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 2018

The AIH Transcript for February 02, 2018

Hosts: Helen Mann and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

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

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

HM: Dog day after Nunes. There's been a lot of barking since the release of Devin Nunes’s long awaited memo criticizing the FBI. But our guest says it doesn't prove what Republicans said it would.

JD: Lightening your downloads. A coalition of Canadian media companies want to stop online piracy once and for all, by blocking Canadians access to certain websites.

HM: Snow blindness. The top court in sports overturns bans on 28 Russian athletes, just days before the Olympics. And the lawyer for the whistleblower who exposed the extent of Russia's doping program finds that chilling.

JD: All bets were off — at least here in the office they were. But our unwavering faith in my cohost was well-placed. Carroll's book just won national B.C.’s award for Canadian nonfiction.

HM: Influence peddling. One man helpfully illustrates the online problems that will be created by the repeal of net neutrality in the U.S., by riding his bicycle excruciatingly slowly in front of frustrated drivers in Washington.

JD: And… a spectacular Patts-scapula. Eddy Ferrini’s shoulder blade is a visual testament to his belief in his beloved New England Patriots. He is so sure that they will win the Super Bowl on Sunday, that he already got a tattoo in celebration.

JD: As It Happens, the Friday edition. Radio that guesses he will spend the whole game looking over his shoulder.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: FBI memo, Russia doping ruling net neutrality posting

FBI memo

Guest: Shane Harris

At the White House today, the U.S. president was asked about the memo.

SOUNDCLIP

DON TRUMP: But I think it's a disgrace what's happening in our country. And when you look at that, and you see that, and so many other things what's going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse than that. So I sent it over to Congress, they will do what they're going to do, whatever they do is fine. It was declassified and let's see what happens.

JD: Well, what's happened is that the memo has been released. The four-page document claims surveillance abuses and political bias on the part of the FBI, in the early stages of the Russia investigation. It was written by Republican staffers for the House Intelligence Committee. The fight for its declassification has created a tense split — with the FBI and the Justice Department on one side, and the President and Republican lawmakers on the other. Shane Harris is an intelligence and national security correspondent for the Washington Post. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

We reached him in Washington D.C.

HM: Shane, this much-anticipated memo has now been released. After all the anticipation, what does it say?

SHANE HARRIS: Well, what it's really doing is making a set of allegations. And it's important to remember that we not we're not seeing the underlying source material on which this memo was based. So it's a bit hard to judge its veracity. But, essentially, it argues that the government when obtaining a warrant to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who was a Trump campaign aide, that it was relying in part on this notorious Steele dossier to obtain that warrant. And is essentially saying that by obtaining the warrant with this dossier, the Government was relying on a political opposition research document that was paid for by Democrats, and the government should have informed the judge who granted the warrant of this fact. And because the government didn't do that, the Republicans are arguing that the entire warrant was essentially tainted if not invalid.

HM: So why before the release even has this been such a big deal?

SH: Well, I think it's a big deal because when Republicans and the president really chief among them who believe that the investigation is as the president has described it as a “witch hunt” are looking for some kind of evidence to support that idea. They're looking for evidence of bias or malfeasance in the process of getting a warrant. So they've seized really on this particular case of this individual, Carter Page, as one where they claim that they can point to the FBI and the Department of Justice not doing things by the book. But I think that already you're seeing a lot of legal experts even chime in on this memo and saying OK for instance maybe the government did not tell the judge that the dossier that informed part of this application for a warrant had its sources in political opposition research. But that's not really relevant to the question of whether the judge would issue that warrant. And probably the judge might have issued it anyways.

HM: We saw earlier the director of the FBI, and I've heard that some other security officials were concerned about the precedent in releasing this and what it might actually contain as being a risk to national security. Do you see any indication that it might be?

SH: Not really, to be honest. It seems like the sources and methods as they call it that might have been exposed maybe that was a bit overstated. There's nothing in here that really speaks to that. But I think that what law enforcement officials have worried about in terms of the precedent here is that generally speaking, when the government gives the oversight committees in Congress access to classified information — which is what's underlying this memo — it's done with the you know the implicit understanding that the Congress won't then turn around and release that classified information or start talking about it for political purposes. And I think that's what people included in the law enforcement community and the Democrats on this committee are worried about that this has set a precedent. That's not the way the committees are designed to operate.

HM: We heard the president say that what's contained in the memo is a disgrace, that people should be ashamed, and much worse than that. Do you think that anyone could lose their job over this?

SH: Well, I think that is entirely possible. You know the president was asked today whether he had confidence in Rod Rosenstein, who is the deputy attorney general, the number two at the Justice Department, and who oversees the Mullar investigation. And he didn't answer that question. And many people have been speculating for a few weeks now that this memo would give the president an excuse to fire Rod Rosenstein. I think probably there's not a lot of substance in this memo that would show that Rod Rosenstein acted and appropriately, so I don't know how the White House would make that connection or justification? That doesn't mean that the president won't try to fire him though.

HM: The Democrats are warning that should it be used to fire anyone, and they seem to have their site on Mueller and protecting him, that it would actually create a constitutional crisis. Is Mueller at risk as a result of this?

SH: It's entirely possible. I mean and we've heard you know murmuring that there’s been reporting now that the president considered some months ago firing Robert Mueller as special counsel. So I guess the question ultimately is I mean does the White House feel that this memo gives them enough justification? Are they confident enough in this memo to use it as a pretext for firing Rosenstein? And I'm not really sure that they are. So if the White House anticipated that this memo was going to give them the trigger that they needed to start heads rolling in the Justice Department, I don't think they got it.

HM: The implication in the memo is that the Steele dossier is invalid somehow because it was paid for at least in part by opponents of President Trump. Does the memo damage the credibility of the Russia investigation?

SH: Well, I don't think it does. I mean that is an important point. The question of you know does the government have some affirmative obligation to say to the judge listen, we're basing this warrant application in some part on political opposition research paid for by Democrats? Historically, the courts have found when the government goes to get warrants in all kinds of settings, whether it be intelligence settings like this or normal criminal settings. The government does have an obligation to reveal any kinds of information that would cast doubt on the credibility of the source that's informing this application. But they tend to uphold the sourcing from some pretty shady and unsavory characters. I don't think having talked to experts about this at length in the past couple days that the fact that some of this information came from a Democratic-funded document would necessarily make the judge say I'm not going to give you the warrant. It's also important to remember that this document has a really fascinating revelation at the very end of it where it says that the FBI counterintelligence investigation that began in July 2016 was actually triggered by information concerning another Trump campaign aide named George Papadopoulos and his connections with Russians. That seems to totally refute what has been a largely Republican-led allegation that the Steele dossier was, in fact, the source of the FBI investigation. So this memo actually tends to undercut one of the primary criticisms of the Steele dossier. I'm not sure that they intended to do that.

HM: But from the perspective of the president and his supporters, including some pretty key Republicans, isn't this one more nail in the coffin of the credibility of the Russia investigation?

SH: I mean politically speaking, there is a large contingent of you know the Congress and people in United States who do think that the Russia investigation is just illegitimate. They thought that before this memo came out. And I'm not really sure that this is going to change their mind either way. But I don't think it will inspire more people or many more people to think that the investigation is legitimate or somehow poisoned by partisanship.

HM: Shane Harris, thank you for taking us through all of this.

Sure, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me.

HM: OK, bye.

SH: Bye bye.

JD: Shane Harris is an intelligence and national security correspondent for the Washington Post. We reached him in Washington D.C. For more on this, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Rock]

Russia doping ruling

Guest: Jim Walden

JD: A week from today, the 2018 Winter Olympics will begin in Pyeongchang, South Korea. And thanks to an 11th-hour court ruling, Russian athletes who had previously received doping bans may be allowed to compete. Yesterday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, also known as CAS, overturned bans that had been issued to 28 Russian athletes, citing insufficient evidence. Several of those athletes had been stripped of medals they'd won in Sochi in 2014. They'd been accused of participating in a Russian state-sponsored doping scheme. That scheme was revealed by the Russian whistleblower Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov. He is now living in hiding in the U.S. He also testified before the court that made this week's ruling. Jim Walden is Dr. Rodchenkov's lawyer. We reached Mr. Walden in New York.

HM: Jim Walden, have you spoken to your client, Dr. Rodchenkov, about this ruling?

JIM WALDEN: I have. His perspective is I think a mature one. He is fully familiar with the fact that the system is in desperate need of reform. He understands this process very well, and does not believe in any way shape or form that the ruling is a reflection on his credibility. He knows that he's telling the truth. He doesn't have any sort of vendetta or feeling of ill will toward the athletes. So his broader perspective has always been that the Russian Federation was severely under punished and the athletes were over punished. That being said, he certainly believes that this ruling will simply embolden Russia, emboldened cheating, and encourage other large countries to cheat knowing now that it will be tolerated. It wouldn't be tolerated if it was Kuwait, but if Russia or another big country on which the Olympics depend, you essentially get a free pass. And that's what's happened here.

HM: Now, the court said that it was not mandated to evaluate whether there was state-sponsored doping in Sochi, but rather had to consider each individual athletes case on its own evidence. If there wasn't enough evidence in those cases is it not fair for those bans to be overturned?

JW: Well, CAS certainly viewed each athlete in isolation. But that's like saying that a conspiracy doesn't exist. In any conspiracy, there is broader evidence of the existence of the conspiracy that is relevant to each individual athlete. And the key issue here is that every single one of these athletes was on a list that is clearly authentic. That Dr. Rodchenkov identified as being the protected athlete list. What CAS clearly didn't appreciate, if it even understood, is that Dr. Rodchenkov disclosed that important fact and all of this other evidence before anyone tested it. And Professor McLaren, on behalf of WADA, was the person responsible for testing it. And when he did go back and analyze urine and look at the bottles, it was only the athletes on the list that had marks on bottles consistent with tampering and elevated salt levels. And one athlete actually because of improvement in technology tested positive for the very cocktail Dr. Rodchenkov created.

HM: Can you remind us a little bit more about what Dr. Rodchenkov revealed about state-sponsored doping in Russia?

JW: Boiled down to its essentials, after the Vancouver Winter Olympics when Russia did so poorly, the client was part of a system that broke down the following: athletes were put on a special cocktail of drugs, they were ingested in a way that made them harder to detect because they stayed out of your stomach —the cocktail was swished in your mouth and spit out — and they could use that cocktail even during the winter Olympics in Sochi because of a urine swapping system where protected athletes on a list those athletes would automatically have their urine swapped. So that system worked, as a client as described in his testimony, like a Swiss watch. Athletes would send their doping control forms via text to the lab. That way the lab would know who to swap when. Many of those athletes were still taking the cocktail during the Olympic Games, and some had just recently stopped. And so knowing that the substance we found in their urine, clean urine had been collected before the Games and was used to swap. And the secret police were responsible for the important step of removing the caps from tamper-resistant bottles in a way that often left no traces, but in some instances left traces and marks.

HM: Of course, the Court of Arbitration in Sport seems to be suggesting that that evidence might not be sufficient to damn each of these athletes. That perhaps they weren't specifically doping in Sochi. And that the government made these decisions without their consent.

JW: Well, we don't know the basis of CAS’s decision for some time. So it's impossible to read into what reasoning is going to come. But I was a prosecutor for nine years, and every conspiracy is usually proved by a co-conspirator and corroboration. And in this instance, there was a co-conspirator that testified fully, truthfully, and credibly about the existence of the system, and the importance of the list in swapping urine during the Sochi Games. And the corroboration is staggering. And for CAS to say that that's not enough evidence essentially creates a major roadblock to catch dopers unless you catch them red-handed. And given the difficulty with catching dopers, to begin with and the vulnerability of the system, CAS has set a precedent that is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for WADA and the IOC to keep determined dopers out of the game.

HM: How has his whistleblowing affected him?

JW: Dr. Rodchenkov made a very brave decision, to tell the truth about the Russian doping system. And it has had very substantial negative impact on his life. He has not seen his family in two years. He has very little contact with them. He's constantly worrying about them. He is obviously facing very significant risks. Russia will stop at nothing to kill or silence him, and so extreme security measures have to be used in order to protect him, which makes it very difficult for him to have any real meaningful enjoyment at this stage.

CO: The International Olympic Committee has said that it has actual authority over whether to invite these athletes to the games. And that it won't necessarily mean that they will indeed be invited. What do you think they should do in response to the ruling?

JW: I think that it's quite clear that if the IOC turns around and invites any of these athletes that the already loud international outcry will reach a fever pitch. The IOC has mishandled this from the beginning. Frankly, I think that Thomas Bach’s leadership has been appalling. The idea that Russia will get back into the games at the closing ceremony with its flag flying is a disgrace and an insult to every clean athlete, every corporate sponsor, and every fan. So my guess is given how poorly the IOC has handled this, they won’t risk allowing any of these athletes in the Games.

HM: Mr. Walden, I appreciate you talking with us. Thank you very much.

JW: Thank you for having me.

JD: Jim Walden is the lawyer for Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the whistleblower who revealed Russia's state-sponsored doping program. We reached Jim Walden in New York.

[Music: Cultural]

Trudeau pipline

JD: I think it's safe to say things are a bit tense between Alberta and British Columbia right now. As you may have heard on the program earlier this week, The NDP government in British Columbia plans to restrict diluted bitumen shipments in that province, until studies on spills are completed. And that has created some uncertainty about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. And it has created problems with the neighbours. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley has called the decision "unconstitutional" — and suspended talks with British Columbia about electricity. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the federally-approved pipeline will be built. And today, during a town hall in Nanaimo, BC, someone had a question about Kinder Morgan. Here's how Mr. Trudeau responded when he was asked, "What's the plan for when there is an oil spill?"

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: First of all, the decision on moving forward on Kinder Morgan versus Northern Gateway is Kinder Morgan arrives in a well-serviced, busy port that actually has a capacity to deal with incidents and challenges. At the same time, we've set forward significant numbers of conditions that are going to have to be met by the proponent as we move forward. We know that building a strong economy and protecting the environment need to go together. And it's a combination of technological and regulatory challenges that are going to protect us. We've also invested over a billion dollars in upgrading our protections for the oceans. And that's something we're moving forward on a science basis. We know that we have to reduce our carbon emissions. We know we need a pan-Canadian plan on climate change. We got that framework and that pan-Canadian plan on climate change because we were willing to move forward and demonstrate that at the same time, we can continue with developing our resources in safe and secure ways. And that's what we're going to continue to do.

JD: That was the prime minister, speaking at a town hall in Nanaimo British Columbia today.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Net neutrality protest

Guest: Rob Bliss

JD: Recently, Rob Bliss went to Washington, D.C., and climbed onto a bicycle. And, for three days straight, he pedaled, maddeningly slowly, down a busy street outside the offices of the Federal Communications Commission. In the video released yesterday, you can see the traffic backing up behind him. But he says he wasn't just blocking traffic to merely infuriate drivers. He was trying to illustrate the issue of net neutrality laws, which were repealed by the FCC last month. We reached Rob Bliss in New York City.

HM: Mr. Bliss, tell us about that scene you set up in front of the FCC offices. What exactly did you do?

ROB BLISS: So what I did was with myself, a bicycle, and some traffic cones, I slowed down traffic in front of the FCC, as a protest against the FCC’s decision against net neutrality.

HM: And you rode a bicycle along the laneway you created. How did that work?

RB: Basically, it's a two-lane street. So I shut down one of the lanes with traffic cones and then used my bicycle to manually, with my own legs, slow down traffic on the other one. And then by doing so, then attempted to sell people priority access passes to the street: for five dollars a month, they could receive a pass that would allow them to get around me, and get around the slow lane.

HM: And how did you advertise that they could get this fast pass?

RB: I wore a big sign on my back, and that was it.

HM: And you pedal really slowly, right? How fast were you going?

RB: I literally went as slowly as I could without falling over. It was very difficult to maintain momentum, and it's quite challenging to achieve.

HM: Where did you get this idea?

RB: The idea was really based off of the concept that net neutrality is kind of like a difficult concept to understand because it's all online; it's not really something you can hold in your hand. So the idea was perhaps people would understand the issue better if they could see it acted out in the real world.

HM: What do you think we don't get?

RB: I think the concept of prioritized lanes, slow lanes of traffic, being up-charged to use a service, things like this, these are all the concepts that I think come into play. And you kind of feel like the ridiculousness of it and seeing how really everyone should be able to have equal access to wherever they're headed, whether on the street or online.

HM: As you were pedaling along that narrow route, what was happening behind you?

RB: I was getting a lot of car honks that’s for sure. You know people were yelling at me from the sidewalks, lot of people were honking at me. I almost got hit by a car a few times. It was is pretty intense, to be honest.

HM: How did the drivers themselves react?

RB: Oh, I don't think they understood the humour of it. But you know really we were only inconveniencing them for this one block, but it was there to prove a point.

HM: Now, not unexpectedly, the cops eventually showed up. I want to play you a clip of one of your interactions with an officer. Let's listen.

SOUNDCLIP

POLICE: Why you going to cause a traffic accident, sir?

RB: Well, what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to restore automotive freedom.

POLICE: Nooooo

RB: The idea is what I can do is I can sell people priority access passes.

POLICE: You have no authority to do that. You’re doing this the wrong way.

RB: People can pick the plan that's right for them. It's a good deal. Five dollars is not that much.

POLICE: [a splice of things]

RB: I mean that's kind of reckless driving on their part, don’t you think?

POLICE: You can’t stay here; you’ve got to go.

HM: So that one guy seemed like a pretty good sport?

RB: He was. It started off pretty heated saying he was going to lock me up and stuff. But I think they just sort of like what is this guy? Like I don't think they could quite figure me out. And I was also the whole time trying to kill everyone with kindness.

HM: Were you able to explain to the cops effectively what it was you're trying to do? I mean did they understand net neutrality after that?

RB: Really for the whole time I was trying to go about this project with a very serious face on. You know I was playing the role of the Internet service provider. So pitching them like yeah, you know it's good business plan. It’s a good idea. It’s only five bucks. You know I was trying to sell it as things went along. Later on, I did talk to them about net neutrality. But I don't think it quite registered until you know they had that aha moment.

HM: You did this three days in a row, you didn't get hurt, and you didn't get arrested. Are you surprised by either of those developments?

RB: I honestly was. I was pretty nervous of making this project, to be honest. You know almost got run over, obviously, multiple run-ins with the police. It was scary, you know? I’m wearing kneepads, a helmet, you know elbow pads, the works because I'm expecting someone to tackle me really at any moment. But luckily, nothing really happened, and I think the part of that was like, for the most part, I was pretty compliant and just went about things with a very cheery attitude that I think I was able to skirt around some of the more harsh penalties I could have faced.

HM: Now that you have posted this film online, what kind of response are you getting?

RB: It’s going pretty well. I think people understand the humour of it, and also like the purpose of it. You know it's kind of like a pretty decent analogy for the issue itself of how like people wouldn't stand for this if it was in the real world. So we shouldn't stand for it online.

HM: It's a done deal, right? I mean what effect do you think this is actually going to have?

RB: Hopefully, it continues to drive home the point. It is still something that can be fixed. They have not yet enacted the rules; they simply passed the lake order to do so. But it hasn’t like actually happened yet. And Congress does have the ability to make it law if they so choose. So increased activism and people talking about why it's important to them I think is a good idea.

HM: Well, I'm glad you emerged from this unscathed, Mr. Bliss. Thanks for talking to us about it.

RB: Thank you for having me.

HM: OK. Bye

RB: Bye.

JD: We reached Rob Bliss in New York City. And if you'd like to a video rather of Mr. Bliss slowing traffic to a crawl in D.C., head to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part two: FairPlay Canada, Super Bowl tatoo

FairPlay Canada

Guest: Michael Geist

JD: They call themselves FairPlay Canada; they are a coalition of media organizations representing Canada's music, television, film, and sports worlds. And they want to put an end to internet piracy, once and for all. The coalition includes some pretty major players: organizations like Bell, Rogers, Cineplex, and the CBC. And earlier this week, they submitted a proposal to the CRTC calling for a national website-blocking system to prevent content theft. Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He thinks the anti-piracy proposal to block websites is all wrong. We reached Mr. Geist in Santa Clara, California.

HM: Michael Geist, what in your mind is wrong with FairPlay Canada’s proposal to combat content piracy on the internet?

MICHAEL GEIST: I think there's a number of really serious concerns. And certainly, we could focus on whether or not Canadian law already addresses many of the concerns? And whether or not there's a significant piracy problem, to begin with? But fundamentally on the merits of it, I think there are real risks involved. Risks of over-blocking, risks of around freedom of expression, and the absence of full judicial oversight as is found, even in places that do have this, they ensure the courts get involved from the beginning. To not have that in Canada I think is a truly fatal flaw in the process.

HM: The coalition of media organizations behind this says Canadians are stealing content that they should be paying for, that the existing mechanisms are not helping make sure that the content creators get paid for their work. I mean have they not got a point there?

MG: Well, you know that there is some amount of piracy is I think a truism around the world. But if we look specifically at the Canadian market, I think. First, we ought to recognize that we have some of the toughest anti-piracy laws in the world. We established some of those rules just a few years ago, which were unique around the globe, that allow those same companies to go after piracy websites. We’re one of the only countries in the world to have that. And in the data that is out there around Canadian piracy suggests that we are well below global averages when it comes to things like downloading music from unauthorized sites, stream ripping so-called from sites like YouTube, and in fact, if we look at the success in the Canadian market, where Canada's music industry and companies like Netflix are growing like gangbusters, there's not a whole lot of evidence that piracy is a specifically major concern here in Canada. It's really been more of a business issue, and in many ways, we're seeing real changes — positive changes — taking place there.

HM: So what exactly are you concerned is going to happen if the CRTC were to adopt this proposal?

MG: Well, I'm concerned on a number of fronts. I'm concerned first of having a process that doesn't have any sort of real due process. The notion that you would go through this whole process with an internet piracy agency then approved by a CRTC that has no real expert expertise and copyright, only to leave it to someone to file an appeal with the Federal Court is something that I think is very unlikely to happen. They simply aren't going to go through those processes. And so I don't believe that in Canada, where we've got the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an emphasis on freedom of expression, we get involved in blocking content in other sorts of countries like China without the active involvement of the courts. When we look even at countries that might be seen as more similar to Canada in terms of their blocking system — say Australia or the UK — it's true they've established the capability for some sort of blocking, but it's the courts that are directly involved. So the absence of the courts here I think is an enormous problem. The risk of over-blocking, of blocking of range of legitimate sites, alongside a single site, is a significant concern. We had an instance a number of years ago where Telus tried to block a single site, and in the process blocked hundreds of other legitimate sites. And there is that so-called “slippery slope argument” and the concerns that what starts today as a clear piracy site very gradually evolves into a range of other sites that don't necessarily meet that highest threshold, but which some of these same companies don't like.

HM: The current Federal Government has said it remains committed to net neutrality despite what's been happening south of the border. Does adopting a system that would try to control for piracy in this way sort of clash with those principles?

MG: Well, of course, it does. Any time you get into a space where you're talking about trying to block access to content, to interfere with what is otherwise an open Internet, there are net neutrality implications. Now, it not the same issue in net neutrality as offering up different speeds, but we've seen the federal government, we’ve seen ministers like Navdeep Bains and Melanie Joly emphasise their support for an open Internet, recognizing that that Canada has remained steadfast in those kinds of protections. And this proposal that really seeks to undermine that notion of an open Internet in terms of access by providing the prospect of a non-judicial blocking mechanism has clear implications from a net neutrality perspective.

HM: So if there were to be a judicial component the courts not just afterwards for appeals but involved in the process would that be more palatable to you as a solution for the downloading of illegal materials?

MG: Well, I think certainly the courts is one of the most obvious necessities and building in one of these systems. But I do think that the devil will still be in the details because they've talked about a general system, haven't provided the details, how do you provide the assurances that there won't be the kind of over-blocking that I think many have expressed concern with? That if we find that that sort of thing takes place and there's evidence to believe that it will, that will clearly I think violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections.

HM: Do you have a suggested alternative though to address issues about piracy? I know you say the numbers are low, but we know it's still pretty easy for many people to download materials that they don't have the right to do so.

MG: Yeah, I can recall debating even I think on this program a number of years ago when people talked about the threat of piracy and saying that consumers would never pay for music, they would never pay for online video, and so that we needed a whole series of reforms. And what we've seen in the last number of years is massive growth in the willingness of people to pay, whether through music services like Spotify or video, of course, through services like Netflix. I think what we've learned is that fundamentally most of these issues are business model issues; they are not legal issues. And what we are seeing I think take place in the marketplace, where Canada has grown to become the sixth largest music marketplace in the world, where Netflix sees Canada as one of its most important markets both for consumers and for creating music. That fundamentally, it’s about business models that will solve these issues, not the kinds of proposals here: website blocking. That simply I think are anathema to kind of many of the sorts of values that Canadians have when it comes to freedom of expression.

HM: Michael Geist, thank you very much for joining us.

MG: Thanks so much for having me.

HM: All right. Bye bye.

MG: Bye.

JD: Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, although, today we reached him in Santa Clara, California. And for the other side of the story, do tune into As It Happens on Monday, when we will speak with one of the companies in the FairPlay coalition.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Gay politician

JD: He has kept his private life private up until now. But yesterday, Cape Breton Regional Municipality Mayor Cecil Clarke made a public announcement that he's gay. He said he wanted to share this information himself, because someone had threatened to expose him. Mayor Clarke made the announcement, and opened up about his personal life, in an interview with "Mainstreet Cape Breton'"s Wendy Bergfeldt. Here is part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

CECIL CLARKE: This was a week of, like I say, one of the lowest points of my life. When you get to the point that you actually feel people's hate, and I said enough is enough. And I'm not going to try and pretend. And you know I've always been supportive from the city's point of view of pride initiatives and stuff, but I haven't been part of the face of that. And, at the same time, growing up has been very tough. I've been very guarded. I'm a public person with a very private life. And so in going forward, when someone gets to your core, when I was four and then seven, I was sexually assaulted as a child. And I thought I recovered very well from that. And that I had the love of a family that was there for me and a community that supported me. And this week, all of that hurt and pain came barreling back. And I said you don't owe this, you don't own me, and I owe to myself to be true going forward, because I'm not going to have people trying to shame me or somehow get out there and malign. When they lose every other argument, they attack you, the person, the character. And I've always been strong enough to push through that. But I am in a very serious relationship, and I'm not going to sacrifice that relationship, and I'm not going to be ashamed of that relationship. I'm not going to go forward and make an announcement and have to think that I'm looking over my shoulder, and that someone else is going to smear me with something or think that they're going to make me afraid or make me weak when everything about my life has been be about building a better person and being stronger.

JD: That was the Mayor of Cape Breton Regional Municipality Cecil Clarke, in conversation with CBC Radio's "Mainstreet Cape Breton". In that interview, Mayor Clarke publicly announced that he's gay, after he says someone threatened to expose his personal life.

[Music: Piano]

Super Bowl tattoo

Guest: Eddy Ferrini

JD: How sure are you that whatever team you're rooting for will win the Super Bowl? Are you pretty sure? Are you bet-five-bucks-on-it sure? Are you mortgage-your-house-and-bet-all-that-money sure? Or are you tattoo-sure? Because Eddy Ferrini is tattoo-sure. He's so sure the New England Patriots are going to beat the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night — so dedicated to the Pats — that he already is celebrating their imminent, guaranteed victory by getting a tattoo to commemorate it, even though it hasn't happened yet. We reached Eddy Ferrini in Boston.

HM: Eddy Ferrini, first of all, you've got to describe this tattoo for us. What's it look like?

EDDY FERRINI: All right. So it's Roman numerals. They're all stacked atop each other. It’s on my back right shoulder blade. And we got all the Super Bowls, including the one that's going to be played this Sunday, right on my back.

HM: Did it hurt?

EF: It didn't feel great. It didn’t feel great. The shoulder blade is a tough spot because there's not a lot of fat; it's just kind of hitting the bone. So yeah, it wasn’t great.

HM: You suffered for your team.

EF: Yeah, exactly. I'm willing to die for the Patriots. So anything they ask, I'll do.

HM: Well, as a matter of fact, you got this one kind of early, didn't you?

EF: I did, yeah. So I was a bit on the early side. I've always wanted to get the five Roman numerals for the super bowls on the back for you know the last couple of years, so it's always been in the back of my mind. But one of my friends suggests that oh hey, why don’t you get the sixth? You know it’d be pretty funny. And I said all right, that sounds like a pretty good idea. So I went ahead and did that. I was getting a little nervous when I went in, but he triple-dog-dared me. So we were at the point of no return.

HM: At the risk of sounding like your mother, if they triple-dog-dared you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

EF: If the Patriots did, I would; anyone else, maybe not.

HM: So were your friends surprised you actually went through with it?

EF: No, I don't think they were surprised at all.

HM: What makes you so confident that the New England Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl this Sunday?

EF: Well, from an X’s and O’s standpoint, I think Brady’s going to get the ball quick. The Eagles secondary is not nearly as good as Jacksonville’s. I think that will mitigate the good front forward — good front seven — of the Eagles. And then I also look at where the money is going, and a lot of public money is going on the Eagles in Vegas. And I think that's always a good sign for the Patriots because Vegas is usually always right, and the public's usually wrong. You know, of course, the Eagles are playing with their backup quarterback and their starter. And playing with a backup quarterback is going to be tough. So yeah, of all the Super Bowls the Patriots have played in, I think I’m the most confident in this one for sure.

HM: Well, all that analysis is fine and dandy. But haven't you just gone jinxed the whole thing with that tattoo?

EF: No, I don't believe in Jinxes. I was actually kind of blown back at the amount of people on the internet who believe in jinxes.

HM: What kind of things have they been saying to you?

EF: Oh, like every other comment was like oh, you jinxed it! You know you should have waited. I had someone tell me they’re going to burn my house down if we lose, so that's not good.

HM: That's not good.

EF: It kind of seems kind of seems like I'm going to get all the blame they lose, and I'm going to get none of the credit if they win. That's kind of how it seems right now.

HM: So what are you going to do if the Patriots don't actually win? I mean a tattoo is pretty permanent.

EF: Yeah, it is permanent. Well, if they don't win, I have confidence they’ll win next year, so I'll just tack on another “I” for Roman numeral 53.

HM: Did you think of that beforehand?

EF: That was kind of my maybe we’ll call it justification for getting it because you know some of my friends were like well, what if they lose? And I’d be like well, next year! I’ve got two shots at this thing.

HM: Oh man, now you’ve jinxed it again!

EF: No, no. That's just a hypothetical. Hopefully, I’ve got two shots at this — two cracks at this thing. So, hopefully, we can hit one of them.

HM: Have you got any other football-related tattoos?

EF: I do. I have a TB 12. That's, of course, the Tom Brady's logo. I have that on my right arm — right shoulder.

HM: I worry about what happens to you when Tom Brady retires. Because it will happen one day.

EF: You know I try not to think about that. I think he’s still got a lot of years in him. He’s not slowing down. You know he's 40-years-old, and he’s about to win the MVP. I think he'll be fine.

HM: Where will you be watching the game on Sunday?

EF: I'm actually going to the game on Sunday.

HM: You got tickets?

EF: I actually haven't gotten them yet, but when I’m going to try and buy them in the next couple of days here. But at the flight and the rental car and then all the other stuff I have all that situated.

HM: Did you have something to mortgage to buy those tickets?

EF: I had a little extra money, so I bought some shares in a mutual fund about a-year-and-a-half ago. And you know I'm a student right now, so I don't really have any source of income. So I sold all the shares, and that's going to be my money for the Super Bowl, for the flight, and for the rental car.

HM: Oh, I hope they win for your sake.

EF: I do too. Yeah. Hey, listen this is one of the cheapest Super Bowls in history. So like I mean I remember last year, the tickets were like eight to ten grand. This year, they’re like you know three, four, or five. So if there's a year to go, it’s this year. I've never been; this is going to be my first one. And you never know how many cracks you know at a Super Bowl you're going to get. I definitely want to experience the Super Bowl once in my life.

HM: Maybe the Pats will hear about your tattoo and flip you a couple of tickets.

EF: That's what I'm hoping. That’s what I'm hoping.

HM: Eddy, good luck to you and your team. I'm not taking sides, but you know good luck to you and your team.

EF: All right. Thanks, Helen

HM: Ok, bye.

EF: All right. Have a good one.

JD: Eddy Ferrini is a New England Patriots super-fan, who's so super confident they'll win the Super Bowl on Sunday that he got a tattoo celebrating the victory. We reached him in Boston. You can see a photograph of his tattoo on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih. Now, obviously, not everyone loves football as much as Mr. Ferrini. And there at least three people are going to spend the off-season brushing up. They were the three contestants on “Jeopardy!” last night. And when they were faced with the category "Talkin' Football", they committed a series of costly fumbles. Here's how Alex Trebek handled it.

SOUNDCLIP

CONTESTANT ONE: Football 200.

ALEX TREBEK: your choice, do or don't name this play in which the quarterback runs the ball, and can choose to pitch it to another back.

[Sound: Buzzer]

AT: It’s an option play. Ryan?

CONTESTANT ONE: Football 400.

AT: I can tell you guys are big football fans. Tom Landry perfected the shotgun formation with this team?

[Sound: Buzzer]

AT: Dallas Cowboys. Do you think we should go to a commercial? Ryan?

CONTESTANT ONE: Take it on to 600.

AT: OK. By signaling for one of these, a returner can reel in a kick without fear of getting tackled.

[Sound: Buzzer]

AT: Fair catch. Two clues left, Ryan.

CONTESTANT ONE: Eight-hundred.

AT: These penalties are simultaneous violations by the offense and defense that cancel each other out.

[Sound: Buzzer]

AT: They are called offsetting penalties. Let's look at the thousand dollar clue just for the fun of it.

SECOND HOST: As Minneapolis's US Bank Stadium prepares to host Super Bowl 52, I'm looking at the Ring of Honour with names from this defensive line that took the Vikings to four Super Bowls.

AT: If you guys ring in and get this one, I will die. Who are “The Purple People Eaters”. We're going to take a break. I have to talk to them.

JD: “Jeopardy!” host Alex Trebek, poking some fun and contestants last night because they… well, they just didn't do very well with football-related questions.

[Music: Indie rock]

Crock-Pot

JD: Warning: major spoilers ahead for the hit TV show "This Is Us". And major spoilers on how we're doing as a culture. Here's the spoiler-free version: something bad happened on tv involving a product, and now the company that makes that product has been forced to tell us that the fictional bad thing has never happened in real life. Spoiler alert: the product is a Crock-Pot. And the Crock-Pot people have issued a statement that reads, in part: "For nearly 50 years with over 100 million Crock-Pots sold, we have never received any consumer complaints similar to the fictional events portrayed in last night's episode." Like chili in a slow cooker, I'm taking my time. But, like a malfunctioning slow cooker, I'm about to blow the lid off this thing. Again: if you're a "This Is Us" fan, and you haven't seen the latest episode, turn your radio off for 44 seconds — starting now. Okay, here's what happens: Jack turns off a faulty slow cooker and goes to bed. It bursts into flames. And when the episode ends, it looks like the whole house will go up. It's heartbreaking. So, on social media, people lashed out at the villain: the inanimate object, promising to throw out their Crock-Pots. So the Crock-Pot people immediately started an account called @CrockPotCares to express real sympathy over the not-real tragedy — and to assure people that their real product is not the not-real product that started the not-real fire. So that's where we are as a society. And that's the power of a popular TV show. The real pot is totally safe, but the watched pot boils over.

Back To Top »

Part three: Encore: Carol Off “All We Leave Behind”, Rottweiler chicken

Encore: Carol Off “All We Leave Behind”

Guests: Carol Off, Robina Aryubwal

JD: "Journalists too often have their best moments when other people are having their worst." This is a pivotal line in the book "All We Leave Behind: A Reporter's Journey into the Lives of Others". It's true, and it's a typically wise observation from a brilliant author who also happens to be the brilliant host of this program: Carol Off. Last night, Carol won British Columbia's National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction for her book. It tells the story of Asad Aryubwal, who spoke candidly to Carol about the crimes of warlords in Afghanistan for a 2002 CBC documentary. That interview forced Mr. Aryubwal and his family into exile for years, and it forced Carol to confront the dangers faced by her sources. In September of last year, Carol and Robina Aryubwal, Asad's oldest daughter, sat down to talk with Anna Maria Tremonti — host of "The Current" — about the long journey to bring the Aryubwals to Canada.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Robina I want to start with you. You grew up in Afghanistan at a very volatile time. When you were 10 years old during the Taliban's take over the country, you had to flee on foot with your family to Pakistan. Can you tell us what that was like for a little girl?

ROBINA ARYUBWAL: Yes it was a miserable experience because like we had to walk for nine hours and there's the rain. So I was with my mom and my siblings and my uncle's family. I was walking with my grandmother she couldn't walk properly. I said I should be with her. We didn't want to lose her. So it was you know kind of very hard you know to keep up with every member of the family. We lost our brother. There was a stranger man you saw like my mother was in trouble. So, he said he's going to help my mother and she will take my brother and he will take us to somewhere safe.

AMT : How old was your brother at the time?

RA: He was very small maybe was two years old. He couldn't walk. And then we lost our brother and cousin my mother was crying saying: “ Oh my gosh I don't know we have lost your brother.” And then at one point there was a checkpoint that my mother found my brother with my cousin and the man was waiting for my mother.

AMT: So he took your brother and carried him but he didn't take him away. He actually was helping.

RA: No no. We were kind of scared. They seemed very nice. We had no choice.

AMT: You were walking through the rain. What was the land like?

RA: The land was sometimes… We were getting like at the top of the mountain like it was crazy. It was such a horrible place. And when I remembered that place it's going: “Oh my gosh how we made it.”

AMT: And you were just 10 of the time. So what was going through your head as you were doing this route?

RA: Actually at that time I was only thinking we should make safely from here. And I was like even 10 years old but I was really trying to help my grandmother. And I was making sure like every family members together. You know, it made as kind of strong in a point but it was such a bad experience.

AMT: How many siblings do you have?

RA: I have four siblings; two brothers, two sisters and I'm the oldest.

AMT: Okay, Carol you write that Asad Aryubwal had been forced to leave his country three times by the time he was 40 years old. The fourth and last time you write was because of you.

CAROL OFF: Yes.

AMT: Why?

CO: Well the escape that Robina is talking about is because of the Taliban after 9/11, when the United States led its forces its invasion of Afghanistan to rid the country the Taliban they fled again. They had just returned when I got there in 2002. And they were willing to talk, well the dad was, Asad was willing to talk about Rashid Dostum, this notorious warlord who was the partner with the United States. The United States had taken him on as their military partner on the ground to fight the Taliban. So they were able to defeat the Taliban with Rashid Dostum. But we are learning about the atrocities that were being committed including that they had - The allegation was that he and his men had murdered thousands of prisoners of war. And so we wanted to investigate who these people were, these warlords that the US had taken on as partners. No one would talk about that. No Afghans would reveal that. Robina's father, Asad had been conscripted into Dostum's army and he was a man who was willing to talk. Great you know in our business we call it get.

AMT: And so tell us a little bit more about Abdul Rashid Dostum and his reputation.

CO: He was actually established by the Soviets during the Soviet American proxy war. He was known to murder people, massacre civilians, as Asad said in that clip. At the same time he would murder his own men if they got in his way. Remember one journalist telling me how he had arrived to do an interview with Dostum and there was bits of flesh all over the courtyard. And it had been one of his own men that had put under the tank treads and run over. He's now we should point out the vice president of Afghanistan. Not only was he not routed after all these things, not only did get away with everything he did, he's been rewarded so amply.

AMT: What role did Assad play in this army?

CO: Because he was living in the north, in Rashid Dostum territory, Asad was conscripted into the military. But because he was a businessman and so you know he didn't know which end of a gun to hold. Rashid Dostum wasn't going to give them one of his weapons. So what he needed other people to do was logistics. And so Asad was required to go through checkpoints and get materials to Dostum people and it was just a frightening time but he didn't do it. He had already been clear that they were going to do horrible things to his children. And so he had seen firsthand what Dostum was capable of. So he was a very valuable insider for us.

AMT: And so was Asad Aryubwal involved in any of the crimes he was accusing Dostum’s army of committing?

CO: No. He skillfully kept out of the combat by virtue of taking on this logistics role. And also he wasn't there during - He wasn't part of it during the times when there was actually major wars going on. All those times he fled like the one time that Ruby is describing – Robina, we used to call her Ruby. That was one of the times when they had to leave because Dostum wanted him to become part of his is fighting forces.

AMT: So what was he telling you about Dostum that got him into so much trouble?

CO: He was shocked that Americans, people he admired and Canadians who because we were also there by then, would not see through who this man is, would install these warlords - and Dostum wasn't the only one - and put them on the payroll.

AMT: And here was a man who could actually give you the details of…

CO: And he was saying why are you doing this? He was shocked that was happening. He is a dear man and he believed that somehow if we knew that, if our government knew that, if Washington knew that they wouldn't include him as their partner.

AMT: Robina, what was life like in Afghanistan after the start of the American led mission there, after 9/11, at the time that Carol was interviewing your father?

RA: It was a pretty big change and everyone was optimistic for a good future and we were very happy because schools were reopened for females and I was like the bright student of my school. I had good marks so it was amazing for me.

AMT: Before the Taliban you were in school and then when the Taliban came in you started teaching other girls. Did you know you not?

RA: Yes.

AMT: Secretly.

RA: Yes, secretly. Like I was learning Dari and math but there were a lot of other women who were coming and my mother was helping them with Dari and I was teaching them English. Even there were some children of Taliban and they were learning English from me.

AMT: I think a lot of people be surprised to know that the Taliban are sending their girls to be taught by you, as well. That's really interesting. Had you been exposed, what kind of risk were you taking?

RA: So it was a big first for our family. They said if we keep continued this they were going to harm our family. So it's kind of pretty confusing like they want you know their children be educated and they want to stop other children from education.

AMT: Carol this just proves this is not an ordinary family. I mean this is like they were willing to do things to help each other and help others in areas that were forbidden. So Asad Aryubwal gives you an interview. When did you learn that the interview you did with him in the shooting you did around that interview had put his family in danger?

CO: Well I went back in 2006 after the Canadian military went into Kandahar. So we back to cover that and we wanted to do an update on our warlord documentary. At that point I didn't know that there had already been threats, that Dostum people had already come to see Asad and told him: “You can't even go home and you can go to the north or you'll be killed. You can only stay in Kabul.” He never told me that. We did another interview in 2006, Asad saying you know this man should be in the War Crimes Tribunal, “Hey you shouldn't be running any part of the country.” Great update. I went back and it was shortly after that that I learned that they had fled the country because after that interview Dostum’s people came to see us at and said: “That's it. If you stay in Afghanistan you will die.”

AMT: Robina what were you thinking? What were other members of your family thinking then about this interview your dad had done with Carol?

RA: Actually we knew about the consequences like this interview is going to be very dangerous for our family, but as a human we should stand for our own right. We cannot live in a society which is unjust. And there should be some want to raise his voice for the sake of welfare of other people. So we knew about the consequences but we did it. I have never regret it.

AMT: Were you ever angry at all your Dad for speaking out?

RA: Oh no. Never, like sometimes he felt he is sorry for what he did but we used to tell him that we are very proud of him.

AMT: Now Carol what did you do to help the Aryubwal family after you found out they were in such danger?

CO: I told them that I was going to get them out of this mess that I put them in, and it was just a matter of time. It was logical. These were absolutely the most deserving refugees I could ever imagine. They should come to Canada. They had risked their lives in order to, they believe, warn the Canadians about the danger they were getting into. He'd spoken to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. All of this indicated to me this is a person that deserved refuge in our country. You know I'm not naive. I didn't know how difficult it was going to be. I didn't know it would take almost nine years, almost nine years to get them out of the trouble that they were in. While they lived in exile in Pakistan were every single day there was some renewed threat to their lives, I mean it was frightening for them.

AMT: They were in Pakistan at this point.

CO: They were in Pakistan, they were in exile.

AMT: So you fled that last time and you were going to Pakistan, Robina, to try to get refugee status so that you could apply to come to Canada, correct?

RA: Yes. Exactly.

AMT: And so that last time when you left, what was that like, when you left Afghanistan?

RA: We were kind of very scared. We knew about the situation in Pakistan for refugees. We knew that if we go to Pakistan, Pakistan is pretty close to Afghanistan and Pakistan is a society like whoever will do whatever for the sake of money, because there are a lot of poor people and the police would never have asked like what happened to this family because we were a refugee. No one will ask you know what happened to a refugee. It was pretty scary and very very tough for our family members. But the only hope that we had was Carol. If we didn't have Carol, I can't imagine, like, we would be alive or we would be hopeful as we are here. She used to tell us like don't worry there is a dark tunnel and there always light at the end of that tunnel. She used to call our family, text us, email us. She sent us money.

AMT: And Carol I mean at this point you go from being a journalist to getting very involved with this family. Talk to me a little bit about how your decision to step in and your sense of responsibility in this.

CO: Well as a fellow journalist you'll know, Anna Maria, how difficult it was. Because we have we have a code. It's not written down but we don't get involved. We have responsibilities but we don't step over a line. So here I was. Initially I thought I'm actually doing this as a journalist. I mean these were as a journalist I got them into this hot water and this is a continuation of my work. But as the years went on I realized how involved I was. It just was almost a daily basis. We had some kind of crisis something we were working on together and it was very odd for me because I am a pretty orthodox journalist in the way of you know what how you keep your distance. You have to be impartial. And yet I came to love these people as though they were mine.

AMT: But you weren't reporting on them, by this point. You're doing this behind the scenes trying to...

CO: I wasn't reporting on them so I wasn't you know involved in them in that respect. But I was reporting on the refugee crisis. While I was trying to manipulate my way through it, we were reporting on Afghanistan, the politics of it, while I was trying to get them out of the hands of the vice president of the country. So yeah there were definitely times when I thought: “Am I in a conflict here?” And then everyone knew what I was doing at work. So I'd say you guys have to keep an eye out for this because I'm worried about conflicts. I'm not going to step over the line. But you know we have to get them out of this but at the same time I can't leave my work.

AMT: And remind us again how many years from when you suggested they do this too when you actually greeted them at the airport?

CO: It was like almost nine wasn’t it?

RA: Nine, yes.

AMT: Why so long?

CO: Well this is the fallacy of what's going on. We have people who say you know we can't just open the doors and let refugees in willy nilly. My gosh, these people are screened almost to death and it's so bureaucratic. There's so many hoops you have to jump through. We also found tremendous amount of corruption. But the day I decided Damn. I'm going to write a book and expose this was when Ruby called to say they were told that they had to pay money to an account in Moscow if they wanted to get out of this mess. Fifty thousand U.S. dollars to actually get their papers done, by the unit UNHCR. We don't know if really was. We don't know if it was legitimate. But the others were saying yeah this is how you do it. So this is what happens when you make it so difficult. People will do anything to get out of danger. I happen to have the fortune or misfortune of trying to help the most honest man on the subcontinent.

AMT: He didn't want anything to do with going the other...

CO: Not a single bribe. And so we had to do everything through these legitimate channels and we just found out how impossible it was.

AMT: You write, at one point in your book, that the family will read here meaning on the page of this book for the first time, that at one point you thought of walking away from them. It had become so hard.

CO: Ruby [unintelligible] she's getting a lot of tears in her eyes. When you read that because, yes, I haven't asked you. What did you think when you read that?

RA: Actually, to be honest, we have never realized. She have never shown us that she is tired and she will give up. She used to tell us that we shouldn't give up. But you know because it was a matter of dead and life for us, we were tired of that long process. We really were kind of, we were saying No nothing will happen. You know we will die like this. And this is our life. Nothing will change. And whenever we were tired she used to call us: “Oh. We will hire a good lawyer” or “we will expose this and everything will be fine”.

AMT: My reading of that was, Carol, you thought you had let them down.

CO: I thought I had become the problem. Because at that point we were trying to – We got through the UNHCR and got them legitimate status as refugees and then we were trying to get them into Canada. And the years were going by. I was trying to cover the story of the refugees and challenge Chris Alexander the minister of immigration at the time. At the same time I was trying to get the Canadian government to approve them and making sure that I kept a firewall between those two things. And so I thought well maybe, you know, I'm not using my influence. I'm never calling anybody in the government because I can't. But maybe the fact that I am a journalist, maybe that is a fact. Maybe I've been giving them false hope all this time and that what they really should be doing - I should just take all the money in my bank account and transfer it to them and say: “Take this and run as fast as you can get into the rubber dinghies cross the Mediterranean” because I'm not getting anywhere.

AMT: Well let's fast forward because after years of this you finally meet again at the Toronto airport. 2015, what month was it?

RA: It was November 15^th.

AMT: You remember. What was that moment like Robina?

RA: It was kind of like amazing moment for our family. Because till the Pearson Airport we thought “Will we make or not” and when we saw Carol like she was weaving. It was kind of the best moment of our life you know. It was the moment that we were waiting for nine years.

CO: I can still see Asad coming through the arrivals, pushing his cart. It was a mountain of bags. And last time I'd seen him he was a man with brown hair and I was seeing a man with gray hair. And he's pushing all these baggage you know metaphorically as well. And it's falling off and he's waving frantically and there's this big huge smile. And he came through the door and then he just let the car go, and suddenly I was just smothered in this embrace and this is a man who completely broke down into uncontrollable sobs. It wasn't just the nine years. It was you know decades of grief. Everything I felt that moment he was passing through to me and I was just saying to him: “It's okay now. You're home.”

AMT: Robina, how's your family doing now? How's your mom? How are your siblings?

RA: Actually we are [unintelligible] Toronto’s life. Our family and I believe in gender equality, human rights. We're very very happy that we are here. We wanted those things and we wanted safety which we are feeling now we are safe here. And it's amazing I'm going to school again, my siblings got job. My mother started her small business.

AMT: Your mom is selling dumpling.

RA: She's selling Afghani mantoo. And she's enjoying that.

AMT: What are you studying at university?

RA: I'm really optimistic to go to law school. I'm taking major in philosophy, minor in political science, and minor French. So I really want to be a lawyer and to help other women and other children.

AMT: If you had to go back to the beginning of the story knowing everything that happened would you still interview Asad?

CAROL OFF: No. No. If I had known this was happening, even before I did the second interview if I had known. No I wouldn't I wouldn't. And he knew that. So that's the problem we have is that people want to tell these stories, they are really ready to risk so much and we have to be so careful of that as journalists. He wasn't going to tell me that he was his whole family was being threatened, because he thought it was necessary. And so I wouldn't have done which is, when you think of it, a real problem because that's what the tyrants and the bad guys and the dictators want.

AMT: How do you see a broader human responsibility towards people like the Aryubwal family?

CO: You know, I love Ruby and her family dearly, but they are exactly the same as all those other people who are getting into those little boats and crossing the Mediterranean. This fear we have of allowing these refugees to come because they're going to bring all kinds of bad things. It's the opposite. They're fleeing terrorism. They're fleeing the things that we're against. And there are people like this I mean, with some exceptions of course. My responsibility, I went into Afghanistan with all the best intentions to expose a story. And there were consequences for that. We as a country go and invaded Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban and then we leave in the same way. All the best intentions are going in there. I think Canada needs to regard its responsibility to Afghanistan and to start seeing these people and the needs they have, that we have abandoned.

AMT: Robina, maybe I'll just give you the last word here in terms of how you see your future now compared to how you saw it back then?

RA: We are very optimistic about our future. So it's me and my siblings. We want to be well educated and then help other people. Every member of my family has a bright future ahead. And we are lucky enough to have Carol in our life and she's a miracle woman that changed everyone's life and our family, and we really appreciate it. And I really thank her and I really want others to learn. It's very important if we have you know everything for our self. It's her duty to think about others too. So there are a lot of other people in the world that need to be helped.

CO: I'm going to have the last word and say I'm the one who's so lucky to have you in my life.

JD: Robina Aryubwal and Carol Off, in conversation with Anna Maria Tremonti on "The Current" last September. Last night, Carol Off won British Columbia's National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction for her book, "All We Leave Behind: A Reporter's Journey into the Lives of Others". And that explains why she has been absent from your radio. But this coming Monday, Carol will be present in the studio with me once again.

[Music: Happy piano]

Rottweiler chicken

Guest: Steve Ivany

JD: When you think of Rottweilers, you might not immediately think of their caring natures. That is not necessarily fair. And Charlee the Rottweiler is gentle with her friends. Very gentle with one of her friends in particular, and she has to be, because that friend is kind of small and delicate. That friend’s name is Penny, and she's a chicken. Charlee and Penny hang out together at a gardening store in Newfoundland. Steve Ivany is the owner of that shop — and both the animals. We reached Mr. Ivany in Conception Bay South.

HM: Mr. Ivany, how did this friendship between Charlie the Rottweiler and Penny the Chicken begin?

STEVE IVANY: Actually, Charlee has quite a few chicken friends. I've got into raising chickens out of an incubator in my home a few years ago. So ever since Charlie has been very young — like eight-weeks-old — I've had young chickens in my house. Basically, when they hatch, I have them in a small baby pool in my living room, so Charlee’s been around young chickens and adult chickens pretty much your whole life, so she's really familiar with them. Penny happens to be a hen that doesn't get along with my other chickens, so I had to remove her from the pen. And she just happened to hit it off with Charlee, so we coexist now in the shop together.

HM: Have you ever worried that Charlee might not be so gentle with the chickens?

SI: Not for a second. Not for a second. I've been with Charlee since she was eight-weeks-old. I've pretty much been in her presence the whole time. She's my shadow. She doesn't have to be on a leash. I walk her twice a day, so she's really friendly. She has a lot of cat friends. She's just a very friendly, loving dog. She’s just a happy soul.

HM: When customers come into your store, how did they see Charlee and Penny interact? How do they know they're buddies?

SI: Well, it's pretty obvious when somebody comes into the shop. You know when they see a 130 pound Rottweiler and a chicken sitting on the floor together that there’s not going to be an issue. But I tell you the surprising thing for me is that the majority of people that come in the shop you would think would be afraid of the big dog. But it's not the case. I see a lot more people who are actually afraid of the chicken than the dog.

HM: Do they have reason?

SI: I think most of it is irrational fear myself. But some of them have had instances where they were young where the bird may have flown up in their face or something. But you know it's a chicken.

HM: Is Penny as gentle with Charlee as vice versa?

SI: Actually, Penny tends to be a little bit aggressive with Charleee, which is kind of why she rules the roost. She tends to grab Charlee by the face. And Charlee doesn't really like that very much.

HM: No kidding.

SI: Charlee keeps a healthy distance, but she's absolutely fearless, Penny is. The chicken, I don't know where she came from, but she has absolutely no fear.

HM: Now, you say they stand together on the store floor. Do they cuddle up as well sometimes?

SI: No, I wouldn't call it cuddle. Charlee doesn't like the chicken to get too close to her. But within a foot for sure, like Charlee a lie on the mat, the chicken will go up, and sit down, and go to sleep within a foot of her on the mat.

HM: It sounds a little bit less like a friendship and more like a boss/employee relationship.

SI: I think that at this point, Penny would probably be considered the manager of shop, yeah, for sure. She kind of runs the roost, and in shop, she knows what she likes. She tips over so many plants and just eating a lot of stuff that she shouldn't.

HM: Right. And you mentioned there are cat friends. Are there any of them that move around at the shop too?

SI: No, I don't have any cats at the shop. But at my friends’ houses that I go to quite regularly they have they have cats. And Charlee is very smart around cats because she knows that she's going to have her butt handed to her by a cat. So she's very wary of cats as well. But she also loves cat friendship; loves to have them to play with as long as they don’t get too close.

HM: Yeah. Now, you mentioned you raise chickens indoors — you raise them for eggs. Where does Penny lay hers?

SI: It's quite random actually. She has Charlee’s old kennel actually in my shop. So that's where she stays overnight. But sometimes, she lays in her kennel, but sometimes it's completely random wherever she lays. So sometimes it's a bit of an Easter Egg hunt around the shop.

HM: And does that include Charlee? Is Charlie hunting for eggs too?

SI: Indeed, it does. She has on quite a few occasions Charlee will bring me eggs that she finds around Shop.

HM: She brings them to you?

SI: Yes, she does, yeah. She won't break them. She actually brings me the eggs.

HM: That is amazing she's so gentle.

SI: She is. She's one-of-a-kind I believe. I've had Rottweilers before and I love the breed. But Charlie is an exception again. She's just absolutely a beautiful dog. I mean I don't know what I'd do without her. She's in my house and I don't even know. She’s a 130 pound dog and I don't even know she's in my house. She doesn't bark, she doesn’t wine, she doesn't make any noise, she makes no demands on me at all. So it's absolutely amazing.

HM: That is amazing. Do you have any plans to foster any other unlikely animal friendships?

SI: I'm an animal person. And I'm always taking in, and rescuing, and helping, and then everything. So you just never know. Stay tuned; there could be anything coming my way really.

HM: Well, it's a very sweet relationship you describe. Thanks very much for talking to us.

SI: No problem. Thanks very much for having me on.

JD: Steve Ivany owns Charlee the Rottweiler and Penny the Chicken. He also owns the Good 2 Grow store in Conception Bay South, Newfoundland. And that is where we reached him.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 02, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This