is your view then of Lasix -- do you think this is a medication that shouldn't be used?

JS: I do think that there should be some -- you know we unlike a lot of other sports do not have one governing body who you know sort of sets the rules. Rules in racing are set on a state-by-state level. And I do think that it's probably time to have some medication reform but I think that medication is going to have to be phased out slowly. I also think that we need to go to medication rules that are uniform on a state by state. Everybody behaves the same. And I am completely in favour of medication reform. I have been opposed to medication for as long as I can remember, and I have spoke out about it. But this is not something that you can just do cold turkey. There is a lot of money at stake. Owners have made major investments. There's lots of jobs at stake. It's a lot more humane to phase out of medication with a horse than it is to take it away from them.

CO: I just want to ask you finally, when do you expect to see business as usual at Santa Anita Park?

JS: Well I mean I think that you know people are training on the track. There's been lots of workers. You know the track has been open. I think the track is in good shape. Dennis Moore -- the track man -- is back. And I'm hearing good things. Ultimately I guess, the proposals are being discussed. They have a target date of March 29th where they are going to reopen. But that's providing that they get approval from the California Horse Racing Board who will need to either approve or not approve all of these changes. I think the changes are probably a good thing. Overall I think they're an excellent thing. I think there was just a lack of communication and maybe you know if there had been a little bit more involvement amongst all of the players you know there might have been a way to do this where it wasn't so A) ambiguous and B) a little bit one sided.

CO: Ms. Sahadi I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JS: Thank you.

JD: Jenine Sahadi is a former horse trainer. We reached her in Del Mar, California.

[Music]

Hamburger’s 50th Anniversary

JD: It is a 50th birthday bash for one of the most storied inhabitants of the Alberta Legislature. Tonight's sold-out event includes a catered party and a tour of the legislature. The honoree however will not be able to enjoy the festivities, being encased as it is in resin. We're talking about a hamburger...one that has been kept safe at the Legislature Library after first becoming a tabled item in 1969. In December of 2016, Carol asked the librarian, Valerie Foote, what the preserved patty and buns looked like.

SOUNDCLIP

VF: It's not something that makes your mouth water, put it that way. It is encased in a resin of some sort. You can definitely tell it is a hamburger

CO: But is it moldy? Is it showing its age?

VF: It’s showing its age as we all are, but it looks like, it's actually quite difficult to describe. It looks like a typical hamburger but it's not very fancy. It's a very plain looking hamburger.

CO: Do you think that's how it looked when it was first tabled in the legislature in 1969?

VF: I believe it does. There are some who say they can see a slice of cheese within the confines of the bun but I can't say that I actually see that.

CO: Can you tell us why MLA Mr. Copithorne tabled a hamburger in 1969?

VF: They were in the middle of a long debate about the interim supply. And Mr. Copithorne who was a rancher kind of rose to his feet and said you know, when talking about supply, one thing they should supply us with right upstairs, is good nourishment at noon. So it was a comment on the nourishment that they got from the legislative cafeteria at the time.

CO: And his evidence was this hamburger?

VF: His evidence was the hamburger. He apparently pulled it out of the drawer in his desk and provided it to the pages to give to the clerk as an official tabling.

CO: But could you imagine a thousand years from now if it wasn't labeled, people finding it and trying to figure out what kind of humans we were that we preserved this thing.

VF: And why with everything else going on. Why.

JD: Valerie Foote, director of library services and records management at the Alberta Legislature, speaking to Carol back in December of 2016. Today, the legislature will commemorate the burger's 50th anniversary.

[Music]

Chechen Human Rights

Guest: Rachel Denber

JD: No one, especially not the defendant, expected he'd be acquitted. In fact, Oyud Titiev told the court he knew he would be found guilty. And no one was surprised. The Chechen human rights activist was sentenced to four years in prison earlier this week on charges of pot possession. But there is little doubt that his real crime was documenting abuses by Chechen authorities. The Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has explicitly said that Mr. Titiev's trial is meant to signal to rights activists that Chechnya is quote, "forbidden territory" to them. Rachel Denber of Human Rights Watch in Russia attended the trial. We reached Ms. Denber in Moscow.

CO: Ms. Denber you have called this process a show trial and the sentencing was the finale. Can you describe what happened?

RACHEL DENBER: So the judge in the Shali district court read the verdict. And you have to understand that in the Russian justice system, judges read the full verdict -- they read out the full verdict no matter how long it takes. And in the case of Oyud Titiev's trial, the judge read the verdict for a full nine hours. I was quite surprised at how long it took to read the verdict. And you have to remember that during the time that she reads the verdict everyone in the room has to stand including the defendant. So this is a marathon reading of the verdict and to me it seems the reason why they did that because not all drug trials involve verdicts that reads for nine hours -- but the reason why they did that -- well it's a couple reasons. First, this trial had probably a record number of witnesses -- most of them being 60 police officers who were hauled in as witnesses for the prosecution. So the judge you know basically summarized, repeated the testimony of all the witnesses. She could have summarized it much more briefly. But I think one of the reasons why she did it this way was because they were trying to make a statement like okay Mr. Titiev you want to play by the rules, we'll play by the rules, and we are going to give you a pound of procedure. It would be laughable if it weren't for the fate of a man at stake -- totally blatantly fabricated evidence.

CO: Mr. Titiev will now be sent to a prison colony. So what will his time in jail be like?

RD: So he'll be sent to what's called a penal colony settlement which is a pretty minimum security facility. You know it's open. There are no bars (on cells) -- you are not actually in a cell. You can openly walk around. And he gets to spend two days a month at home. So that's actually quite a mild sentence. Of course it's a complete scandal and an insult to justice that he spent even a minute behind bars and that he was put on trial to begin with, but the sentence fortunately is quite mild. And I think that that's because of the remarkable attention to the case.

CO: He was charged with drug possession -- with marijuana -- and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has called him a junkie. Why do you think he was charged with this crime -- why marijuana possession?

RD: I think he was charged with marijuana possession to humiliate him. You know to sort of drag down his image among Chechens -- to try to deny him of his honour. And in Chechen society your personal honour is you know the central thing in your life, right. And so one of the things that the prosecution did was it dug up some witness who claimed he actually saw Oyub Titiev smoking marijuana on a street in Grozny. It would take too long for me to explain to you all the reasons why this witness was so completely ridiculous. But I think one of the reasons why they trotted him out was because they wanted to strip him of his honour in the eyes of his countrymen.

CO: Last summer we heard Mr. Kadyrov make a speech where he said I officially declare to human rights activists, after the end of this trial, Chechnya will be forbidden territory for them like it is for terrorists and extremists. Is this the end? Does Mr. Titiev represent the last human rights worker who has been able to face down this regime?

RD: Well since his arrest, the Memorial has had to suspend their work in Chechnya to protect the security of its staff. And Memorial was the last organization that was openly working on the kinds of issues that they were working on -- you know the hardest issues, the forced disappearance issues, collective punishment, secret detention, and things like that. But you know even if we can't get into -- even if people can't get into Chechnya to do human rights work, news about abuses always gets out. There are parts of the world that are much more closed than Chechnya and yet human rights reporting goes on. People will always want to tell the truth about what happens to them.

CO: How did Mr. Titiev respond to his sentence?

RD: Well I was not in the room, but I understand that he was defiant. He pumped his fists in the air.

CO: And it's to be noted that he took over working or running Memorial -- this human rights agency -- after his colleague who was running it was assassinated in 2009.

RD: That's right. That's right. So Oyub started for Memorial in 2001. So he had been working there for quite a while. By the time the Natalya Estemirova was kidnapped and murdered -- and he felt that it was his duty, his moral obligation, to pick up on the kinds of work that she was doing from Grozny. And he inherited her mantle.

CO: What's your sense of what keeps him going? How does he have the courage to do this knowing what he was facing?

RD: Where do people find the courage? That's a great question. Probably, I think that he felt that -- like I said -- he had a moral obligation. You know having seen what happened. You know Chechnya went through two really brutal wars. And I think that he felt that he had a moral duty to correct wrongs that happened to people and to try to find justice for them.

CO: Ms. Denber I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RD: Thank you for covering this case. It's really important. I'm so grateful.

JD: Rachel Denber works for Human Rights Watch in Russia. We reached her in Moscow. And we do have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Cellphone service

JD: A small community out in British Columbia is celebrating a pretty big milestone this week. They have cell phone service. The 280 people who live in Port Clements, on Haidi Gwaii, have been lobbying for years to get a tower -- while other communities on the island have had service for more than a decade. But the tower is up now and the service is strong. CBC reporter Betsy Trumpener spoke with Port Clements resident Cindi Bird yesterday, after the service was turned on.

SOUNDCLIP

CINDI BIRD: We got cell service. It came on yesterday at quarter to nine in the morning. It was a very pleasant surprise.

BETSY TRUMPENER: How did you know it was on?

CINDI BIRD: My phone started dinging.

BETSY TRUMPENER: So you had a phone, but until now when you were at home it didn't ding at all?

CINDI BIRD: No. We had to use the Wi-Fi. And unfortunately our internet connection because we live -- we are almost one of the last houses in Canada -- we are quite a ways west and we're one of the last houses in Port Clements and the internet connection didn't reach us very well. So we haven't had internet. Our world has been very much like watching the rest of the world through a hole in the wall. So we finally have internet.

BETSY TRUMPENER: So what difference will this make to your life?

CINDI BIRD: I can finally run my business properly. We have an Airbnb, and I make artisan granola. And I go to the library -- I'm also a cooking coach. And I go to the library and I have been doing all of my promotional stuff from the library. And it's been very restrictive. So now I can make all my promotional materials and load them from home and send them out to the world and actually communicate with people who are interested in what I have to offer.

BETSY TRUMPENER: Wonderful. Is there any downside do you think to having it?

CINDI BIRD: Well I mean just in the last few minutes like my husband's cell phone rang and then you called [laughs] suddenly the world's a lot busier.

JD: That was Port Clements resident Cindi Bird in conversation with CBC reporter Betsy Trumpener, yesterday after the town of Port Clements got cell phone service.

[Music]

Reversing Time

Guest: Valerii Vinokur

JD: Cher once sang that if she could turn back time -- if she could find a way -- she'd take back all the words that hurt you, and you'd stay. Well Cher is everything. But a scientist, she is not. Because scientists have found a way. Last week in the journal, Scientific Reports, a team of researchers presented work showing that amazingly they had done it. Now unfortunately for all of us, Cher included, it didn't involve un-saying words. But it did involve a quantum level simulation with the help of IBM's quantum computer. And it was just for a fraction of a second. And yet, according to the lead author, the implications could be huge. Valerii Vinokur is a distinguished fellow and senior scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. And that is where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Vinokur did you set out to reverse time?

VALERII VINOKUR: I think you can call it like that. Yes. To simplify the explanation we made the physical system to evolve backwards in time.

CO: And so you were successful.

VV: I believe we were terribly successful.

CO: And what kind of a breakthrough is that?

VV: Well the point is that the question of why the world around us the time goes in one direction is one of the most -- if not the most -- fundamental questions of science.

CO: Before you go on -- and you'll have to speak in the most simple terms for me. I mean my listeners are very intelligent, they probably will get this. But just for me, why does time go only in one direction?

VV: Well the time sadly enough because we're only getting older but never younger goes in the one direction as a consequence of quantum mechanical laws. The nature itself without our help cannot execute an experiment which can assemble back the shattered cup -- the shattered teacup -- or collect back the waves which were broken like against the rock. The nature needs some super nature to do it. So we can make this experiment artificially. But it can never happen in nature. It's so improbable that it cannot happen during the universalize lifetime.

CO: How did you demonstrate? If you can't put the teacup back together -- you can't make the waves not reverse their motion to this shore -- how did you demonstrate...

VV: Well we took the simplest quantum system which we can reasonably control from the very beginning to the end. And this system appeared only recently it's called 'quantum computer' -- and IBM has this quantum computer in a public domain. So almost everybody can just -- with proper qualifications -- look in and execute the experiment there. And the logical units if I can use this science term is the thing which is called cubits and which is actually an artificial atom. And the advantage of this is that we can completely control the state of this artificial atom. And so what we did in simple words: we wrote an algorithm which allowed our artificial atoms to evolve in time in a controlled way. Then we applied another algorithm which at some point actually did exactly like sending this shattered piece of purslane back to assemble into the cup. And then we launched our evolution -- controlled evolution --procedure once again, and then we found our artificial atoms -- these quantum cubits on IBM computer to returned back to its original state. Small fraction of a second but still it was like reverse back.

CO: But have you proved that one can go back in time or it's possible to reverse time?

VV: Well in more accurate terms -- not to be let's say crucified by our expert colleagues -- we have to say that okay not that exactly we reverse time, but we made our quantum systems to evolve in a backward direction.

CO: Where does this lead you? I mean you must have people approaching you to see if you can come up with that time machine and travel back.

VV: Well as a joke I usually say that give me a proper funding and maybe we will be able to do it. But as a more practical thing we hope that our next stage will be as follows. There is no reliable way to check or to test how well your quantum computer works -- when you will be doing some practical calculations. And if we would like to check it really like how trustful our quantum computer is it'll take -- well let's say -- it would have taken impractically long time. But with our procedure -- as we call it in quotation marks "reverse time back" we can immediately verify whether our quantum computer was working correctly. And they believe that this is of huge practical benefits.

CO: If you can go back in time within a computer, within the computer system, can you correct mistakes, glitches, that were there that we're dealing with now because they chose to get into the system then. Could you actually maybe go back and fix things for the future?

VV: Yes. We can hope that we can compose a code which will be like self-correcting and which will be getting rid of the glitches on the way. We can use our principles to make what is called quantum refrigerator to solve another practical problem. The main practical problem in computer computations is that they get warm when they work. If you just put your hand on your laptop you can immediately just cover it especially when you use for example Skype or watch a movie. And it is sort of affordable when you have your home locked up but it's not affordable when you have like industrial computer or quantum computer. And the main problem in solving this problem is that we cannot invent an efficient way of removing the heat. But what we can come up with is that basically we can cool down the necessary elements of our computer without actually removing the heat through some pipes.

CO: Mr. Vinokur congratulations are in order. I'm not entirely sure what you have accomplished [laughter] but it sounds very exciting and I'm happy for you. And I appreciate you being so patient and explaining it to us. Thank you.

VV: Well thank you very much. Thank you for your interest.

JD: Valerii Vinokur is a distinguished fellow and senior scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. And that is where we reached him.

March 21, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode