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 November 12, 2019

Hosts: Helen Mann and Karen Gordon

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello. I'm Helen Mann, sitting in for Carol off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening. I'm Karen Gordon. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

KG: Tonight...

HM: Incendiary remarks. Australia's deputy prime minister says only "raving innercity lunatics" would connect this year's bushfires to climate change -- but our guest thinks that's an ignorant response to a volatile situation.

KG: Leading the charge to charge. Gambia sues Myanmar at the International Court of Justice -- accusing it of genocide against Rohingya Muslims. We'll speak to the Canadian lawyer on the case.

HM: The comeback kids. The Netherlands has been told to repatriate 56 children of Dutch women who joined ISIS in Syria -- but the government doesn't welcome that decision and may not welcome them home.

KG: Roger, quite possibly over and out. The long-time political operative Roger Stone is on trial for obstruction of justice and witness tampering -- and this time, the dirty trickster may not make a clean getaway.

HM: Poshed to the limit. A London department store's Christmas Wonderland is only open to the extremely wealthy, which means the star attraction is less Santa Claus and more Saint Niche.

KG: And it's not out of the woods yet. For 30 years, a weird critter with fangs and hooves called the silver-backed chevrotain has been missing -- and then one just wandered past a camera in a Vietnamese forest. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that knows sometimes the trail goes cold and then suddenly things get hot and hoofy.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Dutch government ordered to repatriate children of ISIS militants

New South Wales fires

Guest: Carol Sparks

KG: Australians are used to coping with bushfires. But this year, they're coping skills are already being pushed to the limit weeks ahead of the traditional start to the fire season. Fires are raging across a vast area of Australia's east coast, including part of the suburbs of Sydney. Three people died this past weekend. Hundreds of schools have been closed this week. And today, the fire chief in New South Wales warned it could be months before things get under control. Meanwhile, a political storm is brewing over the connection between the fires and climate change. On Australian radio Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack was asked about that yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL MCCORMACK: We've had fires in Australia since -- well, from...since time began. And what people need now is a little bit of sympathy, understanding, and real assistance. They need help. They need shelter.

INTERVIEWER: But why is it wrong to ask those questions?

MICHAEL MCCORMACK: Well they don't need the ravings of some pure enlightened and woke capital city greenies at this time, when they're trying to save their homes. When in fact they're going out in many cases and saving other people's homes and leaving their own homes at risk. So I mean it is disgraceful. It is disgusting. And I'll call it out every time later.

KG: In that same interview, Michael McCormack referred to people concerned about climate change as "raving inner-city lunatics." Not surprisingly, that's a label that Carol Sparks flatly rejects. She's the Mayor of Glen Innes -- a small town in New South Wales. And she was a long-time volunteer firefighter in the region. We reached Carol Sparks in Glen Innes.

HM: Mayor Sparks, what do you think when you hear the deputy prime minister talking about "raving inner-city lunatics" "capital greenies" that sort of thing?

CAROL SPARKS: Well I think that they're out here in the bush, which is eight hours away, we find those comments insulting. We're going to get some T-shirts actually within "inner-city lunacy greens" on it. He's really put his foot in his mouth, I believe. And very insensitive and very disrespectful.

HM: Tell us about your community and how it has been hit by these fires.

CS: Look, we've been having burn off with the national parks and rural fire brigades over the last few months. And about six weeks ago, we had a very what I would call severe the fire come round our communities. But this fire that happened last Friday was something else. It was way beyond extreme. And it came at us with such a force, with such big winds behind it. And it just got into the trees and they went up like matchsticks. And anybody in its path was in great danger. We couldn't get helicopters down because of the wind. We couldn't get fire crews to help because the bridge blew up with the heat of it. And one brave little fire truck crossed the bridge while it was burning to be with the community and help to protect the houses. And of course, we lost two lives. So they couldn't escape.

HM: I know it's awful when you know that people have died and there's been so much damage to talk about your own situation. But it does you know bring it home to people to understand the cost for individuals. Can you tell us what happened to your own home?

CS: My home was severely damaged and the roof blew off. I lost all the verandahs, all the infrastructure, the water, the pumps, the solar panels. Everything's gone. The trees are all down. But I was lucky. There was a lot of people that just lost everything -- including my granddaughter and her partner who were injured. He was trying to protect the neighbour that was passed away in the car. And he then became overcome with fire and he is in North Shore Hospital with severe burns to his arms and legs. And my granddaughter and their baby down there in Sydney.

HM: You are not just the mayor -- you have a different perspective than a lot of, I guess, municipal politicians and regional politicians in that you've been a long-time volunteer firefighter. How stretched are the fire services right now?

CS: I would say they are very stretched. Our local people are exhausted. You can see it on their faces. We have a control centre here and the main incident controller. I went and had a debriefing yesterday. The man in charge who gave us the briefing, he looked absolutely exhausted. He's been here nearly every day. We've had people from Victoria here. They've arrived yesterday and I saw Queensland firefighters here. So everybody's rallying around. But we could do with some big water bombers.

HM: Why don't you have those?

CS: I don't know. I don't know. It's just not practical, you know? We've got helicopters that have difficulty in finding water because we have no water. It's so dry here. There are a few accessible places but not enough.

HM: In talking with your constituents in the last week, can you share if there's any particular moments that stand out for you?

CS: Seeing that people are sheltering under a tin, covered in a blanket covered in orange juice. I think that's the most outrageous thing I've ever seen. These two little kids hiding in this tin thing with an orange soaked blanket over them I think that stands out.

HM: So these children were wrapped in a blanket soaked in orange juice to protect them from the fire.

CS: Yes -- when it came through. They couldn't get out because their car had blown up, so they made a little temporary shelter, threw a blanket over them, and the only thing they had was orange juice to soak it down and they stayed in while the fire went over them and their house burned.

HM: We heard earlier the deputy prime minister using that term "capital city greenies." You know, when you think about the fire, as you say, in an area where you are which is more remote. There are also bigger towns and cities that are vulnerable. Can you give us a little bit of a sense of that -- for example, how close it might be to Sydney?

CS: Yeah. Oh, it's getting close. They're going to be impacted. And you know all those areas are bushland. And of course we're suffering this terrible drought. Now those places have had more rain than we have, of course, because in the New England we are normally green and we normally get good rain. And so this is something that's been happening over a few years where we've been drying out and the temperatures being warming gradually. Gradually everything is drying.

HM: You wrote a very powerful piece that was published in The Guardian in which you say that people in your community deserve nothing less than the honest and unvarnished truth. And you talk a lot about climate change. Can you tell me what that unvarnished truth is in your mind?

CS: For the sake of the future and the sake of our community and the rising generation who will inherit this scorched earth -- that's what I said. One can only hope there will be enough people remaining to listen, to heed the cries, of those people that are saying we need a decisive and collective action to save our ecosystems and our civilizations. We are suffering here. But the whole world has areas that are suffering and we need leadership to get us through this time. And to ignore the science of climate change is...it's just crazy. I want my great grandson to have something to look forward to.

HM: Mayor Sparks, thank you very much. I know this must be very exhausting time for you. And I wish you and your community the very best.

CS: Thank you very much. Thank you.

KG: Carol Sparks is the Mayor of Glen Innes in the Australian state of New South Wales. We reached her at her office.

[Music]

Don Cherry

KG: If you expected Don Cherry to apologize, you don't know Don Cherry. The co-host of "Coach's Corner" on "Hockey Night In Canada" was fired by Sportsnet yesterday. The decision came after a rant where he lamented the lack of Remembrance Day poppies and singled out new immigrants in Toronto and Mississauga using language like "you people." Last night, he spoke to Newstalk1010 host Barb Digiulio.

SOUNDCLIP

DON CHERRY: It's kind of strange to be unemployed, but halfway through the season. And of all days -- Remembrance Day. But what are you going to do.

BARD DIGIULIO: Don, let's talk about what went down. First of all, going back to Saturday night and the comments that you made. A lot of people are speculating, did he mean this? Did he mean that? Why don't you tell us what you meant?

DON CHERRY: Well what I meant was everybody -- everybody -- and I mean, everybody should be wearing a poppy to honor our fallen soldiers who gave their lives for our way of life. And the people that are against me that took it the way they wanted to take it -- and that's who they listen to. But you make one little comment like "you people" and you know how it picks up. And that's the way it is. Hey listen, I'm not whining or anything. I'm just saying that, you know, I could have stayed on if I wanted to and knuckle under and turned into a simp. But that's not my style. I'd rather go out with my shield.

KG: After Don Cherry was fired -- we heard from lots of you. Here are two listeners who left messages on our talkback line last night.

SOUNDCLIP

LISTENER 1: I just thought that he was being Canadian. We all know he's a bigot, but he's also a hero and an icon in so many ways who has done so many charitable things. And I don't think he meant to offend anybody. And he gets fired for telling people to wear poppies, which personally scares the daylights out of me. Good Lord, what is this country coming to?

LISTENER 2: I was clapping when I heard about Don Cherry. I stopped listening -- in fact I stopped even looking at any hockey. I couldn't stand that guy. So I was clapping when I heard this news. And I thought it should have happened ages ago. So now I will -- I might look at some hockey and hope to hear the Ron MacLean show. Bye.

KG: A couple of listeners with opposing views on whether Sportsnet should have fired Coach's Corner host Don Cherry. Care to voice your opinion? Call us. Our talkback line is 416-205-5687.

[Music]

Dutch repatriation: ISIS

Guest: Andre Seebregts

KG: Authorities in the Netherlands do not want Dutch nationals who left the country to join ISIS to come home. But now a court has ordered them to repatriate the daughters and sons of women who joined the terrorist group in Syria. 56 children who are mostly six years old or younger. The children are currently living in horrific conditions in camps in northern Syria. Lawyers for the families had asked for their mothers to be returned home as well. But the court stopped short of ordering their repatriation. Andre Seebregts is one of the lawyers. We reached him in Rotterdam.

HM: Mr. Seebregts the court called the conditions these children are living in "a serious and acute emergency situation." What is life like for these children right now?

ANDRE SEEBREGTS: Yeah. Hundreds of children have died in the last year and a half in these camps. A lot of children have died because of the cold, the lack of medicine. And one of the major problems right now is there's a lot of violence. There are many women there who are very pro-ISIS still. And they have killed other women who are trying to get back to the west. They have burned other people's tents. There are a lot of threats. And especially the women who were trying to get back to their home countries are very scared.

HM: The court, though, did not require the Netherlands to accept those women -- those mothers back, rather the children themselves. Do you expect that the mothers will return as well?

AS: I do. I do. What the court said is that the children have the right to come back to the Netherlands, to be picked up -- but that the mothers do not have that right. But the court also said that to bring back the children if it is necessary to also bring back the mothers then the mothers also have to be brought back. Now, what you need to know is that these women and children are in Kurdish camps. And that the Kurds have said time and time again that they are only willing to give back the children if the mothers are also taken. The Kurds don't want these women to be left behind because if not they'll never be able to get rid of these women.

HM: So if the women themselves also returned to the Netherlands, what will happen to them?

AS: They will be arrested immediately. They will be placed in a terrorism department in one of the prisons. They will be criminally prosecuted. Most probably they'll get a sentence of about two years if there is not that much evidence that they use violence themselves. And after they're set free, they'll have an ankle bracelet for about three years. They won't be allowed to contact quite a few people for three years. There are places where they won't be allowed to go -- like airports. So they'll be very strictly monitored after they've been set free.

HM: And the assumption is that these are women who willingly went to join ISIS. So what are the charges that they would be facing?

AS: It's usually being part of a terrorist organization and preparation of a terrorist crime.

HM: We know just looking at the situation and how much chaos there has been in the region in question that it may be difficult to track evidence in these kind of cases. What if evidence can't be found to prosecute the women?

AS: What happens in the Netherlands is you can be found guilty for the crime of being part of a terrorist organization with very little evidence. If you're there, you almost always have to play a part in ISIS. So the way it works in the Netherlands right now with very little evidence you can be found guilty of that crime being part of ISIS.

HM: So if both the women and the children come back, and the women end up in custody, what happens to the children?

AS: Dutch Child Services has a plan for every single child who's in Syria right now. If child services is comfortable with their families, then the children will be placed with the families. If child services is not completely comfortable with the families, for example, for ideological reasons, then they will be placed in foster families.

HM: The courts set a pretty tight deadline here. Two weeks for bringing these children back to the Netherlands. Do you think they'll meet that deadline?

AS: The way it works with this type of case is the government has to execute the decision immediately. Even if they appeal, they have appealed, but they still have to execute immediately. Under normal circumstances, if this were a normal case, I'm sure they would do it immediately. But the Dutch government is dead set against bringing back these children and these women. So we're not quite sure whether they're going to drag their feet or not.

HM: And what is the government's argument?

AS: They say that these children and these women are too dangerous to bring back to the Netherlands so that they're dangerous for national security.

HM: We have seen attacks in Europe by ISIS fighters who returned from Syria. Do they perhaps have reason to be concerned?

AS: Well, you know, it will never be 100 percent safe I think to bring them back. But the argument that we have, that the lawyers have, that it's probably safer to bring them back now in a controlled fashion and arrest them and prosecute them and monitor them very strictly. Because if they don't do that, then these women will probably come back under the radar at some point.

HM: We've talked on this show a number of times about foreigners who went to Syria to join ISIS, who are now in these camps. The Kurds and the US government both want them to be repatriated to their home countries. Canada is one of the governments that's been reluctant to do this. Do you think the Netherlands would have gone through this, would have agreed ultimately if you had not pursued this in court?

AS: Absolutely not. No way. They fought us hand and tooth at every step of the way, and they are still fighting us.

HM: What are you hearing from the families of these women and children in the Netherlands now? What are they telling you?

AS: They're very happy with its decision, but they're also worried about whether the Dutch parliament will act in good faith and bring them back as the court has ordered. There's been a lot of stress with the families, as you can imagine. It's 56 children that we're working for. 70 percent of them are six years or younger. There are none that are older than 12. The youngest one is two weeks old.

HM: You mentioned the government is opposed to bringing them back, of course. But what's public sentiment?

AS: Public sentiment is mostly against bringing them back. I get quite a bit of hate mail -- some threats, what have you. You have quite against mostly.

HM: Can you understand why people might be both frightened and angry that people left the Netherlands to go there and join ISIS?

AS: Oh, yes certainly. I understand that quite well. But what I'm working for is these really young Dutch children who have done nothing wrong. And if that means that the mothers also have to be brought back, so be it. But my priority is these children.

HM: Mr. Seebregts thank you very much for telling us about all of this.

AS: Okay. Goodbye.

KG: Andre Seebregts is a Dutch lawyer. He was in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. You can find more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Mouse deer sighting

Guest: Andrew Tilker

KG: Its nickname is the "Vietnamese mouse deer." Its real name is the "silver-back chevrotain." But it didn't matter how you referred to it -- it didn't come when you called. For almost 30 years, scientists have considered the silver-back chevrotain a lost species. They hadn't seen the small hooved animal in the wild since 1990. They feared it was gone forever. But now researchers with a conservation group are reporting a surprise cameo appearance on camera in Vietnam. Andrew Tilker worked on the project with Global Wildlife Conservation. We reached him in Berlin.

HM: Mr. Tilker what does this mouse deer look like?

ANDREW TILKER: I it's a really interesting animal. The silver-back chevrotain looks like a small deer that's been shrunk down to the size of a toy poodle or a really large rabbit. They have two large canines that almost look like miniature fangs. And the silver-back chevrotain actually has two distinct colours. So it's red at the front and silver-gray in the back. I mean it looks like somebody just kind of dropped it halfway into a bucket of gray paint.

HM: Wow. So it isn't really a mouse or a deer. So what makes them distinct from other species of chevrotain?

AT: Yeah, it's not a mouse. It's not a deer. It's related to deers, but it's kind of its own thing in the ungulate family. The silver-back chevrotain is different from other chevrotain species primarily because it has the two distinct colours with the silvery-gray back and some of the markings on its throat are also different than other species.

HM: And do you assume that the markings being as distinctive as they are for some sort of camouflage?

AT: We actually don't know at this point, honestly. That's unfortunately the answer for a lot of questions that people ask about the silver-back chevrotain just because so little is known about the species. It's a bit of an ecological black hole, if you will.

HM: You captured hundreds of photos of these mouse deers. How did you find them? How did you locate them?

AT: We had very little information to go on. There were only two known places where we had evidence of scientific records. So we chose a region of Vietnam to search in based on where one of those records had been located. But that still left a pretty large area to search. So what we did was we spent a lot of time talking to local people, local people who have incredible in-depth knowledge about the forest and its biodiversity. So it was by interviewing local people and then later actually going into the forest with local people that we were eventually able to get these photographs.

HM: How many cameras did you set up? How did you monitor them?

AT: So in the beginning, we actually only set three cameras. We set the three cameras after the interview surveys -- kind of as an opportunistic we have them so why not? Kind-of-thing. And we got silver-back chevrotain photos on all three cameras. Which...we were astonished. And then later we came back with 30 cameras. Basically, the cameras are unblinking eyes in the forest. They take photographs of anything warm blooded that steps in front of them. So it's an excellent way to monitor elusive mammals.

HM: Tell me what it was like the first time you saw one of the images of this creature.

AT: I almost fell out of my seat. I mean, quite literally, I just couldn't believe that this animal that my colleagues and I had thought about, had wondered about, for so many years was now...we had evidence of it. It was really a special moment for all of us.

HM: I understand you documented about 280 events or sightings. Do you know how many individual animals you saw there?

AT: We actually don't know how many animals there were. And the reason for that is simply because the chevrotain they look very similar. They don't have stripes like a tiger or spots like a leopard. So it's very difficult to count individuals. But given the fact that we recorded so many silver-back chevrotain in this area, we think that the species is probably fairly abundant in this location. But I also want to caution that just because the species may be common in this location doesn't mean it's common in other places. We really need more information before we can make any assessment about how common are rare it is and how threatened it might be.

HM: What are the threats then to the silver-back chevrotain? Why are they perhaps so rare? Or have been perceived to be so rare?

AT: In terms of the major threats to the species -- habitat loss in Vietnam has almost certainly been a factor in biodiversity declines over the previous decades. But in Southeast Asia and in Vietnam in particular, snaring -- the setting of wire snares to hunt wildlife is the biggest threat to ground dwelling mammals and ground dwelling birds.

HM: What hope does this give you that there might be other species we've considered lost to science that are still out there?

AT: Oh, it gives me a lot of hope actually. Well, there are dozens, hundreds of species that haven't been sighted by science in recent years -- but from our work on the silver-back chevrotain project, I think that it's likely that a lot of them are still out there.

HM: Well, Andrew Tilker it's nice to hear your excitement about all of this and for sharing the knowledge. Thank you very much.

AT: Great. Thank you so much.

KG: Andrew Tilker is the Asian species officer for Global Wildlife Conservation. He was in Berlin. If you'd like to see some photos of the silver-back chevrotain go to our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: Myanmar prosecution

Myanmar prosecution

Guest: Payan Akhavan

KG: Just over a year ago, Canada became the first country to call what was happening to all Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar a genocide. But now, more than three years after Myanmar's security forces began committing the atrocities that have displaced hundreds of thousands, it's Gambia that's taking the country to international court. The small African nation filed its case in The Hague yesterday. Canadian lawyer Payam Akhavan is part of the legal team behind the suit. We reached him in London, England.

HM: Professor Akhavan why is Gambia, of all places in the world the country that's leading this challenge?

PAYAN AKHAVAN: Gambia has a political leadership populated by human rights champions. And one of them, Abubacarr Tambadou, the Minister of Justice, is a former colleague of mine from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He was a prosecutor of genocide. And sometimes that's what it takes. It takes an individual in the position of power with moral courage to speak truth to power where others have failed. And it's quite remarkable that this small African nation is the only country that has risen to the occasion and that has really taught us a lesson about moral leadership.

HM: Several investigations have already concluded that Myanmar's security forces are guilty of acts of genocide against the Rohingya people. What effect would confirmation from the International Court of Justice have?

PA: The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. A state that fails to comply with the judgment of the court may be reported to the UN Security Council. And even purely from the point of view of legitimacy, it is very difficult for a country to simply ignore the consequences of such a finding by a judicial body. At the very least, the fact that the cases before the court will make it that much more difficult for Myanmar to continue its campaign of atrocities. And beyond that, the court can order compensation for the victims. So I think it's one thing for a fact-finding mission to make a finding of genocide and yet another for an international court to do so.

HM: You have personally visited the Kutupalong camp in Bangladesh, where many displaced Rohingya people are living. What struck you about the conditions there and the kind of things you heard from the people who are living there?

PA: Kutupaong before the summer of 2017 was a wildlife refuge where elephants roamed. And within the span of a few weeks, it became the largest refugee camp in the world. It houses some 700,000 people. It can best be described as an ocean of misery. The very sort of crudely built shelters. Very poor, very traumatized people. So yeah it took many days after that trip to recover from just hearing all of these stories. And what struck me more than anything is that 1948 when the genocide convention was adopted in the shadow of the Holocaust, there was this sense that we would liberate the world from this odious scourge. But never again has become ever again. And I served as a UN prosecutor during the 1990s where we said we have learned the lessons from Srebrenica -- the war in the former Yugoslavia. We have learned the lessons from Rwanda. And then we see Darfur. We see the genocide of the Yazidi. And today, the genocide against the Rohingya. So I think it's really a question of the conscience of humanity. Where are the political leaders that are willing to stand up and speak truth to power?

HM: Well, let me ask you -- you know Canada was the first country, our parliament, to declare the violence against the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar an act of genocide. Yet it didn't go any further. And people were asking the Canadian government to pursue exactly what Gambia is doing. But Ottawa has not done so. Why is your sense of why they didn't go to The Hague?

PA: Well, I think to its credit, Canada has done far more than many other countries have. The Prime Minister appointed special envoy Bob Rae who has done wonderful work -- who has been incredibly committed to seeing realistically what a country like Canada with very limited leverage in relation to Myanmar can do in terms of the International Court of Justice. I think that the fact that Gambia has brought this case is actually a good thing because it doesn't play into the narrative of Myanmar that concern over the Rohingya genocide is somehow part of a Western imperial conspiracy. But I think that now that the cases before the court, Canada can play an important role in supporting it. And I was very pleased to see that within hours of our finding the case in The Hague yesterday, Chrystia Freeland had issued a statement on behalf of the government expressing support.

HM: What does that support look like though? What can Canada do in practical terms?

PA: There are many different modalities. One could be to contribute resources to the investigative efforts. Another could be that Canada could intervene in the case as a state party to the 1948 Genocide Convention as it is entitled to do. It's important to think very carefully about what would be best in terms of assisting the ongoing case that Gambia has initiated. But I'm fairly confident that the Canadian government will actually assist this case. And the fact that the Gambia brought the case instead of Canada is not necessarily a bad thing.

HM: You have sounded in this conversation optimistic that you know that if The Hague decides, if the court decides, to indeed declare this a genocide to try those responsible, it does send a message that's very important. But in practical terms, will it change the situation on the ground for the Rohingya people?

PA: That's what we're hoping. It's very difficult to measure the impact of judicial proceedings on the grounds. I think we need to be realistic about what can be achieved. But certainly some justice, some scrutiny, some accountability is better than none at all. So I think that the cumulative effect of all of these accountability mechanisms will make it that much more costly for Myanmar to persist in committing these atrocities.

HM: Professo Akhavan thank you very much for joining us today.

PA: Thank you.

KG: Payam Akhavan is a law professor at McGill University, and a former war crimes prosecutor in The Hague. He's currently serving as legal counsel to Gambia in its suit against Myanmar for acts of genocide. We reached Professor Akhavan in London.

[Music]

Hanri Sabbagh

KG: Hanri Sabbagh loved his new home in Montreal. He was originally from Aleppo, Syria -- and left there last year to start a new life in Canada with his wife and two adult daughters. Then on November 1st, Mr. Sabbagh was killed after he was hit by a brick dislodged from a nearby building during a windstorm. Rima Bidan, Mr. Sabbagh's wife, spoke with CBC Montreal about how he had embraced his new life in Montreal.

SOUNDCLIP

RIMA BIDAN: For him, every dream would be achieved in this country. For him, the future of the girls was safe and was better than any other place since our country is at war. He believes that all their dreams will be achieved. And that's why we are so sad -- really sad, angry, painful. Whatever you can say. Because he rooted us here. Okay? And he passed away. That's so hurtful really. We didn't want him to work whatever. And he didn't want to work whatever. Not because of its shameful. No. But he wanted to take full time to study the country, to study the culture, to see what may help this country and help himself of course. That's why he decided to take French. He wanted to strengthen the sense of belonging to this country by knowing the culture. Whenever he goes to any place, [inaudible] or picking apples or things that are specific to Montreal. In school -- he comes here, he says we will go there -- it's a very nice activity. Yeah believe me, I'm not exaggerating. Everything for him was positive. For me a little bit -- I don't like the weather. It's hard. It's six-seven months cold. I used to -- a little bit -- complain for him. "Look Rima what the country! What an environment! Look, it's full of oxygen! You can wear this boots and a jacket and everything is okay." He was very positive. Funny. His friends are telling us things that prove he was enjoying every minute in this country.

KG: That was Rima Bidan speaking with CBC Montreal about her husband, Hanri Sabbagh, who died earlier this month. Today, the family headed back to Syria with Mr. Sabbagh's body.

[Music]

Roger Stone trial

Guest: Spencer Hsu

KG: Roger Stone is fast becoming a victim of his own dirty tricks. The flamboyant political adviser to President Donald Trump is on trial facing charges related to lying to Congress and witness tampering. They stem from allegations that he was the main point person between WikiLeaks and the Trump election campaign in 2016. At the time, WikiLeaks had claimed to have damaging information about then Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Today, the prosecution called one of its last key witnesses before tomorrow's closing arguments: Rick Gates. He was the deputy chairman of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. And his testimony was damaging not only to Mr. Stone but to Donald Trump too. Spencer Hsu has been covering the trial for The Washington Post. We reached him in Washington, DC.

HM: Spencer, just how are things going for Roger Stone at this trial?

SPENCER HSU: We haven't heard very much from Roger Stone. The closest we came today before the defense rested was that they played about one hour of his recorded testimony to the House Intelligence Committee from September 2016. This is the testimony that forms the basis of the charge that he lied to the committee. He made some jokes in that transcript or in that recording that the jurors didn't laugh about.

HM: So is it fair to say it doesn't look like things are going so well for Stone?

SH: I would say it's always hard to guess. But he does seem to face an uphill fight based on the testimony that we've seen over four days. Again, that's been almost three and a half days of government witnesses and about one hour of Stone's defense, which consisted of him repeating his denials to the House committee. No fresh evidence was put on by the defense.

HM: This is a man who is pretty brazenly called himself a dirty trickster. You know he wears those bowler hats. He has a Nixon tattoo. He swears like a sailor. Can you remind us of the character he is and how he fits in to the Trump universe?

SH: Roger Stone described himself as sort of an agent provocateur of the conservative-right. You know some people think he's kind of a fringe figure, kind of a clown-like figure. You know, having said that, his connections with Donald Trump go back to the latter's days in the 80s as a rising real estate developer in New York City. Stone was one of the first clients of a lobbying shop in Washington that Stone launched with Paul Manafort, the figure who would later, you know, received notoriety after chairing President Trump's campaign last year briefly and then being convicted of financial fraud in the Mueller investigation.

HM: So let's break down some of this testimony. Today, Rick Gates, the deputy chairman of Trump's 2016 campaign, was a key witness on the stand. Describe his testimony and how damaging it might prove to be.

SH: Rick Gates was Paul Manafort's deputy. Gates was charged along with Manafort. Wound up taking a plea deal and testifying against his former boss. He also testified in a second Mueller trial. So this was his third time in pursuant to his plea agreement that he was testifying as a government witness. What he did was we had the Mueller report and media reports for years have talked about Trump's interest in WikiLeaks leak of emails, Democratic emails, that have been hacked and stolen by the Russian government. But what Gates testified to was that specifically the direction from the top levels of the campaign, that Stone was their contact point. He was their liaison to WikiLeaks.

HM: So this seems to contradict what Roger Stone told a congressional committee that was questioning him. It also seems to contradict statements by President Trump. Can you explain?

SH: President Trump never directly testified to the special counsel Robert Mueller. But in his defense the White House lawyers did agree to written answers. And in one of these written answers, they were asked, did he ever discuss -- did anyone discuss WikiLeaks with him as a candidate? And he replied, not that he recalled. So what we now see is that Gates was present. He was in a car riding from Trump Tower to LaGuardia Airport in New York City when Trump took a phone call and then got off the phone call. And said to Gates that there were only more emails coming. Gates said he knew that the call was from Roger Stone. He saw Stone's number. He heard Stone's voice. And Gates testified that he believed it was referring to WikiLeaks.

HM: So what about Stone's defense? What are they doing? What are they saying to try to challenge these allegations that Stone lied to Congress and Mueller?

SH: Yeah. Stone's defense is look his boast about having inside information about WikiLeaks was just that, you know, claims that he invented or exaggerated. He has said certainly he was trying to ask people to figure out what Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, was saying or doing from the Ecuadorian embassy where he was holed up in London. But he said he never successfully connected with anyone -- that these folks were all just players trying to play each other and that he was fooled by people claiming their knowledge.

HM: One of the more colourful moments of the trial has been this testimony of Randy Credico. He's a radio host and a comedian. He was once apparently a very good friend of Roger Stone. Doesn't seem to be anymore.

SH: Yes. They are testifying against each other, although their relationship is complicated. I mean, at the time, he was best known for scoring an interview with Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in August - it was August 25th of 2016. Credico would later say and show lots of texts and emails that when Stone was bragging publicly or testified to the committee that he had a back channel or intermediary to Assange ,Stone named that intermediary as Credico. Throughout all this time there are these emails and messages where Stone and Credico are lying over who's telling the truth. Stone is telling Credico to take the Fifth Amendment to the committee -- refers to a colourful passage of Godfather 2, do a Frank Pentangeli. And in these text and emails, Stone was saying, just do a Pentangeli and say Roger Stone this Roger Stone that.

HM: So basically what he was saying is he wants him to lie to Congress is the implication?

SH: To go back and perjure himself. You know, one last bit is that Randy Credico has a white therapy dog named Bianca. He says look I'm not married, I don't have children -- this is one of the closest creatures that I have you know. Stone says, look I'll even take that dog away from you and you know prepare to die. And you know, my lawyers will tear you to pieces.

HM: If Roger Stone is convicted, is it possible he's thinking or hoping he'll get a pardon from Donald Trump?

SH: I think you know some people observing his conduct throughout -- made the observation that other people in this circumstance might have taken a plea deal just in terms of what the evidence could show. Part of it is obviously geared toward the jury. But part of it also is a jury of one in the White House, and that is his long-time friend Donald Trump.

HM: Spencer it is a convoluted story. Thank you for taking us through it.

SH: Thank you. I hope some of it came through.

KG: Spencer Hsu is a court reporter for The Washington Post. We reached him in Washington, DC.

[Music]

Christmas Grotto

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Then a toast my love, my dear -- to a Merry Christmas. God bless us.

[Children say "God bless us"]

VOICE 2: God bless us -- everyone.

KG: A poignant moment for the 1951 film "A Christmas Carol" starring Alistair Sim as Scrooge. Oh, what a marvelous holiday Tiny Tim would have had 68 years later at the legendary department store Harrods in London. The joy he would feel on the store's Christmas Grotto -- described as a snow covered woodland filled with sparkling surprises. And there in a glimmering landscape of Swarovski crystals, his heart would leap at the sight of Father Christmas himself. To enter Harrods' Christmas Grotto, Tiny Tim would only need the spirit of the season in his little heart. Also, 20 British pounds in his little hand. That's about 34 bucks Canadian. Just a small entrance fee and also a minor detail -- the Cratchit family would need to have spent 2000 pounds -- that's about 3400 dollars Canadian -- in Harrods already this year as of late August I mean. Now a number of local Scrooges are accusing Harrods of being a giant local Scrooge. They say it doesn't really show the Christmas spirit to allow only extremely wealthy people access to Saint Nick. Well, after some public embarrassment, the store will allow some not as big spenders to see Santa. But that's all it can do. A statement from Harrods explains, "We care hugely about making a visit to the Grotto as magical as possible. Therefore, tickets are extremely limited." Christmas magic, you see, comes from being special, from being part of an exclusive club -- a club that just happens to be very wealthy. As Tiny Tim said, or would say if he were allowed into the Harrods Christmas Grotto, "God bless us -- every one-percenter."

[Music]

Vaping incident

KG: Doctors at a hospital in Detroit say a 17-year-old man who'd become ill after vaping would almost certainly have died if it weren't for the double lung transplant they just performed. It's believed to be the first surgery performed on someone in the United States who's faced lung problems after using vaping products. In the US more than 2000 people who vape have gotten sick in the past eight months. And at least 40 people have died. The patient in Detroit had become seriously ill at the beginning of September. His breathing became progressively more difficult. Eventually, he was put on a heart lung machine to keep him alive. His family asked doctors to share his stories and photos of the procedure as a warning to others about vaping. For the record, here is Dr. Hassan Nemeh, followed by Dr. Lisa Allenspach speaking at a news conference at the Henry Ford hospital earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

HASSAN NEMEH: What I saw in his lungs is nothing that I've ever seen before, and I've been doing lung transplants for 20 years. There was an enormous amount of inflammation and scarring in addition to multiple spots of that tissue. And the lung itself was so firm and scarred. It was literally we had to deliver it out of the chest. So this is something that I personally -- this is an evil that I haven't faced before.

LISA ALLENSPACH: I think that one of the really important messages is that this has not been figured out. We are not certain what's causing this insult to the lung that for some individuals this this risk can happen over many, many months. And other people, it seems to be more sudden in terms of onset that it is a life threatening problem. And at this point, not knowing what exactly is relating to the injury this strong sort of firm absolute recommendation is that these vaping products should not be used in any fashion.

KG: For the record, that was Dr. Lisa Allenspach and before her you heard Dr. Hassan Nemeh. They were part of the team from the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, that performed a double lung transplant on a 17-year-old patient who'd become sick after vaping.

[Music]

Part 3: Children still being placed in immigration detention 'on a regular basis': report

Child immigration report

Guest: Jenny Jeanes

KG: Two years ago, the federal government committed to stopping family separations and the detention or housing of minors, except in extremely limited circumstances. Now the Canadian Council for Refugees has released a report on how that's going. And it says Canada still has some serious work to do. Canada Border Services Agency statistics say that 118 minors were housed or detained at an immigration holding centre in the most recent fiscal year. But Jenny Jeanes says that number doesn't tell the whole story. Ms. Jeanes is with Action Refugies Monteal -- an organization that works with people detained for immigration reasons at the Laval Immigration Holding Centre. The organization also provided information to the Canadian Council for Refugees for this report. We reached Jenny Jeanes in Montreal.

HM: Ms. Jeanes the federal government committed two years ago to stop detaining or housing minors, except in what they say are extremely limited cases, how they lived up to that commitment?

JENNY JEANES: Well, what this report shows and what I would have to agree with is that a lot of the actual cases on the ground are not living up to the commitment that's in CBSA's own directive. The directive, for example, talks about public safety being a concern that could justify having children or families in detention. But I would say it's extremely rare that when parents or families are in detention, that public safety is used as the reason. The vast majority of the families that we meet are detained because they lack documents. It means that if they don't have a valid passport, they have to come up with other documents to confirm their name, date of birth, nationality. That can be difficult to do, especially from a detention facility where there's very little communication with the outside world.

HM: Official statistics say there were 118 children at these facilities in the most recent fiscal year. What does that number say to you?

JJ: What the report is highlighting is that while this is a decrease from previous years, which is obviously going in the right direction, it's falling short of the commitments that were made by the Minister of Public Safety and by the agency to keep children and families out of detention. If I can just say that in terms of our experience on the ground, what the report is maybe revealing that isn't present in official government statistics is that there have been quite a few families separated at the border in Quebec where one parent is detained and the other parent and children are sent to a shelter seemingly to avoid having more children in detention. But creating some very harmful consequences for those children to be separated from their parent. So that is what I would say, that the report is actually revealing because it's not represented in any official statistics at all.

HM: You are using the word detention, but the majority of children included in the numbers are actually classified as housed at the centres, not detained. What's the difference?

JJ: The difference, legally speaking, is that housed child could leave the centre. They're not being held there by force of law. In practical terms, to be able to leave the centre would mean leaving their detained parents who could award their temporary care to another adult. But the families that we meet in detention don't have that option. They don't normally have anybody that they could send their children to stay with. And even if they did, it could be even more harmful to their children to be then separated from their only parent in Canada who's detained. So when they're called housed, there is this notion that they could leave. But practically and humanely speaking, it's just not possible.

HM: The Canadian Council for Refugees says in the report it's also concerned about issues around family separation in which one parent may be detained -- the other parent is not. Can you give us some examples of what you've seen in terms of how that impacts children?

JJ: So we provide support on a weekly basis to people inside the centre. We visit twice a week. We receive phone calls in our office. And we've had a lot of phone calls this year from often dads, but sometimes moms who are inside the centre. And they say, I arrived at the border with my family, we were separated yesterday and I don't know where they are. And this has happened again and again. And so we will tell them that they're probably in a shelter for refugee claimants. We'll give them the number. We often help to make that connection. But many times this has happened that it's like the other part of the family disappears. And similarly, we get calls from the parent who's at the shelter and we've given bus tickets to some families to go and visit. And it's a long way from Downtown Montreal for somebody taking public transit, the metro and the bus with young kids in tow. It can be difficult. And then we've had some of the parents in detention say, I don't want my kids to come and visit me anymore because they see where I am and when they leave they're crying too much and it's too distressing for them.

HM: You know, when we hear about family separation, I think a lot of people will be reminded of the images and stories we heard from the southern border of the United States. How comparable is the situation here?

JJ: It's really nothing at all like the situation there, except for the notion of the children should be with their parents. You know, it's really not on the same scale at all. But I think we can do better. You know, kids don't need to be separated from their parents. They don't need to have that distress and harm of knowing that their parent is in a kind of a prison like environment. Of course, in the States, kids were taken away from both parents and sent far away and not given even the possibility of reconnecting later. We're hearing horror stories. Here, families do eventually reunite. And we're in touch with a lot of the people that we've met. And they're living in Montreal. They're continuing with the process. But the first month or two in Canada was a very harmful, distressing time, for those kids. And so I think we can we can do better as a country.

HM: In a statement to As It Happens, the office of the Minister of Public Safety said it welcomed the CCR's constructive feedback as it described it said the number of children being housed or detained has been cut in half since the previous government. Would you give the federal government some credit in its effort to lower the numbers?

JJ: I think definitely in terms of seeing a drop in the number of kids in detention -- it's a step in the right direction. But I'm really distressed about the family separations because we've met enough families to account for maybe about 100 kids, it's just to estimate off the top of my head, but over a hundred kids whose parents were detained where if the children had been housed, they would have actually almost doubled the numbers. And so it's a measure that seems to have been taken to keep children out of detention. But then it's separating them from their parent. So in that sense, it's a problem. And those kids are invisible. The kids in detention, they're in government statistics -- we can measure the scope of the problem. But the kids separated from their parents, they don't appear anywhere. But we see their distress.

HM: Ms. Jeanes thank you very much for telling us what's happening.

JJ: Yeah. You're welcome. Thank you.

KG: That was Jenny Jeanes. She's the detention program coordinator with Action Refugies Monteal. She was in Montreal. For more on this story, visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Australia reporter

Guest: Annika Smethurst

KG: As the national political editor for Australia's Sunday Telegraph, Annika Smethurst is used to seeing her stories on the front page of the newspaper. But five months ago, the Australian reporter was the front-page story after police raided her home in Canberra. At the time, they defended the raid, saying it was part of an investigation into, "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of national security information." The following day, in an unrelated incident, police raided the Sydney offices of Australia's public broadcaster -- sparking international outrage and a national campaign for stronger press freedoms. Today, Ms. Smethurst is back in the headlines, challenging the validity of the search warrant that led to the rate of her home. We reached Annika Smethurst before she headed to court in Canberra, Australia.

HM: Annika, what is it like for you to be making news instead of covering it once again?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: Often there's a bit of the ego in journalism, but I'm not enjoying this at all. Every time I open the paper, I seem to be there which is a very unusual position for me to be in.

HM: So we'll get to the court challenge in a moment. But I want you first to take us back to the day in June when the police raided your home. When did you realize exactly what was happening?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: It was about 9 o'clock in the morning and I was getting ready to go to work. And I heard a knock at the door. And it was five federal police officers who had come to search my home for the evidence of a story I'd written almost a year earlier.

HM: What were they actually looking for?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: They arrived with a copy of my story and they said they were after, I guess, anything related to it -- whether that be documents proving the story, notes about the story, emails to either my editors or anybody about the story. So they were allowed to look through my house for possessions, but also on devices I had such as an iPad or an iPhone.

HM: How long did they search your home?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: It's surprising. I only have a two-bedroom apartment, but it took you know seven hours, I think, to go through everything. And they went through page by page of every book I owned. They looked inside my oven, behind the pictures on my wall. So when you consider how thorough it was, I guess it's unsurprising that it took so long.

HM: Did they take -- the police -- anything from your home?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: They didn't take anything physical, but they did scan my phone, take everything off it, put it on a hard drive and then searched for text messages that are relevant during that time and they took 172 text messages on my phone.

HM: So this is all linked, as you mentioned, to a story that you broke back in 2018 regarding a government proposal that would expand the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate, which is a cyber-intelligence agency.

ANNIKA SMETHURST: Yeah. We have about six intelligence agencies in Australia. And one of them is the ASD. Now they're meant to be cyber-spies that look at foreign threats. But there was a proposal to perhaps expand their powers so that they could, I guess, start to monitor Australians if they should be up to no good. And this was a significant change in that community. So I heard about this and decided to report on it.

HM: Now, your report included images of a top secret document and police said they searched the home in connection with what they describe as the alleged unauthorized disclosure of national security information. Do they not have -- does the government not have a right to protect confidential information concerning national security?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: This is a debate we're having in Australia at the moment. There is a need to protect Australia's national security. I don't think any journalist here is questioning that. My story would have been about a legislative change. So it would have had to hit parliament and be debated publicly anyway. So we maintained there was no threat to national security there. And there is a concern here about the overclassification of documents. I did speak to one of government minister privately that said he's surprised about some of the stuff that comes across his desk that has confidential on it. He said, you know, some of it's akin to a shopping list. So there really is a debate now about getting that system in better shape.

HM: So if this isn't about national security, what do you think it is about in terms of the government's objections?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: I think there was a level of embarrassment that went with my reporting that they were unhappy with. And I believe that's the reason there's now an investigation and that I could potentially go to jail.

HM: Do you think that's a possibility? Do you think you will face criminal charges?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: It's a really interesting one at the moment. We're in the high court at the moment challenging the legality of the warrant they used to search my property. I've been told by some there's not an appetite to go after the journalists. It's more about whistleblowers or sources. But we haven't got any indication that they're stepping away from prosecuting us.

HM: And the attorney general will make that decision whether to prosecute?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: Yes. There was an indication from the government that they would change the way this system works. And if there was going to be charges laid on me, that would be something that the attorney general would have to tick off on that. A lot of people saw that as a positive step that would save myself from prosecution and to other journalists at the ABC that could also face prosecution. But knowing that there is one man, our attorney general Christian Porter, who will be able to decide my fate is quite overwhelming and is unprecedented in putting that much power in one person.

HM: Right. And it's a person and a government that you're reporting on. So what's it like to live with that uncertainty?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: Yeah, I found it quite difficult since the raid to actually get back to normal. I innocently thought at the time and perhaps naively, that I would just be able to go on with work. But one, I'm recognised everywhere now. And two, rightly people a little bit sort of sensitive when talking to me on phones and devices as opposed to in person. And that can make it very difficult for me. And as you say, it raises questions about you know fair and balanced reporting when I have to consider that there's a member of that government and then the government itself that has the power to jail me or not at the moment.

HM: You're heading back to court today to challenge the validity of this search warrant. What's the best outcome for you?

ANNIKA SMETHURST: We are challenging it on three grounds. Two technical grounds. One that the warrant was just poorly, I guess, written. And also on constitutional ground. If it is ruled as a bad warrant, then the police raid will, I guess, be considered trespass. But what does that mean for what they took? Because they didn't take anything physical. They took copies and left with their own usb with copies of my text messages. There's a discussion now about whether they are allowed to keep those documents, whether they have to destroy them, or whether they can keep them, but not use them in any prosecution. So that's what we'll be arguing this morning.

HM: Annika, we will continue to track the story from here. Thank you very much for joining us and explaining what's happening.

ANNIKA SMETHURST: Not a problem. Thanks for your interest.

KG: Annika Smethurst is the national political editor for Australia's Sunday Telegraph. We reached her earlier at her home in Canberra.

[Music]

Reading: Small Game Hunting at the Local Coward Gun Club

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I wrote a novel about misogyny, racism, and classism in modern day Newfoundland.

KG: It's hard to sum up Megan Gail Coles' Giller-nominated novel better than she does herself. "Small Game Hunting at the Local Coward Gun Club" revolves around a cast of characters whose lives are, in the words of the Giller Prize jury, "emblematic of the human condition itself." And the novel opens with a warning. "This might hurt a little," Ms Coles writes. "Be brave." The winner of the 2019 Scotiabank Giller Prize will be announced on Monday. Before that, we're featuring readings from all six finalists. For today here's Megan Gail Coles with an excerpt. And a warning: some listeners might find this unsettling.

SOUNDCLIP

MEGAN GAIL COLES: Most days, Iris plays with the cat her cousins found in the brook. A black stray -- so eager for affection, not feral at all, even for her obvious abandonment. Everyone in the cove was struck by its congenial nature. Her cousins took turns, picking it up, passing it around, marveling at the volume of its purring. And then, they threw it after wharf to see if it could swim, to test its endurance. And that half-starved, already wounded, cat swam to shore. All were in awe. A magical cat. How clever. Some cat. They ruminated on the amazing puss and praised its perseverance in the face of such struggle. They rubbed its ears. They held it close inside their coats. Its warm heart beating against them. Poor puss believing it had finally proven itself worthy of affection, convinced of its safety the whole way out the wharf, right up until the moment it was once again flung, air bound, flying, as cats do with his paws outstretched, preparing to land in the cold cove water. Nevertheless, each time the cat would return for a caress wet and warm. Puss believing that this would soon be over -- someone would surely intervene. And each time, Iris's cousins hooved it away, and waited in amazement. Speculating on the quality of cat. What fine kittens -- their indestructible cat would breed. Later having learned her lesson too late poor puss struggled to escape them before being [inaudible]. "Here, kitty, kitty. Sweet kitty. Lovable kitty. Pretty Kitty." A favorite kitty. And though that cat understood none of it -- she longed to their voices as she wanted nothing more than someone to care for her now that she was too hurt to care for herself. Not to feed her. She was a mouser. Not to shelter her. She would find a place, but to care for her. Press a face into her fine fur, and say she was a good cat. But this never happened. Those boys threw puss at the wharf until she didn't swim back. And Iris feels like a drowning cat.

KG: That's Scotiabank Giller Prize finalist Megan Gail Colesreading from her novel "Small Game Hunting at the Local Coward Gun Club." You can tune into a live broadcast of the Giller Gala this coming Monday on CBC Radio and CBC Television. Visit cbcbooks.ca for more.

[Music]

Indlovu

KG: Elephants aren't like regular animals. I actually, I should say they're not like most animals because they're extremely regular. They're just not that good at digesting. They eat a truly astonishing amount, but they only absorb less than half of the nutrients they consume. So their dung is loaded with valuable stuff. I mean, no offense, but you can put whatever helpful hipster junk you want in your morning smoothie -- you'd still be better off pureeing elephant feces. If the idea of drinking something from an elephant's butt grosses you out -- you probably don't want to hear about Indlovu Gin. Its creators describe its complex flavor as "lovely, wooded, almost spicy and earthy." It comes by that last taste, honestly, because it's made of pachyderm poop. And they're not making a secret of it: "Indlovu," they say, means elephant in several African languages. About a year ago, Les and Paula Ansley of South Africa were thinking like you are now about how many fancy botanicals and plants elephants eat and how little of each they digest. Mr. Ansley said his wife asked the non-age old question, "Why don't we let the elephants do the hard work of collecting all these botanicals and we'll make gin from it?" And so they did. They gather the elephant dung, dry it, crumble it, and clean up the crumbly bits until just the flavorful plant bits are left. Then they flavor the gin with it. It's ingenious and supposedly good. But you can't just serve someone Indlovu martini without being clear about what the gin is made of. That's kind of the elephant in the room after the elephant makes room in itself.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 12, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode