Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for March 24, 2016

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

CROWD CHANTING: System has to change! Hey hey, ho ho! The legal system has to change! Hey hey ho ho!

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Demonstrators were outside the courthouse this morning, their signs declaring support for survivors of sexual abuse in anticipation of the ruling in the case against Jian Ghomeshi. Ontario Court Justice William Horkins has handed down his decision, Finding the former CBC Radio host not guilty on all five charges. In a moment, the details of that decision, and the implications of this case on the wider issue of sexual assault and its prosecution in the courts. Also today, it's complicated.

SOUNDCLIP

Being a terror organization fighting another terror organization, which I mean Daesh, doesn’t change your status, actually.

AMT: Even as it joins its NATO allies in fighting ISIS and training Kurdish troops, Turkey is fighting a messy internal battle against Kurdish separatists. It is reeling from suicide bomb attacks, it's facing international rebuke on human rights violations, and it's struggling to help the 2.6 million Syrian refugees within its own borders. In half an hour, Turkey's ambassador to Canada on his country's geopolitical labyrinth. And, he was one man investigating 1,200 cases of fraud, theft, and sexual assault and misconduct, and each country had its own rules.

SOUNDCLIP

If you are a peacekeeper from Canada, the rules say that you cannot engage in any sexual activity with anybody in the peacekeeping mission. Period.

Canadian Robert Hotston on the frustrations of trying to hold UN Peacekeepers accountable. Hear him as we follow up on the stories we're tracking, in an hour. But we begin with the Ghomeshi judgment. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

Jian Ghomeshi not guilty on all charges due to 'reasonable doubt'

Guests: Susan Vella, Farrah Khan, Antonia Zerbisias

SOUNDCLIP

[indistinct chanting]

[loud booing]

AMT: A decision has just come down in the trial of former CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi. Ontario Court Justice William Horkins has pronounced Jian Ghomeshi not guilty on all five charges, saying there is reasonable doubt. The judge also said having reasonable doubt is not the same as saying the events did not occur. To help us through the details of this judgment, I'm joined by Susan Vella. She is a lawyer with the firm Rochon Genova in Toronto. Susan Vella has been representing survivors in civil cases related to sexual assault for 25 years. Hello.

SUSAN VELLA: Hello.

AMT: Well, we got this, what, just moments ago. Perhaps just tell me what the first thing you're thinking about, as you watch this unfold this morning?

SUSAN VELLA: Well, unfortunately, I was thinking this is precisely what many in the legal community predicted would happen. The judge went through the evidence with a laser sharp precision and found that the totality of the inconsistencies, omissions, and in some case untruths contained in the various of the three complainants’ testimonies seriously undermined their credibility, therefore leading to reasonable doubt and requiring an acquittal on all charges.

AMT: And what stands out for you in what the judge said today? Because he spent the last hour and, what, an hour and a half, actually going through each case.

SUSAN VELLA: That's right. And I wasn't in the courtroom to hear, but I was following along on the CBC Twitter account and what stood out for me was the fact that many of the statements that came back to haunt these complainants were made in the media, and in the context of public statements. There's many lessons I think that can be learned from this trial; perhaps these are old lessons, but need to be repeated.

AMT: And some of the specifics, I was taking notes as well as I followed along on CBC’s blog through this court, through the reading of his judgment. The judge, at one point, said that he finds as fact that Lucy DeCoutere attempted to mislead the court about her relationship with Ghomeshi. Throughout this, he looked at each of the three complainants, and he talked about an inconsistency in the testimony. Help us understand what he was getting at there.

SUSAN VELLA: Yes, I will. What appears to have happened is the complainants went to the police, gave their detailed statements, but in the course of giving those detailed statements about the event, failed to disclose certain facts and events which were important, really, to the whole narrative of the story. So these aren't inconsequential inconsistencies, these are inconsistencies that the judge found must have been omitted. And once you get into that scenario, the truth telling of the witness, or at least their credibility and reliability comes into doubt.

AMT: There was a lot of the cross-examination of the complainants by the defense that focused on their memory of what happened, or what they might have done after the alleged assault that they had come forward to talk about. And there were questions about emails, after, to Mr. Ghomeshi, other meetings with him. How relevant was that to the actual case?

SUSAN VELLA: Well it was relevant overall, because I think, in part, the sheer quantity of inconsistencies and omissions, and also because as the judge pointed out, for example, the first complainant indicated that the assault occurred, or the alleged assault occurred, in Mr. Ghomeshi’s Volkswagen. And then she went on to say, and this was important, an important fact to her, because it led her to make a character assessment of Mr. Ghomeshi, the fact that he was driving a relatively modest car, and that was important to her. So this was an important fact to her. The defense proved that Mr. Ghomeshi had not yet bought that Volkswagen. So what the judge says is well, you know, having an error in memory on certain facts, if they're peripheral, or not of core importance to the complainant can be explained away by the passage of time, and not express doubt on the core event, which is the assault itself. In this case, the complainant said the Volkswagen was an important part of her memory, and it was proven through objective evidence to be wrong.

AMT: There was also, appears to be, the judge's comment on his characterization, at one point, we're talking about Lucy DeCoutere again, and the judge says she emailed Ghomeshi about having a drink sometimes, and the quote is, “these are not the words of someone endeavoring to keep her distance.” Is there anything that you, as you watched and heard about this judgment unfolding that speaks to expectations of how women are supposed to react after an event?

SUSAN VELLA: Well, that's always a concern. It's a common reaction for women who have been sexually assaulted, to try to minimize what has happened to them. To doubt whether or not what happened to them was indeed an assault. To try to normalize the situation afterwards. So that is something that is of concern. But in this case, the judge looked at the after-the-fact conduct in the context of statements that Ms. DeCoutere made in court, which were quite contrary to the actions thereafter.

AMT: Mr. Ghomeshi is due to face another sexual assault trial in June, stemming from an alleged workplace incident when he was a CBC Radio host. He has pleaded not guilty to that charge as well. What bearing, if any, can this judgment have on that trial?

SUSAN VELLA: This judgment should have no bearing whatsoever on that trial. It will be a fresh trial on new evidence, an entirely different incident. So this trial should have no bearing at all. Mr. Ghomeshi did not testify at this trial, as was his right as the accused, and so there won't be any potential for prior inconsistent statements.

AMT: Susan Vella, stay with us, I have two more guests ready to join us. Farrah Khan is the Sexual Violence Support and Education Coordinator at Ryerson University. Antonia Zerbisias is a freelance writer who writes on women's issues and politics. And they are both in Toronto, hi.

BOTH: Hi, there.

AMT: Farrah Khan, maybe I can get your reaction first of all. Not guilty on all five charges.

FARRAH KHAN: I'm really sad. I'm not surprised, but I'm really sad. I think about the survivors and what they had to go through, in terms of a trial, and be put on trial. And it feels like, to me, it's their behavior that's on trial and their actions, not the perpetrator who committed acts. And so it makes me quite sad for today. But not surprised, because I don't have a lot of faith in our criminal justice system.

AMT: How do you interpret the judge's statement, Farrah Khan, that having reasonable doubt is not the same as saying the events did not occur?

FARRAH KHAN: Well, I think that’s the thing. Like it doesn’t, I think he’s clearly, like, it does mean that events can still happen, they still are real, it just doesn’t mean in this criminal justice, in the current system, it doesn't mean that they can come true this way. And so for me, that is the one of the more promising pieces, but everything else feels really difficult and challenging. I felt that these witnesses, again and again, their behavior was on trial. They were on trial and not who should be on trial, which is the perpetrator.

AMT: Antonia Zerbisias, your reaction?

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS: Well, I can't say I'm surprised, and I don't think a lot of us are surprised. The witnesses, as The just as Justice Horkins outlined, contradicted themselves. He practically accused them of perjury. It really was bad. I'm really glad I wasn't one of them, to be so publicly excoriated as they were. I don't feel that justice was necessarily served. However, the criminal system, the legal system works. There was reasonable doubt, the judge said that in his decision, and we have a system where one innocent until proven, capital P, proven guilty.

AMT: And you make the point that the judge actually was quite harsh in his…

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS: Wow. [laughs] Yeah. I mean, I was following along on Twitter, you know, many of my journalist friends in the courtroom, and they were saying, all repeating as the judge was reading this judgement that went on for over an hour, the things he was saying about stepping all over their own testimony, giving statements to the police under oath saying one thing, then saying on the stand under oath, saying another thing. And then saying another version entirely. It upsets me so much that, I think that it's set back the cause of dealing with gendered violence back 20 years. I really feel that way, and I think we have a long way to go to recover from this, and we've got to keep talking about it.

AMT: Susan Vella, would you agree with what Antonia just said, about setting it back?

SUSAN VELLA: Well, I think that unfortunately, the message, or at least the message that many will receive from this trial, is that the cards are very much stacked against the complainants in the criminal system. And I think it does, it is going to have a chilling effect on future complainants coming forward, at least to the criminal justice system.

AMT: Susan, I think a lot of people questioned why the crown appeared to be sideswiped with some of the evidence that came forward from the Ghomeshi side. Can you speak to that at all?

SUSAN VELLA: Yeah, I think what must have happened here is, it does point to a flaw. When survivors go forward to the police, they are traumatized. They are in an emotional state. They probably haven't told anyone in detail what they experienced, and here they go to the police, people who they haven't met before, there's no trust relationship, perhaps they've had no therapy, and they tell their story, which is emotionally driven. And once that's taken down in writing, passed on to the defense counsel, and there are going to be errors, perhaps, of memory reflected in that statement, only because they haven’t had a chance to process yet the events that occurred.

AMT: But is there not a process where then a crown goes back to these witnesses, to make sure that, you know, that it's understood, or that there's not more stuff to come out? I mean, the very fact that so many e-mails came out that had not been talked about.

SUSAN VELLA: But what we hear is that the crown attorneys often don't have the requisite time to sit with complainants in a timely way, in order to explore and really probe whether there is more evidence that may be relevant. It may well be that that the survivor doesn't think that something is relevant, but it's very relevant in a legal context. And it points to the fact that the crown attorneys often don't meet with the complainants early enough in the process. Their stories have already been taken down. It also points to a need, I think, for survivors to have the opportunity to get their own legal advice before they make any detailed statement to the police, so they can really understand what is relevance, in the legal context, and to also understand that it's so important to be forthright. And if you don't remember anything, say you don't remember. That's going to be favorable, not harmful, to your credibility.

AMT: Farrah Khan, do you want to speak to that?

FARRAH KHAN: Yes, I think it's one of the most important pieces, which is giving informed consent for survivors. So it is having the legal support available for survivors, that they can actually speak to a lawyer that's not connected to the crown before they even speak to the police, so they can know their rights. They can know what they need to, how they can protect themselves. And that really important thing of sometimes just saying, I don't know.

AMT: And how does somebody get access to a lawyer to do that, Farrah?

FARRAH KHAN: Right now in Ontario, we are starting a pilot project that will be starting in May, where people will have access to lawyers, and that is a really important piece. And what I love about it is that you don't have to have reported it to the police, you can just need to talk to a lawyer, and you can get legal advice that way, and I think that's really important. We actually have to increase [phone cuts out intermittently] Women need access to their own legal counsel, aside of the crown attorney.

AMT: Susan Vella, what kind of civil action could we see come out of this case?

SUSAN VELLA: Well, as was alluded to earlier, the law, an acquittal, only means that the Crown did not prove that the alleged crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. An acquittal is not preclude a civil action from going forward; it is not the equivalent of a legal finding of fact that the assaults did not occur. So there are still options for the women to pursue in the civil courts, a lawsuit, based on the very same allegations of alleged sexual assault. However, they are going to be held to their testimonies as given in the criminal courts, of course, because that's sworn testimony. And that will be relevant. But there is no legal barrier to them pursuing, if they think it appropriate, civil action for damages based on the same allegations.

AMT: Is there any legal option for Jian Ghomeshi to sue those complainants?

SUSAN VELLA: Well, given that those complainants made statements out in the public forum, the outside the courtyard doors, if you will, there is the opportunity for him to consider a defamation lawsuit based on the allegations of sexual assault that were made to the media. But then, the burden is on him to prove that those allegations were false, and he would risk the potential of a judgment finding that certain assaults occurred on the balance of probabilities, which is a lower burden of proof, of course, than in the criminal courts.

AMT: We talk about the message this sends to women who are considering coming forward and speaking up about sexual assault. What message does it send to the lawyers who might be working with those women, Susan?

SUSAN VELLA: Well I think the message it sends to the lawyers is you have to, first of all, develop a trusting relationship with the client. You need to be very forthright with them, in terms of wanting to hear the good and the bad, if you will, about the incident. That is good evidence and potentially harmful evidence. You need to be vigilant in probing your clients to ensure that they're telling you everything, so that you can then provide them with the appropriate advice.

AMT: Antonia Zerbisias, I want to come back to you, just in terms of the kinds of things that you've been observing as the judge was giving his decision.

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS: Okay. I found it extremely upsetting, if I may get emotional about it. I think that it, we saw a real schism between, and I consider myself a very staunch feminist who was really part of the second wave, fighting for better sexual assault laws and rape shield laws. A real schism between those who think that the criminal justice system should make special allowances in these cases. I'm not saying that there is justice in the philosophical sense of the word, in that it was served here, but a kind of exceptionalism is happening on Twitter, for example, that is totally divisive. And that was one of my observations.

AMT: Okay. Farrah Khan, just very briefly.

FARRAH KHAN: I don't think I'm asking for exceptionalism. I'm asking for equity and I'm asking for fairness. And I think many people are, when they're saying that we are not getting a fair trial here. We are not seeing support; we are not seeing actually informed consent for survivors as they navigate the criminal justice system. So for me, I think we move forward by saying we believe survivors, we have trauma-informed courts, and we have a system that actually works.

AMT: Okay, we have to leave it there. Thank you, all of you, for being part of this conversation today.

ALL: Thank you.

AMT: That is Susan Vella, a lawyer with the Toronto firm Rochon Genova, and she has worked for a long time on civil cases related to sexual assault. Farrah Khan, Sexual Violence Support and Education Coordinator at Ryerson University. Antonia Zerbisias, freelance writer who writes on women's issues and politics. All of them were in Toronto talking about the verdict handed down less than half an hour ago from an Ontario judge, a decision handed down pronouncing Jian Ghomeshi not guilty on all five charges against him, in the case of three complainants related to sexual assault. Jian Ghomeshi, not guilty. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, and online on cbc.ca/thecurrent.

[Music: Theme]

Turkish ambassador defends human rights record

Guests: Selçuk Ünal

AMT: Hello, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

AMT: Our Friday host this week, Laura Lynch, will join me to check in on the past week's worth of tweets, Facebook posts, and emails on the stories we've been following. And speaking of the stories we've been following, why a substance known as TATP used in this week's Brussels attacks has become the ISIS homemade explosive of choice. We'll hear about that in half an hour, but first talking Turkey.

SOUNDCLIP

[din of a crowd]

We want to go to [indecipherable]. Everybody wants to go to Germany, some to Sweden. We don’t have electricity, we don’t have food, we don’t have anything there.

AMT: Well, Ahmet Bayraktar, an accountant from Syria made landfall on the Greek island of Lesbos on Monday. He had made the dangerous voyage there from Turkey. He hadn't yet heard the news: A major agreement between Turkey and the European Union came into effect the day before Sunday. It means that migrants, such as he, could now be sent back to Turkey if their asylum applications fail. The deal was struck in an effort to end Europe's ongoing migrant crisis. And Turkey will receive up to six billion Euros for its part in that. The plan is controversial with human rights campaigners and it's not the only controversy hanging over Turkey right now. From its fight against Kurdish separatists at home questions about freedom of the press and academic freedoms, and bombings in the cities of Istanbul and Ankara in the past couple of weeks and really the past couple of months, Turkey is the subject of much discussion and concern. Turkey's ambassador to Canada Selçuk Ünal is with us from Ottawa to talk about it all. Hello and welcome.

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Hello. Good morning.

AMT: You know, within the first 24 hours of Turkey's agreement with the EU an estimated 1,600 migrants arrived in Greece, twice as many as the day before. How effective will that agreement be in stemming the tide?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, we, of course, hope for the best for both the EU and Turkey, of course, because there's a tremendous flow from different countries to the EU and there's also an issue of sustainable support to those people in Turkey. As you know, we have been hosting almost three million Syrians and Iraqis from different groups without any international support and one part of the deal is actually to provide also economic support to the Syrians in Turkey, Syrians and Iraqis in Turkey. So we hope it will be a balanced approach for everybody.

AMT: Once the rejected asylum seekers arrive back in Turkey, what happens?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, the deal is to receive back everybody who passed from Turkey to Greece illegally, after the day of the signature, and when they come they will be, if they are not recorded, they will be recorded and we will try to continue to look after them. The EU will take the same amount of people within the limits of the court of 72,000 and, of course, the return conditions from Turkey to the EU of the Syrian refugees will be handled by the UNHCR rules and regulations and principles.

AMT: You know, critics have called this deal a PR stunt for Turkey. They say it won't work to stop the flow of immigrants. How serious is your country in this aim?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: I would totally disagree whether this is a PR stunt or not. I would ask the owners of those questions where were they in the last five years since the outbreak of the Syrian conflict while we have been handling so many people who are escaping from a certain death with our own budgets and own assets. We have spent so far ten billion US dollars to Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the last five years with only 455 million US dollars that we received from the international community. That's, I think, a shame. The UN funds are also underfunded, so from that perspective the Syrians and the Iraqis in Turkey are also in dire straits. So first of all, we have to, I think, acknowledged the fact that this is not a sustainable situation and in order to make the life of Syrians in Turkey in a better mood we have to prepare a framework. This is the framework that we get. The problem here is mainly political. We have to find a solution to the Syrian issue in Syria, otherwise people will continue to escape from Syria and Iraq.

AMT: Turkish citizens will soon be able to travel to the European Union without a visa as part of this agreement. There is a promise to renew talks by July about Turkey joining the EU. Do you feel that this is a win for Turkey?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Actually, I think the talks of Turkey with the EU to become a full member have never been stopped, at least from our side#, but have been sort of stalled by a few EU countries in the past for political reasons, especially regarding the Cyprus issue. But I think the EU now realizes the strategic importance of Turkey once again. Being a full member of the EU is still a strategic objective, foreign policy objective of Turkey. We wish to continue the talks with the EU. And visa facilitation for Turkish citizens is actually something in the Turkey-EU relationship, which has never been granted so far.

AMT: The European Commission has said that Turkey needs to strengthen human rights and democracy before becoming an EU member. How will your country address those concerns?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, there are two sets of criteria in becoming an EU full member. First is the economic criteria, second is a political criteria. Nobody is disputing the fact that Turkey has fulfilled the economic criteria a decade ago and most of the political criteria have been fulfilled as well. There are, of course, issues which needs improvement, which needs further development, which we agree. And we will be working on them. For the most important point for us, for Turkey, and for the other countries concerned is whether EU will consider itself as a club or as a cultural club or the or a club acting on fair terms to everybody. We believe EU and Europe has a set of values, ideals that we subscribe ourselves to and we ready to do everything to fulfill that political criteria as well, including, of course, human rights.

AMT: What needs further fulfillment when you talk about issues?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, actually, most of the issues regarding human rights issues have been addressed. I understand their concerns regarding press freedom issue, which there are all the necessary checks and balances in the Turkish court and constitutional system. And I think that's the most important issue from the EU perspective.

AMT: Well, let's talk a little more about human rights in Turkey. Turkey's fight against the Kurdish Workers Party, the PK K, has involved 24-hour curfews on many towns. It has seen thousands -some say hundreds of thousands - displaced. There are towns in the country’s South-East that have been left in ruins, one in particular – and I'm probably going to mispronounce it – Cizre? How do I say town?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: “Chizruh.”

AMT: Cizre. How do you justify the treatment of citizens of Cizre?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Thank you very much for asking the question, but let me start by labeling issue. PKK is a terror organization and called as such by EU, Canada, United States, and all of our Western and NATO allies. We have to fix that first. Second, Kurdish origin of Turkish citizens in Turkey, they mostly do not support the PKK terrorism. What we are fighting with are the PKK militants in Cizre. There were two other towns which they have blocked all public facilities to go into the city itself, like ambulances, like other municipality issues—

AMT: The PKK has done that?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Yes. Yes. And like every other government, the government should restore the public authority first.

AMT: Okay, well, let me ask you—

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Yes.

AMT: Let me ask you, because—Fair enough that they blocked towns, but they are non-state players, labeled a terrorist organization, as you say, not only by your country but by other countries including Canada. But Amnesty International says that what you are doing as a state player is collective punishment. And that the UN has called on you to respect the fundamental rights of civilians.

SELÇUK ÜNAL: No, there’s no collective punishment, but we have to also recognize one thing. We have found in many places-- I mean, the Turkish law enforcement agencies found in many places, huge amounts of ammunition and explosives. In one single place, just to give an example, they found a quarter million bullets, and another one, one and a half tonnes of explosives, ofG-4. I wonder what those people refer to, I mean those agencies, have said anything about the rights of life to the normal Turkish citizens - Turkish or Kurdish origin - who had to be evacuated from Cizre and another small towns, Sur, because of this terroristic instance of blockage.

AMT: Okay. So you're saying that the PKK is doing that to citizens?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Exactly. I mean, we didn't wake up one morning and start attacking these towns. Why should we? It is actually from a broader perspective. The PKK, who broke the internal processes which have been going on in Turkey with them from the start of 2015 and especially you know. Put in a high place with so many terroristic activities after the elections in Turkey. So that's why we had to take measures to stop those high profile terrorist incidents, as you have seen from the--

AMT: But you're making the point that they're going after civilians. This is always the problem. Civilians get caught in the middle. Isn't it incumbent upon the government to protect civilians? Regardless, isn't it incumbent upon you to find a way to do that as opposed to leave them stuck in the middle like that?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: No, no. You're totally right. And I totally agree. That's what the law enforcement agencies have been trying to do in Cizre and Sur and there are so many instances when an ambulance was called in to pick up, for example, a sick lady. When they approached they were fired by the PKK. I can provide a long list of similar events, but that's the responsible of law enforcement agencies to, first of all, take out the civilians and then, of course, deal with the terroristic units or elements. But if you have followed the Turkish press there are so many Kurdish inhabitants of these towns who complained or escaped-- You gave a number, the exact number of 39,000 in total in a couple of provinces. They escaped from the PKK blockage and they’ve said this in the Turkish public and media as well.

AMT: Turkey has been hit with a series of deadly suicide bombings in the last six months, two in the last week or so. How serious is the security threat in your country?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, the first one is of course related PKK. As you referred to, they have started very high profile attacks to civilian targets. I think there is no doubt that we will continue to fight this scourge and increase and step up security in the [indecipherable] as well. The second one is common threats. As part of the coalition Turkey is also facing this ISIL/DAESH threat as a national secretary threat and there were a couple of very highly deadly attacks. That's exactly what the ISIL or DAESH istrying to do against Turkey because we are part of the coalition. We have been fighting against this international scourge.

AMT: You know, your critics say that you are less concerned with fighting ISIS or DAESH and more concerned with getting rid of Bashar al Assad. How do you respond to that?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, I would ask them to ask the question to the civilians killed by ISIL/DAESH in the last year in Turkey. We have never supported this terror organization. It’s absurd, especially taking into consideration the fact that they have been attacking Turkey, Turkish civilian targets or military targets at the border as well.

AMT: Well, there are those who say that you look the other way, though, that you have a very porous border, that trade goes on, that you're more interested in going after the PKK inside Syria and Northern Iraq than you are going after ISIS. Not that you are working with them but that you are in fact being passive.

SELÇUK ÜNAL: No, I don't think that reflects the reality. Just this morning we have caught ten people who are trying to pass the border from Syria to Turkey who are ISIL members. Now, the border is 911 kilometres. And we have stepped up our security precautions to the maximum as possible. So far, in the last five years, we have caught more than 2,500 people and returned them. I mean, I'm talking about foreign fighters by the way who joined this organization, returned them to other Western countries. We have put more than 15,000 people on our blacklist for not entering Turkey, but there's another issue of the foreign fighters joining this ISIL, or organizations, PKK, PYD, in Syria. On that we need more international cooperation from our Western partners.

AMT: Well, let me ask you about that, because we know that Canadians have gone through Turkey to join ISIS. They get through your airport. Are your border people at all suspicious when people land in Turkey, like, of a certain demographic and age group traveling alone or that you think they're going to cross that border?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Yes. Let me first say that Turkey is a country of 78 million and just last year we have received 80 million passengers traveling through or to Turkey. Secondly, we have stepped up in the last two years and established special units at the ports of entry to assess the incoming people. For International Cooperation, which is very important, we expect all countries to provide any suspicious element, person to us in advance so we can take the necessary precautions and prevent people joining terror organizations in Syria.

AMT: I just want to clarify something. You mentioned that Wednesday security forces captured ten men suspected of being linked to ISIS in Southern Turkey. So southern Turkey, that same area is the area of PKK activity, am I correct?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Yes, but they were apprehended while they were trying to enter from Syria to Turkey and it was immediately understood that they were ISIL or DAESH members.

AMT: Okay. The other thing I was going to raise with you is that you are trying to fight the PKK in Southern Turkey, you have ISIS coming in, you have a war next door where you have allies like Canada the US working with the Kurdish regional government, which is located right on the edge of PKK-controlled territory—It’s a real jumble. How do you navigate that as a country knowing that your allies expect a certain level of cooperation from you?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Yeah. Let me first correct you on something. We, also as Turkey, have good relations with the Iraqi Kurdish [indecipherable] in Northern Iraq.

AMT: You have no quarrel with them?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Not at the moment.

AMT: Okay. Keep going.

SELÇUK ÜNAL: And that’s not very well known. We also support Iraqi central authorities in training their units. So we are taking the training issue in Iraq also seriously with our allies and the partners in the coalition. On the Syrian side, we believe the PYD, YPG, whatever you call it, is a sister organization of PKK and we warn everybody, of course, that support given to them should be very carefully assessed in the fight against DAESH because being a terror organization fighting another terror organization – which I mean DAESH - doesn't change your status actually. On that second note, of concern to us, of course, the arms and ammunition given to them should not be passed to any terror organization in the region. That's crucially important for all neighbours of Syria, I believe.

AMT: I want to pick up on something you mentioned earlier and that is how you are working on freedom of the press. The Turkish government has taken control of newspapers, a news agency, a television station. We spoke with Abdullah Ayasun, a journalist and editor with Today’s Zaman, shortly after that newspaper was taken over by government trustees. Listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

Zaman played an important role for anybody who cannot give its voice to the nation because of the government monopoly over media outlets. And considering its wide reach in society, it was of crucial importance for presenting independent and different voices.

AMT: Ambassador Ünal, why is the government doing that?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, let me also start by a correction. The government is not entitled to take over any media outlet anyway. What has been done was an implementation of a court order which believed that this paper and two affiliate organizations from the same media group has been involved in efforts to infiltrate the police and judiciary as well as change to government with different ways than a vote. So that's done by a court decision and we'll have to wait for the court processes—

AMT: Well, with all respect, sir, we've seen other countries where suddenly a journalist writing in a newspaper becomes a criminal because of the law. And even English PEN, just on Wednesday, published a report saying press freedom in Turkey has suffered an immense and systematic assault under President Erdoğan. It says journalists and media outlets are subjected to imprisonment, intimidation, harassment, and assault. How do you respond to that?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: No, I heard you, but what I'm trying to say is something different. When there's a court order there are also checks and balances. There was another case, and in that the court decided that two journalists who published a story regarding a spying case and so on and so forth should be kept in jail. But these two journalists, by using their individual rights of petition to the constitutional court the constitutional court decided that they should be released. And the court should continue without keeping them in jail. So the necessary checks and balances are present and available to all at every step of the judicial process. That's what I can say.

AMT: Well, you know, it is precisely the nature of your courts that have people concerned because people are still going on trial on issues that are questionable. The Turkish government has also been under fire for jailing three academics who signed a petition calling for peace talks between the government and the PKK. And last week we spoke to an academic who signed that petition. She spoke to us - she wouldn't allow us to use her name because she's afraid that even using it in Canada could hurt her safety. Listen how she describes that petition.

SOUNDCLIP

We still believe that has to do with freedom of expression. And that is not a crime. That should not be a crime. And the petition was actually calling for peace. So we were surprised, in that sense, that three academics can be detained because they expressed an opinion.

AMT: How do you respond to the concern that the government is jailing academics for expressing opinions?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Well, of course, I can't respond to the lady since I don’t want to ask her name. But there were two public statements made by certain academics. The first one was not giving any kind of reference to terroristic activities of the PKK and even not mentioning the nature of the organization. And it was, of course, by that nature, I think, very [indecipherable] There was a second one which defended more on the freedom of expression, that there is a difference between the petitions of the academics and There are so many people who signed up to that and only, I think, three have been on the court process. And, as I said, it's the court's decision that will decide the story behind.

AMT: You know, there have also been reports that there are something like 1,800 cases opened against Turkish citizens for insulting the president since he took on his role in August of 2014. So it becomes a question of the expression of political opinions. There is a difference, is there not, between terrorist activity and speech that makes a government uncomfortable?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: No, but insulting an authority – which means, like, a president or parliament or a prime minister – in different countries have different obligations in penal codes. For example, it's starts with five years of jail in France or some other countries have different implementations. I don't know the exact number of cases in that sphere, but I can just say that just yesterday there were two different separate cases that the courts, they declined and they have dropped the cases. So the court process in Turkey is in order and then taking the necessary steps according to the present legislation.

AMT: Just a clarification: That is no longer a criminal offense in France.

SELÇUK ÜNAL: That's good.

AMT: Yeah. Turkey has arguably been paying the biggest price outside of Syria for the war in Syria. What do you believe the world needs to know to understand about what it will take to end that war?

SELÇUK ÜNAL: I think we have to find a negotiated political statement, solution within the framework of UN. That's why we are supportive of and hopeful of Geneva talks. But from a realistic point of view, we also believe that foreign elements, countries who are involved in bombarding the civilians or [indecipherable] should also take into consideration while we are talking about peace. What I mean is we have to find a solution in Syria to prevent the exodus of the Syrian people, first of all, and secondly, we have to find a negotiated settlement in Syria. Otherwise the exodus of the Syrian people will continue and the instability created by the regime itself as well as other terror organizations in Syria will not stop. And that will have ripple effects in, not only for the neighbouring countries, but the whole world as well.

AMT: Ambassador Ünal, thank you for sharing your perspective today.

SELÇUK ÜNAL: Thank you.

AMT: Selçuk Ünal is Turkey's ambassador to Canada. He joined us from Ottawa. If you want to share your thoughts as you listen to him and let us know what you're thinking. You can reach us online. We're at cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the Contact link. You can also download the podcast, if you’re joining us partway through. Or listen right there, cbc.ca/thecurrent. Tweet us. We are on Twitter, @thecurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. I’m Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, and online at cbc.ca/thecurrent.

ISIS' signature bombs are unstable, easy to make, says chemist

Guests: Jimmie Oxley

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[applause]

VOICE 1: Mr. Speaker, today we begin to restore hope for the middle class. Today, we begin to revitalize the economy.

VOICE 2: I am very much still an addict so I don't want to risk going back into that lifestyle.

VOICE 3: Women also very often are the first ones to see when a society starts to break down. The risk of conflict and war.

VOICE 4: When I was young, I was segregated within High School. I wanted to be with my friends, right.

AMT: Just a taste of some of the week that was and is on The Current and I'm joined by this week's Friday host Laura Lynch, hi.

LAURA LYNCH: Hi, Anna Maria.

AMT: Let's get right to it, we’ve got lots to talk about. The new Liberal government's first budget was delivered Tuesday with a projected deficit of 29.4 billion dollars this coming fiscal year. Highlights in the budget include new spending for infrastructure and indigenous people. Yesterday on The Current, I was joined by Canada's Finance Minister Bill Morneau. This is what he had to say when I asked whether he was following in Paul Martin footsteps by low balling the price of oil so that a grim looking outlook now becomes a good news story later.

SOUNDCLIP

BILL MORNEAU: Well, we are, what we're doing is we're saying to Canadians that we're taking a prudent approach, we're actually showing in the budget what can happen if our growth is more significant than we expect so people can see it. We're being transparent with those numbers. We are planning on growth and we expect that our investments will have a significant impact.

AMT: Well, hearing that, Tim Bothwell of Calgary had this to say, why is there criticism of the Liberal governments under projection of revenues over the term of the budget. Being conservative about revenue projections is vastly more intelligent than aggressive pie-in-the-sky projections.

LAURA LYNCH: Christine McMillan is an 86-year-old from Kingston, Ontario, who had this to share: I believe we are on the right track to lift many Canadians out of a bleak future. Yes, the deficit is large, but at last we are addressing some basic needs of less well off Canadians. It is based on long term planning rather than the short term election span. The budget addresses basic social needs that will pay off in the future. There was also some criticism of Minister Morneau on Twitter after our interview with him. Chachmaster 3000 tweeted this: I'm sick of the vague, no straight answer style of communications politicians in power put on. While, Zappa Affected shared this comment: Only vague and dodgy, repetitive non-answers were given. As a Liberal government supporter, this makes me uneasy at best.

AMT: Well, let's move on to a different topic. This week's attack in Belgium, it took the perpetrators only about an hour to carry out coordinated bombings at two locations in Brussels. It has been reported that the attackers used an explosive known as TATP, a peroxide based chemical that has quickly become the Islamic State’s or ISIS’s calling card in Europe. Jimmie Oxley is a leading expert on TATP, she teaches chemistry at the University of Rhode Island, and that's where we reached her today. Hello.

JIMMIE OXLEY: Hello.

AMT: TAPT stands for what?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Triacetone triperoxide

AMT: How difficult is it to make a bomb with TATP?

JIMMIE OXLEY: The ingredients are fairly easy to come by which is why one of the reasons it's chosen. The putting it together, the chemistry involved requires extreme care, or you don't survive the event.

AMT: They're pretty volatile ingredients?

JIMMIE OXLEY: They're very sensitive. It's also volatile which means it has a strong odor, making it quite detectable by canines.

AMT: So, is it something they have to cook up? What do they do?

JIMMIE OXLEY: You do have to cook it up and you have to be very careful. When I say cook, lots of people think heat. Heat is the last thing you want to have around. You have to keep this cold while you're doing the reaction or you have a problem. But yes, you can't buy this stuff. You have to make it.

AMT: And what would make this an attractive option for those who are bombing?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Well, the first thing is they can acquire the ingredients. The EU, Canada, the US, Australia all have laws now that restrict explosive precursors, but a lot of these explosive precursors we use in our everyday life so they can't be totally restricted, so availability is one. They've been trained how to make it, and finally, it is easy to initiate. If they could steal military explosives, they'd still have to work out the initiation scheme and do some more theft. So here the initiation scheme is fairly straightforward.

AMT: And when you say initiation scheme what is you mean?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Well, if you look at an explosive, and we have lots of explosives in our lab, they just sit there, they don't do anything. How do you get them to react? The terrorists brought the explosive into the airport. It's that go signal that you have to give the explosive and that little spark or shock or spit of flame that initiates TATP.

AMT: So, detonate in other words. They actually set it off, right? And from what I've been reading they just needed nine volt batteries.

JIMMIE OXLEY: Well, they had nine volt batteries in some cases so, yes.

AMT: How does it compare to the explosives used by other bombers, suicide bombers or others, do you know?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Well, it depends on the area of the country, I should say of the world, on what's available to them. But there are only a few explosives that can function in a small size. By that I'm thinking of a suicide vest and I'm not sure that these were suicide vests. They had the option of the whole suitcase to put in their devices, but in a suicide vest or belt or underwear, or shoe, all those small spaces, only certain materials would work. And this is one of those materials. Things that you see the terrorists use in truck bombs are not appropriate for small spaces.

AMT: And that would be like the fertilizer bombs that we have seen in the past.

JIMMIE OXLEY: Yes.

AMT: Have we seen TATP used in the past?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Yes, it was first synthesized in the 1980s, or in the 1880s, excuse me, and in the 1980s, Israel started to see it for the first time and it was strictly an Israeli problem at that time. In 2001, we had a worldwide meeting of people interested in this explosive and there were 40 of us who went to the UK for that meeting, three from the US. At that time, I listed, I made a table of uses worldwide. It wasn't that common, but within two weeks of that meeting, we had Richard Reid and his shoe bomb. And it's kind of taken off from there.

AMT: And the Underwear Bomber was using it as well, it was also picked up?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Yes, now these were not, both the shoe bomb and the underwear bomb, this was not the only explosive involved, but it was the first explosive for the firing train, if you want to think of it like that.

AMT: In 2001, there were 40 people at that conference, how many would be there now?

JIMMIE OXLEY: [laughs] Well, it's hard to say. There is a lot more interest and I noticed I get notified on hits on our publications. I'm getting a lot of hits right now in our publication, hopefully from the right people.

AMT: You know, we do know that police have, in Belgium, found like 30 pounds of this in a raid. When you look at the damage done at the airport, there's speculation that that it was not solely suicide bombing, like solely suicide belts that were in those suitcases to create the kind of damage that we saw?

JIMMIE OXLEY: I suspect that they know that at this point because we are told that there was one suitcase that didn't function, so there's going to be a lot of forensics going on in that suitcase. Plus, they have the find in the apartment, so I think they have a pretty good idea. The damage to the two men with the gloves, one gloved hand, the damage to their bodies will say something about whether they were wearing the explosive or simply pushing the explosive. The damage in the airport is certainly appropriate for what might be 60 to 70 pounds of material. In other words, I’m saying two times the find.

AMT: And of course they often include, if it's a suicide bombing, they include metal pieces in order for shrapnel and greater damage, and hurt, and injury, right?

JIMMIE OXLEY: Yes, the shrapnel will go much further than the blast wave. So, you can be out of range of the blast very easily. The pressure falls off easily but the frags go everywhere. And, it's not just what they incorporated in the bomb and the bomb casing, it's all those windows. Every airport has that kind of problem. Everyone travels. They go to an airport and they've got lots of light because they have lots of windows.

AMT: Okay, well it's interesting to know the sort of the forensics behind this. Jimmie Oxley, thank you for your time today.

JIMMIE OXLEY: Thank you and I'd like to work in that I'm a University of British Columbia graduate, too.

AMT: Okay, well thank you for that. Jimmy Oxley, chemistry professor, UBC grad and professor at University of Rhode Island now.

LAURA LYNCH: Okay, let's move on.

SOUNDCLIP

ALLISON BREWER: The care required for people with Down syndrome knows they've got a real uphill battle ahead of them. That's one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. There might be a certain amount of extra care but it certainly isn't an uphill battle by any means.

LAURA LYNCH: That’s Allison Brewer, she is chairperson of Nova Scotia Down Syndrome Society and her son, 30-year-old Will Brewer lives with Down syndrome. Both Allison and Will were on The Current this week to reveal some truths about what it's like to live with Down syndrome. We spoke with them in light of the case of Felipe Montoya, a professor at York University whose residency application to stay in Canada was rejected. Canadian immigration officials argued Mr. Montoya's 13-year old son would be a burden on taxpayers because of his Down syndrome.

AMT: After the interview, Clare Hitchens tweeted this comment: My son with Down syndrome works, volunteers and contributes. Immigration law must be changed to reflect Canadian values of inclusion. Steve Lawson lives in Stittsville, Ontario and emailed this comment: As the father of a beautiful 13-year-old girl who has Down syndrome, I can say with complete confidence, my daughter is not and never will be an extra burden on Canadian society. Mr. Montoya's son, my daughter and every other child born with or without DS, arrives with a different set of circumstances. DS should not be a measuring stick to decide whether this family stays in Canada.

LAURA LYNCH: And here's one more comment. Helen Alston of Toronto says: There is a financial aspect, which is the reason that this family had problems . The costs of special help in school and assisted living, it is from financial costs, not the child's intelligence, that the government is protecting taxpayers

AMT: Well, moving on. Longtime Swedish social democratic politician Margot Wallstrom was given her government's foreign affairs portfolio in 2014. She decided Swedish foreign policy would be principled and explicitly feminist. The Foreign Affairs Minister and Deputy Prime Minister believes Syria's peace process would have a better chance of success if there were more women at the table. She joined me to discuss her feminist foreign policy Monday.

SOUNDCLIP

MARGOT WALLSTROM: If you bring women to the negotiating table, it will get more options on the table and it will stand a better chance to last longer, a peace agreement. Because almost half of peace agreements fail within five years, to include women, it will substantially increase the likelihood of peace agreements being not just reached but sustained.

AMT: Well, that idea garnered a lot of support. Sylvia Spring of Wakefield, Quebec had this to say: Is it not the implicit acceptance of male violence internationally and domestically that is the "trigger" to most of the horrors we have to deal with? Having more women at the table would guarantee a wider perspective to conflict resolution. Our feminist Prime Minister seems to understand this.

LAURA LYNCH: Okay, taking over. Scott Sullivan lives in Ottawa and shared this comment: Given the track record of male-dominated Foreign policy, we men can't point to a track record of success. A female inspired and led foreign policy surely could not do much worse. And here are a couple of comments from Facebook. Paul Gifford posted this: I've seen women-dominated offices, and there is not much peace going on there. So, I don't see how women think they are less aggressive, misleading, or manipulative than men. And Lyn Janice had this to say: This intelligent leader is rightfully directing First World negotiators to overtly nominate women in positions of power to be at the table. Critical mass includes women. Period.

UN peackeepers betrayed trust of the public, says former UN investigator

Guests: Robert Hotston

AMT: Okay, moving on.

SOUNDCLIP

EMMA PHILLIPS: The allegations were very ugly in nature. They involved mostly French peacekeepers in engaging in exchanges of food, military rations, biscuits, small amounts of food or money for oral sex, anal sex, I'm sorry to be so explicit but I think it is important to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations with young boys between the ages of nine and 13. They were mostly orphans, essentially homeless and they were hungry, and so they were approaching peacekeepers at checkpoints to ask for food and as I said, they were asked for these sexual acts in exchange.

AMT: That is Emma Phillips speaking on The Current two weeks ago. She's the counsel for the independent panel on sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeeping forces in the Central African Republic. Earlier this month the UN adopted a resolution to tackle the issue of sexual assault committed by peacekeepers in our interview with Emma Phillips. After that interview we were contacted by Robert Hotston, he is a former chief resident investigator with the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services in Haiti. He was there from 2011 to 2013. We reached him in Peterborough, Ontario. Hello.

ROBERT HOTSTON: Good morning.

AMT: What were you thinking as you listened to Emma Phillips?

ROBERT HOTSTON: Just another sad story in the ongoing tale of UN peacekeeping.

AMT: So, like here we go again.

ROBERT HOTSTON: Exactly, exactly. This is this is going on since at least 2002. There have been reports and it begs the question, what's being done, and when is it going to end?

AMT: Well, Emma Phillips was critical of the UN's new resolution to tackle the issue of sexual assault committed by its peacekeepers. What do you think of that new resolution?

ROBERT HOTSTON: It can only go so far. It's easy to put something down but if the resources aren't in place to actually investigate and make sure that the processes are actually followed, it does no good. It's just paying lip service.

AMT: So, take us back to your time in Haiti. What role were you expected to play?

ROBERT HOTSTON: I was the chief resident investigator with the peacekeeping mission responsible for about 12,000 peacekeepers. My active caseload was probably one fifth of the total caseload within the entire UN at that time, so lots of work and not just cases involving basically sex crimes but certainly fraud, arms trafficking, drug trafficking, things of that nature as well, so there was there was a lot of work.

AMT: Now, you're hired as an investigator. How open was the UN to having its own peacekeepers and staff investigated?

ROBERT HOTSTON: Personally, I did not find it hard to do the work. Now, having said that the people I work with were very open and wanted as much transparency as they could get. I know talking from some of the people who I work with that was not the case in some of the other peacekeeping missions.

AMT: We're talking specifically about sexual assault or exploitation or abuse right now. Can you give us some examples of cases that you were asked to investigate?

ROBERT HOTSTON: There were cases involving police officers working for the UN. We had one case involving a francophone gendarme who was involved with a 16-year old girl, transactional sex involved. We had another UN staff member involved basically in sex trafficking of a 14- year old girl, things of that nature.

AMT: The rules are pretty clear, right? No sexual contact between peacekeepers and civilians?

ROBERT HOTSTON: The actual rules are no sexual contact with anybody under the age of 18, and no transactional sex, no paying for sex or the use of food to trade for sex or things of that nature.

AMT: And in the end, how many cases did you find of inappropriate, or worse, behaviour?

ROBERT HOTSTON: You don't know how much is actually out there because there's certainly a lot of under reporting. Reporting takes place through a number of different means and there are lots of avenues for the information to come in and, having said that, there are certainly roadblocks that might pop up as well which prevents the information from being forwarded for investigative purposes.

AMT: So, in the cases that you investigated, did you investigate any Canadians?

ROBERT HOTSTON: Yes.

AMT: Can you tell me about that?

ROBERT HOTSTON: One involved a consensual relationship between a youth and a police officer and his girlfriend. And the other one involved what started as a transactional sexual situation where a UN officer used his firearm to basically force a Haitian prostitute into a sexual act.

AMT: You said he had a girlfriend. Would that have been an underage girlfriend?

ROBERT HOTSTON: No, at the time, my understanding was that she was over the age of 18. Having said that, if you are a peacekeeper from Canada, the rules say that you cannot engage in any sexual activity with anybody in the peacekeeping mission period. So, he may not have breached the UN rules, but he certainly would have breached the rules up here governing peacekeeper conduct.

AMT: You also investigated an officer from another country related to children at a local orphanage, am I right?

ROBERT HOTSTON: That's correct, yeah.

AMT: What was that about?

ROBERT HOTSTON: There was an allegation that a group of kids were on a beach on a long weekend and that they had inappropriate sexual contact with a number of peacekeepers.

AMT: And in the end were any peacekeepers held responsible for the actions, their actions in the cases you've just named?

ROBERT HOTSTON: In the situation involving the Francophone gendarme with the young girl, he was repatriated after our investigation. He went back to his home state, was investigated there as well and was, my understanding that he received a jail term of nine months. The one officer who was involved in the consensual relationship was suspended for nine days.

AMT: That's a Canadian?

ROBERT HOTSTON: That's correct. Our findings involving the kids on the beach, we did determine that something did take place but not with the group that we thought was involved. It was some other group.

AMT: So, in other words you couldn't prosecute.

ROBERT HOTSTON: That's correct and the UN doesn't prosecute. They will conduct the investigation, determine whether, based on the fact finding investigation whether the allegation is substantiated and then refer that information back to the state which deploys the peacekeeper.

AMT: So, you are doing a lot of investigations. How tough was that? What does that say to you that you're doing this on your own?

ROBERT HOTSTON: It was certainly challenging. At the time, the investigative time frame standard was 18 months. Now they've reduced that to six months. I wish them luck because the resources are just not in place. If there are investigators actually embedded with a peacekeeping mission, that's great. So they can they can basically start from the get go. If there are no investigators, then they have to be brought in from outside.

AMT: What's at stake for the UN if it does not get the sexual abuse investigations and resolutions right?

ROBERT HOTSTON: People are trusting the UN to come in with a peacekeeping mission and to do the right thing. You lose trust with the people who are brought in to help are actually harming.

AMT: Well, it's really important to hear your voice on this one, thank you for speaking with me.

ROBERT HOTSTON: Thank you very much.

AMT: Robert Hotston, former chief resident investigator with the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services in Haiti. We reached him in Peterborough, Ontario.

LAURA LYNCH: And finally this morning, methadone has become the go-to treatment for people addicted to painkillers and some addiction experts are warning that what was once seen as a cure is now a problem in itself. Friday on The Current, we heard concerns about the long term use of methadone.

SOUNDCLIP

We’re using methadone treatment rather indiscriminately. Methadone treatment, meth or maintenance treatment, in many ways is the hammer in the toolbox and what we need is more refined tools because in many ways what we should be achieving is that as many people as possible get off these drugs because maintenance in itself can be a problematic state.

LAURA LYNCH: After that story we heard from many of you on Twitter. Angela Rudden tweeted this: Therapy is an amazing tool but incredibly expensive, probably the last thing many methadone users can afford. Graham Nicholas posted this: One-size-fits-all treatment should end. If a patient is better suited to a maintenance dose of what works for them, use it. It works. And Michele Brandt says: I hope that questioning methadone does not undo the de-stigmatization of methadone that clinics have been working on! #treatment

[Music: theme]

AMT: And now it's time to give credit where credit is due. The Week That Was on The Current was produced by Idella Sturino, Julian Uzielli, Pacinthe Mattar, Howard Goldenthal, Ines Colabrese, Lara O'Brien, Catherine Kalbfleisch.

LAURA LYNCH: Shannon Higgins, Sujata Berry, Liz Hoath, Marc Apollonio, Sarah Grant, Karin Marley, Kinsey Clarke, and Vanessa Greco.

AMT: And a special thanks to Matthew Kupfer at CBC Ottawa.

LAURA LYNCH: The Current's writer is Peter Mitton. Our web producer is Lisa Ayuso, our technicians are Jennifer Rowley and Carole Ito and our senior documentary editor is Joan Webber.

AMT: Our senior producers are Richard Goddard in Toronto and Cathy Simon in Vancouver. The executive producer of The Current is Kathleen Goldhar.

LAURA LYNCH: To add to anything you hear on The Current, you can tweet us @theturrentcbc, and if you want to join the conversation about our season long project Ripple Effect, make sure to use #ripplecbc. You can find all our Ripple Effect stories by going to our website and clicking on Features. That's all at cbc.ca/thecurrent.

AMT: You can find us on Facebook, you can e-mail us from our web site cbc.ca/the current and while you're there subscribe to the podcast, check out the links in the pictures, everything @cbc.ca/the current. Laura Lynch, you are here tomorrow and Monday, Easter Monday.

LAURA LYNCH: Yes, I was just going to say two words, carpe diem, that's the hint. That's what you're going to hear.

AMT: Seize the day.

LAURA LYNCH: That’s it.

AMT: Okay, Laura Lynch, the Friday host and the Easter Monday host of The Current. That is today's edition of The Current. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, thank you for listening to The Current.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Mar. 24, 2016 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode