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 February 7, 2017

Host: Kelly Crowe

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

And last but not least, I’m going to do a calf call. I’m going to separate it from it’s mother.

[Sound: Moose call]

KELLY CROWE: A moose hunter demonstrates how to call a calf. But should people still be hunting calves with moose populations declining? We’ll hear arguments for and against moose hunt bans and talk about why this iconic Canadian animal is under threat. Then to Syria, and shocking new revelations from Amnesty International.

SOUNDCLIP

What is going on literally behind closed doors are crimes against humanity, systematic torture, widespread abuses, thousands of people who’ve died in the custody of the Syrian government.

KC: We'll go inside one of Syria's most notorious prisons, a place where few people leave alive. What are the prospects of holding those responsible for what's happened there guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Plus, protesting with your passport and boycotting travel to the USA.

SOUNDCLIP

I think if this were any company or any organization that had similar values, many would immediately choose to boycott that company or organization. We would never choose to go through the doors.

KC: That story in an hour. I'm Kelly Crowe sitting in for Laura Lynch. And this is The Current.

Back To Top »

Is it time to ban the hunt on moose calves?

Guests: Dave Pearce, Mark Ryckman, Jesse Zeman

SOUNDCLIP

As an avid moose hunter, I've seen them move from places they used to be, for example, Shoal Lake, near the Manitoba border, there was a lot of moose. People could hunt every species of moose, whether it's a bull, cow or calf. Today there is no moose there whatsoever.

KELLY CROWE: That's Derek Fox Deputy Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation. And he's not the only one who's noticed a steep decline in the moose population in Northern Ontario. Conservationists and First Nations alike have been sounding the alarm for years. And a recent report by Ontario's environment commissioner confirmed it. It found the moose population had dropped 20 per cent over the past decade. According to Derek Fox, that's a threat to his people's health and well-being.

SOUNDCLIP

If our people don't have access to moose meat, which has been in our diet for thousands of years, you know, it's just going to make them more sick. First Nations have an issue with high rate of diabetes and cancer, high blood pressure. A lot of that has to do to the food that we eat. We've been eating this food that's foreign to us for the past couple hundred years. And I believe that a part of the issue with diabetes. So if the mouse just suddenly disappears for example, you know, that we'd have a huge effect on our diet.

KC: One reaction to the declining numbers has been a call for a ban on hunting moose calves in Ontario. Dave Pearce is manager of forest conservation at the Wildlands League, an advocacy group that's calling for the ban. And he's with me now in our Toronto studio. Hello.

DAVE PEARCE: Good morning Kelly.

KC: Dave can you explain how hunting young moose became permitted in Ontario in the first place?

DAVE PEARCE: Well, back before the 1980s you could shoot any kind of moose, calf, bull, cow. And there was a big decline. So the Ministry of Natural Resources at that time instituted a selective harvest system, where they controlled the number of cows and bulls that could be killed. And sort of as a if you didn't in a lottery get a cow or a bull tag, you could actually as a consolation prize shoot a calf. And it was thought at that time that it wouldn't make any difference because calves will be killed by wolves or bears or die in the winter anyways. And since that time, they've shown that the calves die mostly in the first month of life. So that by the time they reached the hunting season, they're born in the spring April and May, by the time they reach the hunting season in October or November they're about 400 pounds. And those are the winners and they're the future of the population.

KC: Now this licensing system has been in place for decades. So how has the hunting of calves contributed to the current decline?

DAVE PEARCE: Well, it's thought that that people have gotten better at hunting calves. So access to the forests has increased over time, logging roads permeate a lot of the managed forest in the boreal and the northern forests. People have gotten better at hunting calves. They’ve figured out how to do it. The techniques are more improved. There’s high tech ways of hunting animals now. They even have moose decoys that allow maybe a calf to come out thinking it's a mama moose.

KC: Are there other influences on the decline as well, as just the hunting of the calves?

DAVE PEARCE: Yeah, absolutely. Climate change, parasites, increase in white tailed deer populations which carry a parasite that's fatal to moose. There's a lot of contributing factors. But this is an additional and simple fix that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry could do immediately while other impacts are being addressed.

KC: So what would you like specifically to see happen?

DAVE PEARCE: We'd like to see a ban on the hunting of calves across the board. That 20 per cent decline that you mentioned off the top sounds bad enough, but the last three years that decline has actually been accelerated. So most of that decline has happened really recently. And in some places of the province it’s more than 60 per cent decline.

KC: OK. I'm going to bring in another point of view here. Mark Ryckman is the senior biologist at the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He's also a hunter. And we've reached him in Peterborough. Hello.

MARK RYCKMAN: Good morning.

KC: Mark Ryckman, restrictions have been in place on moose hunting in the last couple of years. Why don't you think these changes will address the decline?

MARK RYCKMAN: Well, for me my concern is that, you know, the calf harvest has been itself decreasing for a long time. The total calf harvest has been decreasing and yet we still notice a decline in some of these moose populations. So my biggest concern is that the calf hunting opportunity, even though the vast majority, probably 80 90 per cent of moose hunters have absolutely no desire to harvest a calf and won’t, that's really the only opportunity that a lot of these people have to get out into the bush and reconnect with nature and maintain that aspect of their hunting heritage. So I have a concern with anybody who suggests removing that, eliminating that important aspect of our hunting heritage to do something that won't actually solve the moose problem. We have much greater issues that we need to be concerned with and I'm not willing to accept a token gesture by the government that we know will not reverse or even stabilize any of these moose population declines.

KC: Now, Mark Ryckman, what do you say to the fact that there are more moose hunters in Ontario than there are actual moose?

MARK RYCKMAN: Well, that’s actually incorrect and it's been repeated several times. There are more moose licenses sold than there are moose in the province. There are not that many active moose hunters in the province. There are only about 70 or 75,000 moose hunters in the province, which is still a lot of moose hunters. But we've seen moose hunting itself decline as a result of these moose population declines. So it's incorrect to say that there are as many moose hunters, or active moose hunters at least, as there are moose.

KC: But there are more licenses issued than there are moose?

MARK RYCKMAN: Absolutely. And that speaks to, I guess, my previous point, that the vast majority of hunters have no desire to harvest a calf. So you have to purchase that license in order to apply to the lottery for a bull or a cow tag. And if you are not successful, a lot of these people simply won't go hunting. And that explains the 20,000 hunter difference between the 98,000 licenses sold and the, say, 75,000 active hunters in a given year. A lot of those people simply didn't go hunting because they didn't have access to a bull or a cow hunting opportunity.

KC: Now what other factors do you think are contributing to the decline in moose?

MARK RYCKMAN: I mean, Dave is absolutely right. And I think one of the most difficult things is that unit to unit, even between northwestern Ontario and northeastern Ontario, the causes aren't the same. They're largely unknown. We have a suite, we have a list of potential factors. These factors are going to vary across the province in their intensity and their impact. But he's absolutely right that climate change is a concern. White tailed deer populations. We have a largely unknown constitutionally protected Indigenous harvest and I bring that up because it is very difficult for the managing authorities, the Ministry of Natural Resources, to ensure the sustainability of a licensed moose hunt when we have absolutely no idea what Indigenous communities are harvesting. You know, black bear predation is a significant factor potentially. We don't know for sure. Maybe wolf populations have been aided by all of the roads that we've cut through the bush in Northern Ontario, in terms of their search and hunting efficiency on moose. So there are a lot of factors, there probably isn't a single factor that is causing a particular moose population decline. It’s probably just a combination of, I guess a cumulative effect if you will. And we really need to double down. We need to invest heavily in monitoring assessment and research to figure out what these factors are, how they're impacting moose populations and do what we can to fix it.

KC: Dave Pearce, what do you think? I mean, what contribution would the ending of the calf hunting have on the decline?

DAVE PEARCE: Well it's interesting that, good morning Mark by the way.

MARK RYCKMAN: Morning.

DAVE PEARCE: Interesting that Mark should say that it’s not effective. His organization's own magazine in 2013 published an article that indicated that dropping the calf kill by half could actually boost the adult tag allocation by 10 to 50 per cent. So it's really interesting that he says this. Also, the number of calves killed is going down as Mark said. But the overall population is going down as well. And the proportion of calves killed to adults is actually quite high. It's surprisingly high, it can be up to 50 per cent of the total harvest is in calves. So I would disagree that it's not significant. And I would say that in many of these wildlife management units, every calf counts.

KC: How long would it take to see a change?

DAVE PEARCE: That's unknown. We're, you know, it takes three to four years for calves to start reproducing themselves and becoming the age where they can have calves of their own. And so it would take a bit of time potentially.

KC: Now, Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry says it's not considering an outright ban but its spokesperson Jolanta Kowalski says it introduced some moose hunting reforms in 2015.

SOUNDCLIP

One of the several changes that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry made was to significantly shorten the moose calf hunting season to just two weeks. And the goal was to reduce calf harvest directly. So we're trying to take a measured and balanced approach.

KC: So Dave Pearce, what do you think of that measured and balanced approach?

DAVE PEARCE: We don't think it's going to work. Most moose hunters take a week at the most anyways to hunt. And they would simply shift their hunting periods, so you’d have an intensification over a shorter period of time, likely wouldn't work.

KC: Mark Ryckman, as someone who's taken part in many hunting seasons What do you think Ontario should do to slow the drop in numbers?

MARK RYCKMAN: Well just to speak to what Dave said quickly earlier, in that we did publish that article, and some of the recent season changes that Jolanta Kowalski mentioned resulted between 2014 and 2015 in that 50 per cent roughly reduction in calf harvest. So we're actually in the middle of, if you will, some sort of natural history experiment, where we've made some changes to the licensed moose hunt and we essentially can sit back for a year or two and continue to monitor and assess the potential impact of that season change. So the calf harvest dropped from about 1,400 per year to about 800 in 2015. So it's going to be very, I'm open to being convinced, but it's going to be very difficult to convince me that 800 calves harvested out of a population of 92,000 is a conservation concern.

KC: So do you think there should be some action taken to slow the decline in moose?

MARK RYCKMAN: Well as I said, the Ministry of Natural Resources made these changes. So even though we didn't agree with some of the details of those changes, they went ahead with them anyway. And we need to give them an opportunity to work. If we keep making changes willy nilly, we'll never know exactly what the main influential factors were and what actually works to improve those moose populations. So for now, for the next couple of years, three four maybe, we'll have to monitor and assess the changes that were made. And like I said, we have a, and Dave would agree, we have a long list of potential factors that the MNRF should have been researching potentially for the last five, ten, 15 years that we've been calling them to do it, but they haven't. So ultimately, we need to start investing in research and monitoring in case that these season changes do not have the effect that we want.

KC: OK. Let's leave that there. Dave Pearce is the manager for forest conservation at the Wildlands League. He's in Toronto. And Mark Ryckman is senior biologist at the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. And he's in Peterborough. It's not only Ontario that’s seeing significant declines in moose population. Last year, British Columbia found that moose populations had plummeted in certain areas by 50 to 70 per cent in the past decade. The BC government announced 1.2 million in new funding to address the issue. BC has also reduced the number of hunting permits issued for moose cows and calves from about 1,800 in 2011 to just 200 last year. Jesse Zeman is a resident priority program manager with the BC Wildlife Federation. And he joins us from Kelowna. Hello.

JESSE ZEMAN: Morning.

KC: We just heard a debate over whether Ontario should halt its moose calf hunt. Given what you've seen in BC, how useful do you think that would be?

JESSE ZEMAN: We've had that what you mentioned, the 50 to 70 per cent decline across most of the central interior part of the province. And in those areas, we've had actually three different moose hunting regimes. One of them where they talk about the cow calf harvest, we've had that. We've recently closed that. But in the two areas where we didn't have a licensed cow calf harvest or where we had closed it decades prior, we've also seen those population declines. So I think what Mark is referring to is, you know, in terms of the bigger picture, what's driving moose populations. And chances are what's driving most populations is not the licensed hunter cow harvest.

KC: What is it do you think?

JESSE ZEMAN: I can speak to BC a lot better than I can speak to Ontario. We've been monitoring our cow moose survival for the last four years. What we found is about half of the mortality is through predation, things like bears and wolves. We found a lot through unlicensed hunting, and we've actually had a few that have starved to death, which is a bit unusual for moose. A lot of where we're seeing these declines is where we've also had the pine beetle epidemic. So we've had salvaged logging and we've done a lot of learning through that. A few of the important things that we've noted is one, subalpine fir in the winter time is a major food source for moose, it makes up about 50 per cent of their diet. And when we log, we actually log subalpine fir, but quite often we don't replant it. So things like moose food are really important and we are sometimes making decisions unilaterally against moose food for other priorities.

KC: Does that include forest fire suppression as well?

JESSE ZEMAN: Yeah, absolutely. Habitat is really a big driver for moose productivity and fire suppression is huge. Moose like young forests. That's where moose food grows. On the silviculture end, we also find that our forests licensees are held to a certain standard in terms of regenerating the forest. And we actually to manage deciduous food, which is moose food, deciduous trees, we actually suppress them with herbicide.

KC: Now your group has called for a so-called moose tax. What would that look like and how would that work?

JESSE ZEMAN: Yeah. For natural resource management you need three pillars. You need funding, science, and social support. And on the funding side, if you don't have money you really can't do much. So what we've discussed is first of all, dedicating all the license fees from hunting back into the resource. And then secondly, a discussion, which is a broader discussion maybe nationally, about how do we increase the amount of funding for moose or also biodiversity conservation? And in the United States, they have a similar example of an excise tax, which between fishing and hunting gear generates about a billion dollars a year across the United States.

KC: So this tax would be on sporting goods and that sort of thing?

JESSE ZEMAN: Yeah that's the idea. What we're finding is there's a lot of people in Canada who are really concerned about the trajectory of biodiversity. And that they are probably willing to contribute more. And so then the question becomes how do you take money from people who want to put money in to make a bigger pot and take care of Canada's biodiversity? And that would be one approach.

KC: Now, the problems you've described sound bigger than just something you could solve with money. I mean, climate change and habitat change and all these other sort of major forces in nature. What can you really do?

JESSE ZEMAN: Yeah, absolutely. Well, I guess the first thing is you have to monitor it to measure it. And so without money we can't properly fund science. That's I think the biggest challenge. Even in terms of what we're learning in BC with our smaller scale project is, you know, silviculture practices, road density, that we have unregulated harvests are all having a significant impact. And those are things that we didn't know about just a few years ago. So when you have these large landscape level research projects, quite often you're able to point to what these causal factors are in moose population declines. Without money, and I think this is kind of what we're talking about in Ontario is if you aren't properly investing in this resource, it will decline and you aren't going to know why. And as a result, you start to take more of a shotgun approach without really making an informed decision.

KC: Now is this happening all across the country or are there some places where moose numbers are steady?

JESSE ZEMAN: It's interesting, even in British Columbia there's one area where the moose population seems to have held steady. And then in some places it's actually increased. And it seems in the prairies actually we've seen moose population expansion. And they believe that's tied more to canola than anything else. But broadly, Ontario, Manitoba, you know, Northern Saskatchewan, parts of Alberta and parts of BC have seen significant declines in moose population.

KC: OK. Well, thank you very much for talking with me.

JESSE ZEMAN: Thank you.

KC: Jesse Zeman is a resident priority program manager with the BC Wildlife Federation. He's in Kelowna, BC. What do you think? Is it time to ban the hunt on moose calves or do we need other reforms? Just go to our website and click on the contact link. That's cbc.ca/thecurrent. We have a minute for a little levity on the subject of moose hunting. One of the young Woody Allen's most famous bits as a stand-up comedian involved a moose hunting trip. As the story goes, he was driving back to the city with a moose strapped to the hood of his car, when he realized the moose was still alive. And then he had a great idea of how to ditch him, take the moose to a costume party.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: crowd laughing]

WOODY ALLEN: The moose mingles.

[Sound: crowd laughing]

WOODY ALLEN: Did very well. Scored.

[Sound: crowd howling]

WOODY ALLEN: Some guy was trying to sell him insurance for an hour and a half.

[Sound: crowd laughing]

WOODY ALLEN: 12:00 comes, they give out prizes for the best costume of the night. First prize goes to the Berkowitzs, a married couple dressed as a moose.

[Sound: crowd laughing]

WOODY ALLEN: The moose comes in second. The moose is furious. He and the Berkowitzs lock antlers in the living room.

[Sound: crowd laughing]

WOODY ALLEN: They knock each other unconscious. Now I figure here's my chance, I grab the moose strap him on my fender and shoot back to the woods. But I got the Berkowitzs.

[Sound: crowd laughing]

KC: That's Woody Allen and part of his famous moose routine. The CBC News is next. Then inside Syria’s notorious Saydnaya prison. I'm Kelly Crowe and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

Inside the prison Amnesty International calls Syria's human slaughterhouse

Guests: Nicolette Waldman, Bill Wiley

KELLY CROWE: Hello I'm Kelly Crowe sitting in for Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

KC: Still to come, US President Donald Trump's travel ban may have been temporarily stayed by a federal judge, but many Canadians say there's still no longer interested in traveling to the USA. We'll hear from those boycotting American travel in solidarity with the citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries that the Trump administration has moved to ban. But first, inside the prison Amnesty International calls Syria’s human slaughterhouse.

[Music: Theme]

KC: Two weeks ago, Turkey and Russia arranged for the first round of peace talks to bring an end to the bloody fighting in Syria. Against that backdrop, the fighting still continues and the death toll continues to mount. But according to a new report released this morning by Amnesty International, not all the deaths are a result of battles or bombs. The report, Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination in Saydnaya Prison, chronicles systemic killings and abuse of prisoners in Syria's notorious Saydnaya prison. Before we go on, a word of warning that the findings are brutal and gruesome. Nicolette Waldman is the author of the Amnesty International report. She spoke with Laura Lynch from London, England.

LAURA LYNCH: Can you start by telling us about the prison?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: Yeah. Saydnaya prison is located about 30 kilometres from Damascus. And it ends up being a destination where people are sent after they are arrested by the security forces and usually interrogated over the course of weeks or months. Once that process has finished, they are sent to Saydnaya and for many people it's the last place they will ever be sent because they die at the prison.

LL: Well I want to get to that. But tell me first what kinds of prisoners are being held there?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: So the vast majority of prisoners at the red building, where the massive violations are taking place at the main building on the premises of the prison, are civilians. The most common profiles are demonstrators, longtime political dissidents, human rights defenders, journalists, humanitarian aid workers. These are the fabric of Syrian society and oftentimes the only thing that they have in common is that they are perceived by the Syrian authorities to oppose them in some way.

LL: What did you find out about the treatment of those prisoners?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: The treatment of the prisoners at Saydnaya is almost difficult to comprehend. There is a series of sadistic and dehumanizing rules that are imposed from the minute they enter Saydnaya. And what was so chilling about the testimonies that I took over the last year is that they were so consistent. And basically what happens is that they are told to not make any sound, even when they are being tortured. When a guard comes into the room and they have to run to the back of the cell, cover their eyes with their hands and assume the position and if they even glance at the guards they might be killed. But in addition to these horrible, degrading set of rules, including sometimes rape and other sexual violence, they are also systematically tortured and deprived of basic necessities. And when I'm talking about basic necessities, I'm not talking about soap or shampoo or something like this, I'm talking about water, food, medicine, and medical care. This means that people end up dying horrible deaths at Saydnaya from completely treatable illnesses and diseases. They die of starvation, of thirst, of infections and these horrible diseases. And as well, they're dying of the mass hangings that we cover in the report.

LL: And I will get to that as well. But how many prisoners are estimated to have died as a result of mistreatment?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: What we found at Saydnaya prison, which is just one of the many prisons in the network of prisons throughout Syria, is that hundreds and probably thousands have died as a result of these extermination policies. The repeated torture and the deprivation of food water and medicine. And this is since 2011, we can't say exactly how many have died at Saydnaya. But in 2006 in August, we made the estimate with the help of a human rights data analysis group that at least 17,700 people have died as a result of torture and inhuman conditions in Syria's government prisons.

LL: You also, as you say, documented mass hangings. How are they carried out?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: Every week and sometimes twice a week, groups of up to 50 people are taken out of their cells, they are told that they will be transferred to a civilian prison. And this is very good news for most detainees because there is a chance that they might get released. Instead, they're taken down to a room in the basement of the prison where they are severely beaten over the course of several hours. They're then transported to another building on the grounds of Saydnaya, of the prison, and they're taken into the execution room and they're hanged to death. During the process of the hangings they are blindfolded. They don't know how they will be executed or when they will be executed until the nooses are actually placed around their necks.

LL: And how many people have been killed that way?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: Looking back since 2011, we estimate that as many as 13,000 people have been hanged to death at Saydnaya military prison. And what we also found is that basically we were able to document this up until December 2015. This is where we have testimony and this is where we have the evidence. But there is no reason to believe that these hangings have stopped and that they're not even just going on even this week.

LL: How did you manage to get the information?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: We researched this report over the course of a year. So from December 2015 to December 2016. And during that time we carried out interviews mostly in southern Turkey and some remotely with people still in Syria, people in Lebanon, Jordan, Europe and America. And we managed to find former guards and former officials from Saydnaya who provided very important evidence about how these hangings are taking place, and then how the bodies are actually taken to mass graves after the hangings. And then we were also able to find 31 former detainees from Saydnaya who were eyewitnesses to the various stages of the process. We also interviewed seven former judges and lawyers in Syria and then several experts, national and international, on detention in Syria over the course of that year. And through a long process of analysis and cross checking, we were able to build a step by step picture of how these hangings are carried out since 2011 and we believe even to this day.

LL: Do you have any independent evidence of the mass graves, are there any photographs?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: We have not been allowed into Syria by the authorities since 2011, despite the fact that we've asked regularly. So we haven't been able to get the corroborating photographs of these mass graves. However, we were able to collect satellite images of what the graves looked like in 2011. And so basically we're able to compare the grave in 2011 and then what it looked like after that and after that and it's very clear that many more bodies are being buried there.

LL: Did you contact the Syrian government?

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: Yes, we have contacted the Syrian government repeatedly since 2011. The most recent request was in December 2016. We never heard anything back.

LL: Nicolette Waldman, thank you.

NICOLETTE WALDMAN: Thank you.

KC: Nicolette Waldman is the author of Amnesty International report Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination in Saydnaya Prison. She spoke with Laura Lynch from London, England. The Amnesty International report is the latest account of harrowing abuse in Syria. As you heard our last guest say, this kind of documentation is important for holding regime officials accountable for their actions. Last Wednesday, the first court case was filed against members of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. An advocacy group called Guernica 37 filed a complaint in a Spanish court against nine Syrian officials for the detention and death of a Syrian man named Abdul. While none of the accused is in Spanish custody, the case was registered as a complaint on behalf of Abdul’s sister who is now a Spanish citizen. Our next guest had a role in collecting some of the evidence being used in the Spanish case. Bill Wiley is the Executive Director and founder of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability. And he's a Canadian. His organization specializes in gathering evidence to prosecute war crimes. He's been collecting that kind of documentation in Syria since the conflict began in 2011. Laura Lynch spoke with Bill Wiley from an undisclosed location in Europe.

LL: Now I want to get to the subject at hand, but first I just wanted to ask you why do you want us to not disclose your location?

BILL WILEY: Well, we're in the business so to speak, of establishing individual criminal responsibility for amongst others, high and highest level Syrian regime perpetrators. So we feel that discretion is the better part of valor and don't disclose our location publicly.

LL: Now how significant is the complaint that has been filed in the Spanish court last week?

BILL WILEY: Well it's quite significant. Most especially from a symbolic point of view. It’s very similar to the Amnesty report in that these sorts of initiatives, whilst they take different forms, are very important to bring attention of the public policy makers, political actors to the ongoing, the past and ongoing crimes of the Syrian regime.

LL: And you've been gathering documentation for the last five years to build evidence for a war crimes case against Syrian officials. How does your work differ from the research that a group like Amnesty does?

BILL WILEY: Well, we share an objective, which is ultimately to see some form of justice, including criminal justice brought to bear in a situation such as the Syrian conflict. But the approach is quite different, at least in my opinion. This Spanish initiative or the Amnesty initiative, and of course that's not Amnesty’s first report concerned with Syria. Ultimately, they're concerned, these reports, these initiatives are concerned with issues of victimization. A criminal investigation starts with that but documenting crimes or the physical acts that that Nicolette explained to you, the torture, the abuse, the extrajudicial killings, in a complex war crimes investigation, that's about 10 per cent of that work. The other 90 per cent is concerned with establishing criminal responsibility of individuals, and in particular high and highest level individuals such as President Assad. And so that requires a very careful painstaking, time consuming rebuilding of the structures, in particular military security intelligence structures that these high level actors control.

LL: So in that kind of investigation, what is the most important evidence that you're collecting?

BILL WILEY: The key form of evidence in a complex international criminal investigation is always documentation generated by the perpetrating structures. And so for example, if we take the Amnesty report, it’s concerned with the security and intelligence structures in Syria, and most especially the military intelligence structures, and above that in Syria you have something called the National Security Bureau that reports to President Assad. So whereas Amnesty in this case, and they've done a very good job I must say, has concerned itself with what we call crime based or a crime scene, if you will, that being Saydnaya prison. What our group does is understands how Saydnaya prison fits into the military intelligence structures and who ultimately controls those structures at the uppermost levels.

LL: How is the evidence collection going then?

BILL WILEY: It’s going very well. To date, over the last four years, we've extracted about a little over 700,000 pages of material from Syria. That is pages of military and security intelligence and some political documentation generated by the Syrian regime itself. And then we couple that with the second most important form of it, information and evidence, when you're building these linkage cases is insider witness testimony. That is the testimony of individuals who have served within these perpetrating structures. So no, we're quite far ahead. We have a number of completed case files that are ready for international prosecution at such time as a suitable adjudicative or prosecutorial body is established.

LL: Those sources who are willing to tell you what they thought inside the regime, what kind of risks are they taking?

BILL WILEY: It depends, I would say on the whole if we speak about Syrian regime crimes, they themselves are taking limited physical risks because they are outside of Syria. The risks in a case like that are generally connected with family members that they met, perhaps left behind in country, in regime controlled areas. But I don't want to denigrate their contribution, but from a physical risk point of view, it's at the present time it’s limited.

LL: So what is the biggest challenge for you then?

BILL WILEY: The biggest challenge is probably twofold. First is collecting documentary materials in the field. Acquiring them through our links with armed opposition groups is not a huge problem, we still have several hundred thousand pages in our possession within Syria. The real risks arise from moving the material across very fluid confrontation lines and ultimately across international waters and into the West, into Europe for digitalization and analysis. And then the second issue is as with any non-profit, or non-profit foundation is of course maintaining our staffing levels and ultimately ensuring we have enough money. But Canada and other governments have been very very supportive in this respect.

LL: Why aren't governments themselves doing these investigations?

BILL WILEY: There’s a number of reasons for that. It's certainly not something that your listeners should ascribe to sloth or a lack of interest. Partly it's lack of resources. National war crimes units in Canada and elsewhere have very very limited human and financial resources relative to other criminal investigative areas, counter-terrorism for example. And then the real fundamental problem that public authorities face, whether it's national authorities or indeed international bodies, UN human rights investigations and so forth, is the physical risks inherent in operating in a midst of a high intensity conflict such as Syria, very very high. And realistically, public authorities other armed forces can't be expected to take these risks.

LL: So you say you've got several cases ready to go. Are they against current members of the regime, former members of the regime? Have you got a case against Assad?

BILL WILEY: We do we do. One of the first cases we completed three years ago, which interestingly enough, given your focus today is concerned with detention operations, not in Saydnaya per se, but in other detention facilities. So we have that case. We a number of regional security intelligence cases completed and additionally some military cases involving armed forces, violations of the law of armed conflict.

LL: OK. But I'm just trying to clarify, have you actually got a case against Bashar al-Assad?

BILL WILEY: Oh absolutely. We have a very strong case, indeed cases that at such time as a properly constituted court is established and Mr. Assad is taken into custody. And it will happen. It may take five years or ten years that there will be a successful prosecution of President Assad based on the materials that have already been collected and put into more than one case file.

LL: Now is there a chance that any of the former regime officials may have blended into the refugee process and are in Europe now?

BILL WILEY: It definitely is happening. As your listeners will know, the Syrian diaspora into Europe in particular, now involves some hundreds of thousands of people. And we work with quite a few different domestic authorities at the present time, 12 different countries in fact, most of which are European. They're bringing a suspect list to us to check against our evidence reholdings and our names database and so forth. And then we're aware from our own information, collection efforts in the field that there is some mid and upper mid-level perpetrators have found their way into Schengen, the border, the passport free area within the European Union.

LL: Are any of them in custody?

BILL WILEY: Some low level perpetrators are in investigative custody in continental Europe. The higher level individuals that we're aware of are not. And hopefully that's going to change very very soon.

LL: How concerned are you that they might get away?

BILL WILEY: I'm not terribly concerned about that. It's not terribly hard to track the individuals. As a general rule, the ones that make their way to the west have lesser financial means than those that, say, go into the Gulf region. So finding the individuals, even if one has temporarily lost them is not a huge huge challenge. And frankly, they don't really have anywhere to go. I suppose they could try to get back into Syria through Turkey, but in the main they don't have travel documents and so forth. So basically they're for the most part they're stuck. I don't want to sound complacent here but when we speak about international criminal justice, it's highly symbolic first. And what I mean by that is at the end of the day, a very minute fraction of the perpetrators from a conflict such as Syria will ever be brought to criminal justice. And secondly we are playing a fairly long game here. But justice is coming.

LL: As far as you know none has made it to North America though?

BILL WILEY: Uh. [chuckles]

LL: Oh that sounds like an interesting answer.

BILL WILEY: No, I’m not seeking to hide anything here. I don't want to say, as far as I know the answer is no. And I don't want to open a political can of worms at home because I'm aware that Canada has taken a large number of people. Certainly we’re not aware of any suspects in Canada, if we were we would have alerted the Canadian authorities. The screening processes have been very very good in fact, absolutely top drawer. And United States, even prior to Mr. Trump taking over he had a quite careful and restrictive screening procedures as well. So there's always the possibility that a low level perpetrator or perpetrators may slip through the, if you will, the North American screening net, but that a higher level official has got through is, it's always possible, but I would think quite unlikely.

LL: You're tipping your hat as to suggesting these cases may be laid or charges may be laid imminently. How soon do you expect your evidence to be used in a war crimes prosecution?

BILL WILEY: Well, some of our evidence has been used in one prosecution in Germany in fact, in 2015. There's a number of individuals in custody and these are really low level perpetrators, which wouldn't normally concern our group per se. But they are of concern to domestic authorities. So we’ve handed over quite a bit of evidence in these cases. What's of most interest to us is those cases where we've identified quite serious perpetrators on a level or even slightly above the sorts of perpetrators found in a place like Saydnaya prison. And those are perpetrators that we identified in Europe and we’ve built the cases and in turn taken them discreetly to domestic authorities. We don't work publicly, the CIJA. Of course I'm happy to do interviews like this and particularly if it reconnects me with home. But, you know, we're not an advocacy group, we're purely a criminal investigative body. So in the main we work quietly, because we're not trying to change attitudes, we're trying to build cases.

LL: As you say, as we've talked about building these kinds of cases for many many years, I wonder what about the Syrian situation stands out for you?

BILL WILEY: The Syria situation is as serious and perhaps more serious than any conflict that I've been involved in over the last 20 years. The scale of degradation of victims, of prisoners is at a level that I’m not generally familiar with. Some of the crimes by Islamic State in particular are unusual, sexual slavery and this sort of thing is not something I've seen almost any of in my career. So it's quite a bad war and it's saddened me greatly to see the way Syrians are treating one another.

LL: Well, we'll watch the cases as they go forward. Thank you.

BILL WILEY: Thank you so very much for having me.

KC: Bill Wiley is the Executive Director of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability. Laura Lynch spoke with him from an undisclosed location in Europe. We requested an interview with the Syrian government but received no response. Coming up in our next half hour, protesting the US Presidential travel ban by imposing one of their own. Canadians who are boycotting travel to the USA. I'm Kelly Crowe and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

How a brain tumour changed Madeleine Hardin's life for the better

Guests: Madeleine Hardin

KELLY CROWE: Hello, I'm Kelly Crowe and this is The Current.

[Music: The Disruptors Theme]

KC: All this season on The Current as part of our project The Disruptors, we've been sharing some of your own personal moments of disruption. These are your stories about the moments that forever changed your lives. Madeleine Hardin is one listener who got in touch about her moment of disruption. Here it is.

MADELEINE HARDIN: When the brain tumor was discovered, I was 58-years-old. I'm now 61. And I can honestly say that my life has never been better than it is now.

[Music: eery ambient vibrations]

MADELEINE HARDIN: I was very ambitious, I was an Associate Dean at my university. I was hoping to even become a vice president. It was a crazy busy time. My eye doctor in a routine checkup discovered I was blind in the upper left quadrant of both eyes. And so he sent me for a brain scan, a CT scan. And then the doctor came out and got kind of serious and injected a dye, contrast dye into me. I was joking with my husband and I said oh well maybe I have a brain tumor. And the doctor looked at me and she said you do. And it's as big as a baseball. [sarcastic chuckle] And she said but we don't think it’s cancerous but we don't know for sure. Well, it's what I call a holy crow moment. I mean, it's scary and unexpected.

[Music: melodic spacey tones]

MADELEINE HARDIN: I was asymptomatic, I never even had a headache. When it first happens you just walk around in disbelief for a little while. You know for sure that life will never be the same again, you just don't know in what way it won't be the same again. I mean, you're just sort of stunned. I was immediately put into emergency admittance and then transported by ambulance to another hospital, where I stayed until my brain surgery eight days later. And so you have eight days to kind of wrap up your affairs, make sure everything's in order. Luckily I had a will and all of that already. And you’re told that one of the grave side effects of the surgery could be death. You're on this trajectory and all you can do is walk it. And, you know, I had a saying at that time and it was when you're in hell just keep on walking. So I just kept on walking and doing what had to be done every day until the surgery.

[Music: melodic spacey tones]

MADELEINE HARDIN: It's quite possible the steroids I was on were somewhat hallucinogenic because I saw everyone as a Buddhist monk around me. [laughs] I felt like I was loved and cared for. But during the surgery itself, I had what I call a near-death experience or anyway some sort of transcendent experience, where I was a point of light floating in a place as big as a mountain or a world I don't know. I felt like I was in the sea of love. That's how I’d describe it. And I heard the most transcendent and beautiful music. And I woke up and I told everyone all about it. It was so beautiful in fact, I told my neurosurgeon about it a few months later and I said I heard the most beautiful music while I was being operated on. I'm sure it was divine. And he kind of nodded and he said yeah, well, you know Madeleine, I always play Steven Halpern’s soul music when I'm operating. And I laughed a lot because I had told everyone they had that to look forward to when they passed over. But instead you just have to go out and buy the CD.

[Music: melodic spacey tones]

MADELEINE HARDIN: I lost my sense of direction. It's like losing your sense of smell or something, it was something I always just depended on. I had lost my ability to multitask. I used to tell my doctor that I really had to get better quickly, because I had to finish my dissertation. [laughs] And he looked at me and he said Madeleine you've accomplished enough in your life, you don't need that. And it took a while for me to agree with him. For me to realize that I didn't have to work anymore. I didn't have to accomplish what I thought I had to accomplish, that it wasn't about building up my CV or my career anymore. At first after my surgery I had to learn to walk and talk again. Your brain takes 25 per cent of your body's energy and unless you've had a brain injury, you don't know how exhausting that is. It took me about two years to settle down and realize that I really was if you like retired, and that my life was different.

[Music: soft harmonic tones]

MADELEINE HARDIN: When I got the diagnosis, it's funny, it's a laser point of figuring out your priorities. The most important thing becomes love of family really, and love of friends and love of God I guess, those three things. And nothing else matters. Just nothing. And so you realize that the rest of the things that you kept busy with were really just a distraction sometimes from those three priorities.

[Music: soft harmonic tones]

KC: That was Madeleine Hardin. And fortunately her brain tumor was benign. The story was produced by The Current’s Karin Marley. If you have a personal moment of disruption that you'd like to share, an event that transformed your life, you can contact us on our website cbc.ca/thecurrent.

[Music: electronic keyboard]

Back To Top »

'I felt it was so immoral': Why author Linwood Barclay cancelled U.S. book tour

Guests: Linwood Barclay, Mark Bulgutch, Kevin Rushby

KELLY CROWE: I'm Kelly Crowe and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM.

SOUNDCLIP

ADVERTISEMENT: A 200 mile stretch of sandy shore along the deep blue waters of Lake Michigan. Where we find everything we need to go fishing, canoeing, boating or diving.

ADVERTISEMENT 2: We thought I’d give you today are just five quick tips for you to help you enjoy visiting Florida more, because it is a great place, whether you’re going to Disney or Miami or the beaches or the history. There's all kinds of cool stuff to do here.

COMMERCIAL VOICE OVER: With so many unique experiences. And unforgettable places to visit.

VOICE 1: You ready?

VOICE 2: We’d better get started.

COMMERCIAL VOICE OVER: You can’t help but vacation big in North Carolina.

KC: Whether it's for business or pleasure, to hit the beach, the mall or famous sites. It doesn't usually take much to entice Canadians south of the border for a visit. But in light of the new Trump administration's travel ban, some Canadians say they're taking a stand and boycotting travel to the USA. A federal judge has temporarily stayed the ban on visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries. But the White House expects it to be reinstated. And that does not sit well with many would be travelers. Peter Czimmerman is the President of South Siders, a passionate group of about 700 Vancouver Whitecaps soccer fans who usually travel to nearby states to watch the team's games. He spoke to CBC Vancouver's The Early Edition last week.

SOUNDCLIP

We are not organizing the buses as usual. We usually send two or three buses to each city. Because we heard reports from some of our members that they will be impacted by this ban, which is against our policy our principles. We want to include everybody and have everyone stand with us.

KC: Peter Czimmerman says the decision isn't explicitly political but he's sad to see the trips go.

SOUNDCLIP

The bus trips to Seattle and Portland are bar none the best days of our supporting. It's really, it lets us bond and enjoy being together. Personally, I've been to all of these games in the past five six years now, and it's really hard enough to go and not to support our Whitecaps.

KC: South Siders President Peter Czimmerman. The group may be part of a bigger trend. Online travel site Cheapflights reported that the weekend after Donald Trump signed the ban, there were 27 per cent fewer Canadians than usual searching their site for US flights. And many other Canadians online and in the media are speaking out about their reasons for not visiting the United States. Linwood Barclay is a bestselling author, whose most recent book is the mystery novel The Twenty-Three. Laura Lynch spoke with him from Oakville, Ontario.

LL: What were your travel plans in the US?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: Well, I was invited to two different festivals in Arizona for March. And I was very much looking forward to it and these wonderful people had been planning this for some time. And we were actually going to tack on a few days of vacation, my wife was going to join me. I’d always wanted to see the Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin West near Scottsdale.

LL: Was there any chance that you wouldn't have been allowed into the US because of the ban?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: No, I wouldn't have had any problem getting in. I'm a dual citizen, I was born in America and my parents moved to Canada when I was just about turning four. And I've lived here ever since. So they wouldn't have been able to keep me out.

LL: So what made you cancel your plans?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: Well, I really struggled with it. I mean, you know, but going back about ten days, when the ban was announced and then we went into that weekend. And I felt more and more uncomfortable about going, even though I would have had no problem crossing the border, but the border for me loomed like this a sort of enormous picket line. And I kept thinking about this Iranian director who is up for an Academy Award but now, or certainly at that time was prevented from going to the Oscar’s ceremony. And I thought it just seems so incredibly unjust and wrong and a decision rooted in ignorance and racism. I kept asking myself, well how would I feel if I were crossing the border and he had somehow were there at the same time and couldn't get in. What would I say to him as I kind of whistled my way across the border? I just didn't feel comfortable doing that. I felt it was so immoral, so wrong that I just didn't feel I could go.

LL: Does the temporary stay of the travel ban change your mind at all? This looks like it's going to be winding its way through the courts over the coming days.

LINWOOD BARCLAY: Yeah, it’s very much back and forth isn't it? And that sort of hit me, and I thought well I've already inconvenienced these lovely people in Arizona enough already. And then so now what do I do if I say well now I'm coming. And then in five days, you know, I just figured it's best to stay with the decision that I’ve had and not cause them any further grief.

LL: It's interesting. The president of the soccer team fan club said this was an act of solidarity. But he didn't label it as explicitly political. You seem as though you're also acting as an act of solidarity. But is this political for you? I mean you are American.

LINWOOD BARCLAY: Yeah it is a bit. But it's, you know, it was really very much a kind of personal decision. I honestly wasn't trying to make any kind of statement. All I had done was tweeted that I would not be coming to my book events in the US during the travel ban. That's all I did. And then things kind of exploded. But it was for me, it was a very personal thing. I mean, I have friends who have commitments in the US and really feel they have to go and I say go. And I may reach a point where there's something I simply must go to, you know, certain expectations from my publisher in the US that I can't ignore and then everyone will say I'm a huge hypocrite. And I'll probably think the same thing. But right at this time I thought I can't do it.

LL: What kind of response are you getting from friends and fans?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: It went kind of insane on Twitter and Facebook and so forth. And I mean, there were a few people who said great we'll manage just fine without you, and I thought no doubt that you will. But I have to say that 95 per cent of the response was very positive, and some of that too was from South of the border.

LL: When you say positive, what are the kinds of sentiments that you're hearing?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: In fact, I heard from a lot of people who’ve said I've never bought one of your books or have read any of your stuff but now I'm going to do it. And that was certainly not my intention, was to in anyway do this as a publicity thing. Far from it, because there were plenty of others who said I will never read another book of yours, and the ones that I have I'm going to pitch them in the garbage or whatever. And I thought well fine, it could have been worse you could have got them from the library.

LL: What about this idea that travel exposes people to different perspectives, and that by not visiting the US, or cutting off a conversation that could change people's minds or at least open up their minds?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: And I think that's a really good point. But I mean, this one trip I don't think is going to, at least for me, I don’t think is sort of world changing. But I think that's right. I think that when you expose yourself to different cultures, whenever people do interact, then you can make some progress. But this event, this Executive Order is so fresh and so new, I think that it kind of, at least for me, demanded a more immediate response. You know, a year from now if it’s still in effect, I may in fact be that kind of person that's, you know, what it's time to go down there, it's time to meet with people, it's time to express my point of view and see what people think.

LL: I know you say this is a personal decision and you're not telling other people what to do, but I wonder what you'd like other people to think about if they're considering visiting the US right now?

LINWOOD BARCLAY: Well I think, you know, like I say, I'm not going to tell anybody what to do. But I think at least they need to think about it. And they need to be aware that that border is a, you know, it's a very symbolic thing. And when you cross that to keep in mind that if you're able to get across, that's a great privilege for you. That there are a lot of people who can’t and they're being blocked from doing so for completely arbitrary reasons.

LL: We'll leave it there. Thank you.

LINWOOD BARCLAY: A pleasure. Thanks a lot.

KC: Linwood Barclay is an author whose most recent book is the mystery novel The Twenty-Three. Laura Lynch spoke with him from Oakville, Ontario. While there are definitely Canadians who support President Trump and his policies, there have also been many left wondering, sometimes out loud and on social media, what they can do to stand up against his travel ban. Our next guest has been writing in the media about what he might tell them. Mark Bulgutch teaches journalism at Ryerson University, and is a former senior executive producer at CBC TV News. He's also the author of That's Why I'm a Journalist: Top Canadian Reporters Tell Their Most Unforgettable Stories. Laura Lynch talked to Mark Bulgutch in our Toronto studio.

LL: So what would you tell Canadians who were looking for ways to respond to the travel ban?

MARK BULGUTCH: Well, I'm glad you put it that way. I think a lot of Canadians aren't the type of people to go marching in the streets or sign petitions or write to their member of parliament. But I think a lot of Canadians are looking for ways to say I don't agree with what's going on and a lot of us take vacations in the United States. So I would say don't go, don't take a vacation there.

LL: But what about the idea of a boycott altogether?

MARK BULGUTCH: Well, I'm not willing to tell people how to run their lives. I think a lot of, you know, if you work in a widget factory and your boss says go down to the United States and get those orders. Well, I don't think you necessarily want to put your family's livelihood at stake over this. I think if you're a retired person with a condominium in Florida, I would say, you know, you've been going for so long go, you know. But I think a lot of us actually have a complete 100 per cent choice when it comes to where we take our vacations. And there are a lot of places to take your vacation. And for now, I think crossing the border into the United States 100 per cent voluntarily because you can is wrong.

LL: Well you heard what Linwood Barclay had to say about his own personal thought process. Weigh it up for me. What ethical issues have you been weighing when it comes to this?

MARK BULGUTCH: Well, I think I start with a premise that I'm a Canadian because I was born here, through nothing I did. I wasn't up there somewhere or down there somewhere thinking well where should I be born? I take Canada. And I think, you know, a Syrian or a Somali did the same thing, they were born somewhere. So banning them because of that is wrong. I'm privileged to be born in Canada and every once in a while I think Canadians should remember that. That we are privileged and we didn't do anything to earn that privilege, and they haven't done anything to earn this ban. The United States isn't stopping them from crossing the border because of anything they've done or even because they are worried that as individuals they're going to do something. They are saying because you were born in a certain place, you know, a bad neighbourhood, we don't want you here.

LL: Well they say it's more than a bad neighbourhood, their defense is that they are trying to protect the United States and Americans from terrorism.

MARK BULGUTCH: This is an exceptional country. The United States is the beacon of democracy and freedom. And though as that sounds hokey. I actually believe it. And so you take risks when you're a democracy, you know, calculated risks. The United States for example, during the space race, the Russians had a secret program, didn't tell you anything until it was done. The Americans could have done that. But they said no, you know, we live in a democracy and we're going to have our space program out in the open. And they were going to be humiliated from time to time, they would face their disasters. They said that's a risk we take in freedom. Well you take risks for freedom all the time. The Americans, based on their love of freedom, let people wander their streets with guns.

LL: Yeah, they also elected Donald Trump to be their president.

MARK BULGUTCH: My original thought about Donald Trump was let's see what he does. He was elected, let him do what he wants to do. But this is a moral outrage that I don't want to be part of, that’s all. So I'm not saying everything he does is terrible or that I can do something about what he's doing, but this I can.

LL: Now, as I said, this ban is now working its way through the judicial process. And it may well end up at the Supreme Court in the United States. Does the recent decision to stay the ban change the ethics of the situation at all?

MARK BULGUTCH: Well it does, because for a while you can cross the border and not be faced with a situation of, for example, one of the Syrians being right beside you and not being able to get across the border. And I'm supposed to, if there is a ban, kind of just walk across and not notice or be a little embarrassed or something, that's wrong. So, you know, if I was planning a vacation in the summer, we don't know how this is going to play out, so I wouldn't be planning a vacation down the road. If you wanted a zip across the border while the ban is lifted to buy a TV set, go ahead. But I wouldn't be planning anything down the road because we don't know how this is going to end.

LL: Do you think that Canadians choosing not to travel to the US would really change anything politically?

MARK BULGUTCH: No, I'm not delusional. You know, we spend 20 billion dollars down there. Well, it's a multi-trillion dollar economy. We are barely petty cash. So no, I don't think Donald Trump is going to wake up tomorrow and say oh wow look at that, a few Canadians aren't coming to visit the Grand Canyon. But I can sleep at night. I can look in the mirror and I can live with my conscience. And I think there are a lot of Canadians who are just saying, you know, something's wrong here and here's something you can do.

LL: But isn’t there a question though of creating more isolationism in the United States by choosing to stay away?

MARK BULGUTCH: This isn't China. We're not a different culture really. We are North Americans. I think they know us, we know them. They're not going to kind of look at us and say look at all those freedom loving Canadians aren't coming down. They think of themselves as freedom loving Americans. What are they going to learn from us down there? Nothing. So no I don't buy that at all.

LL: So you bring up China, would you go to China?

MARK BULGUTCH: No, I wouldn't, I’ve never taken a vacation in China. I've never taken--

LL: For the same reasons?

MARK BULGUTCH: Yes. I’ve never taken a vacation in Cuba. But I don't think I had to broadcast that. But this is the United States of America. They're different. If this was some tin pot dictatorship, we would just kind of shrug our shoulders and say that's the way they do things and we’d ignore it. But this is the United States of America and they are exceptional, and they are betraying themselves I think, and they should know that.

LL: Well at this point then, what would it take to change your mind?

MARK BULGUTCH: They’d have to lift the ban. If the court does that, well that would prove that this is an advanced democracy and it would show that they do stand for something. And then I'd be happy to visit the Golden Gate Bridge again and Disney World and all those wonderful sights.

LL: Mark Bulgutch, thank you.

MARK BULGUTCH: OK.

KC: Mark Bulgutch teaches journalism at Ryerson University and is a former senior executive producer at CBC TV News. Laura Lynch spoke with him in our Toronto studio. Not everyone agrees that avoiding the United States is the best way to make a point about American politics. Kevin Rushby is a travel writer and travel columnist for The Guardian. Laura Lynch spoke with him from York, in the United Kingdom.

LL: First of all, what do you think of President Trump's travel ban?

KEVIN RUSHBY: I hate the idea of a travel ban. It just so happens from my perspective, I've lived and worked in six of the seven countries that he's issued this ban on. And, you know, I know them to be fascinating interesting places with wonderful people and I've enjoyed great hospitality in them.

LL: But you would have to agree that they do harbour, in some cases, people who would commit what is labeled terrorism?

KEVIN RUSHBY: Yeah, I mean, that's clear. But personally, I don't think it's particularly significant. America has plenty of homegrown terrorists.

LL: What do you think of this idea though of not going to the US to protest against the ban?

KEVIN RUSHBY: Well, that's interesting because, you know, I kind of agree with Mark and Linwood that the ban is a pointless exercise. But I don't think you should boycott the USA. And I think the principle is that I don't like boycotts of travel. You know, I think freedom to move is a really important principle and we should pursue it. I think travel breaks down prejudice, bigotry, and somehow by isolating the United States even more, I think it will serve Donald Trump's purposes perhaps.

LL: How so?

KEVIN RUSHBY: Once you've separated people by artificial barriers and walls, you can then create fear about the people on the other side of that barrier. That's what I fear that would be conniving in that process or helping that process by not going to the USA.

LL: Well, let's try this scenario. You're in line at the border to get into the US, you're allowed in, the person next to you isn't because of that person's country of origin. How would you react?

KEVIN RUSHBY: Well, I'd react badly. I should say that that is a situation that has actually happened to me on occasions. You know, I don't think President Trump's ban is particularly a new phenomenon, it’s been going on, people are banned all over the world from going to different countries. By the visa systems by politics, you know--

LL: Where has it happened to you?

KEVIN RUSHBY: In London Heathrow and, you know, a woman who sat next to me on the plane was coming from another country into Britain. She had a visa, but for some reason they decided to interrogate her at the border post. And in fact, they did let her in in the end, but they were threatening, and I was sort of hovering around, I was remonstrating with them but I mean, you know, my input did no good. But I found it very upsetting situation to be in. And I'm sure I would if it happened again.

LL: But you’d still enter the country?

KEVIN RUSHBY: Yeah, I mean, I think the difference, your contributor who's talking about going as a group to see matches across the border for Canadians when some of them might not be able to go. I think that’s such a different situation to being a solo traveler. I’d agree with that decision they took not to go as a group.

LL: In your travels to the countries on the banned list, how have your own preconceptions changed?

KEVIN RUSHBY: I think the big thing about traveling is that when you go to places where you have a little bit of anxiety before you go because you feel you might have some problem at the border, or you might have some problem in the country because it has a reputation. And that situation often has happened to me where my anxiety level about going to a certain country is slightly up from normal, for me almost always, I think always, you know, I've gone into countries and found that the people are welcoming and hospitable in the same proportion that they are in any other country. And the media presentation of certain places has been false.

LL: Do their conceptions change of Britons because of meeting you?

KEVIN RUSHBY: You'd have to ask them really, wouldn’t you?

LL: [laughs]

KEVIN RUSHBY: But I think that is perfectly possible. I mean, I've traveled in the US and, you know, found myself talking to people in bars and restaurants and wherever, on public transport, and somehow into the conversation comes the fact that I traveled and lived in Yemen or in Sudan. And that's pretty unusual situation, I think to come across somebody who's lived in those places. And yeah, there is an opportunity there to give a different account of those places to the one that you get from the media.

LL: Would you suggest that Americans travel to the countries on the banned list?

KEVIN RUSHBY: No, not at the moment probably.

LL: Yeah, they probably wouldn't get much of a friendly welcome these days.

KEVIN RUSHBY: Well, you know, I think you'd be surprised about that. I'm not sure that's quite true. The anti-American prejudice which there is around the world, is alive and well in Britain and anywhere else. I don't think those seven countries have got a monopoly on that.

LL: You got your next trip to the States scheduled yet?

KEVIN RUSHBY: [chuckles] No I haven't actually. I was there during the election campaign. But I'm not sure I'll be back this year.

LL: Alright. Thank you very much.

KEVIN RUSHBY: Thank you.

KC: Kevin Rushby is a travel writer and travel columnist for The Guardian in York, the United Kingdom. Are you planning on visiting the United States soon or have you canceled a trip? We'd love to get your thoughts on this. You can find us on Facebook at facebook.com/cbcthecurrent or tweet us @TheCurrentCBC, or email us through our website, go to cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the Contact Us link. And while you're there, check out pictures, links and download the podcast. It's all at cbc.ca/thecurrent. That's our program for today. And remember, you can always take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app. It's free from the App Store or Google Play. I'm Kelly Crowe, thanks for listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 7, 2017 full episode transcript

More Stories Like This