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 May 1, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight…

CO: Take your hand out of marriage. A Quebec judge says a Mohawk First Nation can't force non-Indigenous people to leave the community after marrying into it.

JD: Appealing for a better judgment. After a Spanish court fails to convict five men of rape, who called themselves ‘the wolfpack,’ furious protesters take to the streets in the tens of thousands.

CO: Prosecution complex. French judges didn't have enough evidence to send Hassan Diab to trial, but documents show Canadian Justice Department lawyers worked hard to ensure that the Ottawa man wound up in a French prison.

JD: A loss for words. The day after nine journalists are killed in a bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, our guest was there covering the story while mourning the deaths of two colleagues.

CO: What's the matter, caterpillar got your tongue? London is invaded by shaggy little larvae, whose hairs can bring on and of anaphylactic shock. Residents are urged to let the creatures mind their own fuzziness.

JD: And…Getting their shih tzus together. For ten years a cabal of snobby dog owners in Tribeca treated a public park like it was their private property. And now New York's parks department is out to stop the hound related hounding. As It Happens: The Tuesday Edition. Radio that welcomes the end of a long reign of terrier.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Kahnawake marry out, Hassan Diab case, NYC private/public dog park

Kahnawake marry out

Guest: Waneek Horn-Miller

JD: It has been a membership law on the books and Kahnawake for 37 years. The Mohawk community just south of Montreal has been crystal clear about its ‘marry out, get out’ rule. If you marry a non-Indigenous person you cannot live in Kahnawake. Well this week Quebec Superior Court ruled that that policy violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judge said it discriminates based on social status, and that it was based on stereotypical beliefs about mixed marriage. Waneek Horn-Miller was the lead plaintiff. After she married a white man she was put on a community eviction list and moved away. We reached Waneek Horn-Miller in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Horn-Miller, the judge has said that this marry out policy discriminates and that it's unconstitutional. What does that ruling mean for you?

WANEEK HORN-MILLER: I was pretty happy with the ruling and in my initial reading about it was I found that the judge was fair and had a good understanding of how we got to the situation we're in today. And I think that it was an important ruling. From my understanding, it is really precedent setting. I think it gave also a chance to encourage reconciliation within the community. That’s also something I believe in.

CO: And you were a lead plaintiff in this case. Why did you decide that you wanted to challenge the membership law in Kahnawake.

WHM: For me it started, my own personal journey, when I was pregnant with my first child I was the focus of a petition to stop my house from being built and anonymous hate mail toward my unborn baby. I decided to launch a class action suit in 2013. When I really looked around the eviction issue was getting out of hand again and there was nothing being done. There was threats and a lot of potential for violence and I just didn't see any institution or anybody within the community really trying to tell people to calm down this is not the way we do things. And I was worried about violence, that's pretty much why I watch the court case.

CO: Why is it that you were getting this kind of hate reaction and they wanted you to leave? What was the root of that?

WHM: Oh, I mean, the root of it was this law. This marry out, get out law.

CO: It's because you were in a mixed marriage, right?

WHM: Yes, exactly. I met Keith at the 2000 Olympic Games. We started dating in 2002. You know, he's an Olympian in judo and I’m water polo player and, you know, when all this started happening he was away at medical school. You know, he was around he would come back and visit, but generally he was away and he personally went and met with the chief at the time, Mike Delisle of the band council and he told him ‘I’m not here, is there anything else we can do? I want to come back and practice medicine here, I want to support my wife. I want to support the community. Is there nothing else we can do?’ And there was no flexibility or not even any compromise.

CO: Why could they feel that you and your family and your husband, because you were married to him, why did they not want you to live in Kahnawake? What are the reasons?

WHM: Well, I think that, I mean, this fear of loss and fear of not being there, it's coming from a long history of land being taken and, you know, all of that type of thing. I mean, that fear when we started being, as Indigenous people, being defined by blood quantum, that essentially is a mathematical equation to make you fearful of breeding yourself out of existence. And it's something that is so fundamentally disrespectful to a human being to start fractioning them off into segments and it causes fear, it causes a sense of loss. And there's just been so such a huge barrage of attack on Indigenous people through the Indian Act, I think this case really highlights just this is the result of over 130 years of genocidal policies. The last phase of colonization really is when we start turning on each other.

CO: It does seem that the Quebec Superior Court Justice, Thomas Davis, he recognized that. He understood that the reason why this tension existed about this marrying out policy had come from the fact that so much land had been expropriated, that the St. Lawrence Seaway just took such a huge chunk of the reserve, first of all that you were on a reserve and then that you kept on being diminished by all of these the other needs of Quebec and you're not left with much. And so, do you understand why the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake had this policy and they saw it as being a matter of their survival?

WHM: I understand where it comes from, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't believe that this law protects culture and language — it erodes it. It breaks apart families at a very fundamental level. But one thing that doesn't really get talked about in this whole process is the responsibility of the federal government. I mean, what frustrates me is that what they've essentially done is they've downloaded human rights abuses onto the communities and they're being played out in situations like this. But really all the land erosion and all of that degradation of who we are where we are didn’t come from inside, it came from external. And I think that they hold responsibility, partial responsibility, for what's happening in Kahnawake.

CO: We heard from Kahnawake’s Grand Chief Joe Norton today about the ruling and this is what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

GRAND CHIEF JOE NORTON: The judge made a ruling on several things, but he didn't say white people could live in the community. He stayed away from that and he said there's issues that still have to be resolved in Kahnawake — and that's important. When you say something like that it means take everything back home and resolve it yourselves. It's got no business being in a court of law. Life goes on and we need to get everybody to understand that we will continue to do what we have to do.

CO: It sounds like it's going to be — nothing much is going to change in Kahnawake.

WHM: Well, I mean we got into this situation over 130 years. Change doesn't happen overnight and I believe we are the people of the great law of peace, which is something that the world knows is one of the founding principles of democracy. And I really look forward to working with them and working toward making Kahnawake a powerhouse of the Mohawk Nation — powerful and taking our place in this country as a nation.

CO: Your mom lives in Kahnawake, your heart is clearly in Kahnawake. Do you think that you and your family could ever move back there?

WHM: Well, you know, my heart is always there — my mom, friends, family. You know, one of the things that has always made me so proud was to be from there and when I went around the world as an athlete I always tried to represent our people as best as I could. I do believe — you know, one day I would love that. It’s always on the radar and it's something I always dreamed to do. I’m not sure when that's going to be and what that looks like because we have commitments in Ottawa. But the one day I hope so.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Horn-Miller, thank you.

WHM: Thank you very much.

JD: Waneek Horn-Miller was the lead plaintiff in a case challenging the ‘marry out, get out’ membership rule in her Mohawk community of Kahnawake. Today a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled that that law is unconstitutional.

[Music: Ambient Bass]

Hassan Diab case

Guest: Donald Bayne

JD: Turns out that Canadian officials were a lot more involved in sending Hassan Diab to France than we were originally told. Mr. Diab is the Ottawa academic who spent three years in a French prison before being told that there wasn't sufficient evidence to even take him to trial. And that lack of evidence had been raised by Mr. Diab’s lawyer during his extradition case. Well now our colleagues at CBC News have secure documents showing just how hard Canadian government lawyers worked to overcome any weakness in the French extradition case. Donald Bayne is Hassan Diab’s lawyer. We reached Mr. Bayne in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Bayne, how much did the Canadian Department of Justice help extradite Hassan Diab to France?

DONALD BAYNE: It's a question of what the Department of Justice did in combination with the unfortunate, tragic even, provisions of our extradition act and procedure. There are very few statutes in Canada where the leading legal text begins with this sentence: “The extradition act is perhaps the least fair statute ever to be passed into Canadian law.” And so the Department of Justice in this case took that statute and every advantage it offered them and then quite zealously advocated for this man's extradition despite directing some of the French investigation and causing in Canada some of the investigation to be undertaken and that Canadian part proved conclusively the man's innocence.

CO: Let’s just pick them apart, because it's quite significant. There are specific bits of evidence that appeared and did not appear in this extradition process. Let's talk about the fingerprint evidence. what what happened there? What was the evidence there that didn't end up in this extradition process?

DB: So midway through the proceedings he was detained at the request of the Department of Justice here to take Distil fingerprints — the tips of the fingers — because the suspect, the bombing suspect, who ran by the name of Alexander Panadriyu in Paris in 1980, left fingerprints on a police statement. And the Canadian Department of Justice official said send those to us, we'll have the RCMP take Distil fingerprints here and then we can show the results to the judge. This was for the purpose, he said, of showing the judge and this would be very powerful, if not, conclusive evidence.

CO: And conclusive evidence that Hassan Diab was the man the French were seeking for this 1980 bombing of this Paris synagogue?

DB: Their claim was that he was the mystery Alexander Panadriyu. So, in fact, Dr. Diab was detained, his fingerprints were taken. They were conclusively matched and determined not to be Hassan Diab. All identifiable prints eliminated him as being that person. And it was never put before the judge, which according to the letter written by the Department of Justice, was the very purpose of getting these. In fact, it reads “Putting in front of the Canadian judge presiding over the hearing of the extradition evidence that could prove to be very powerful, if not, conclusive.” Well they got that evidence and it was conclusively not him and it never was put in front of the Canadian judge. It was not inconclusive and it was never provided, the results, to the defence or to the judge.

CO: You were Hassan Diab’s legal counsel and so how is it that you were not told, you didn't know, that they had, this they attempted to get this conclusive evidence and found it wanting, found that there was no proof through his fingerprints that Hassan Diab was the man they sought? Why didn't you know that?

DB: Because under the Extradition Act there's no obligation of the foreign state to disclose all the facts of the case, particularly those facts that show innocence. And so the Canadian Department of Justice regards that as being their limited obligation too. So when they independently, in Canada, obtained this evidence — and by the way, in the critical decision that caused Dr. Diab’s release from France saying there is no case against this man, the two investigative judges in France ruled that those fingerprints that were never disclosed here, in the words of those judges were an essential element of the proof of innocence. And yet they were never put before the Canadian judge here, the results of that fingerprint test were never disclosed to the defense. And it's because they didn't have to, and that emphasizes how wrong and unfair the Extradition Act and its proceedings are.

CO: But why do you think the Justice Department was so actively involved in trying to see that Hassan Diab was extradited and sent to France?

DB: I've done two extraditions in a career that's in its 46^th year. Most Canadian lawyers, and even Canadian criminal lawyers, have little experience with extradition. It's a creature that kind of lives in the backwater of Canadian law. The only professed experts are in the International Assistance Group of the Department of Justice and it's the only time I've ever done a case where the lawyer starting the extradition came up to me and said ‘Hello Mr. Bayne, I'm Mr. X. I've never lost a case.’ If you've never lost a case as a litigator you know you haven't done very many cases, because you win some you lose some. Or, if you've never lost a case it's because the playing field is unjustly tilted.

CO: But why do you think that these Canadian government lawyers worked so hard to see Mr. Hassan Diab sent to France?

DB: I think they'll have to answer that. Why? Why was there such a zeal to direct this French prosecution? It seems to me, and I think most Canadians would think, if a foreign state says they have a case against somebody and they come to Canada and the Canadians take that case and say ‘OK here's a foreign case they're asking for this man's extradition.’ And it turns out to be defective, so be it. It's not Canada's case. And this one was taken over as if it was Canada's case — the Department of Justice’s case to win.

CO: We will leave it there but I think this story is far from over. Mr. Bayne, thank you.

DB: Thank you.

JD: Donald Bayne is the lawyer for Hassan Diab. We reached Mr. Bayne in Ottawa. The news about Mr. Diab’s case had NDP Member of Parliament Matthew Dubé on his feet in Question Period this afternoon.

SOUNDCLIP

MATTHEW DUBE: Mr. Speaker, the biggest engagement the government had was using low burden of proof to extradite Mr. Diab to France. A burden of proof that was so insufficient that it didn't hold up in a French court. Mr. Speaker, in a 2006 Supreme Court ruling the court said that courts have to stop rubberstamping for extradition requests and start weighing evidence presented by foreign countries. So can the Minister explain how the Department of Justice is supposed to deal with this issue when they are investigating themselves? And when will they actually fix this broken extradition system that people are paying with their livelihood?

[APPLAUSE]

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Mr. Speaker, I’m really glad to have that question. We advocated at every level for Mr. Diab’s return to Canada. It is an issue that I took very personally and I am very glad he's back home in Canada with his family. I have read the reports of the involvement of government officials in his extradition. This happened under the previous Harper government. And I think that is indeed a matter of which it is important to look into.

JD: That was Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland responding to a question from the NDP’s Matthew Dube in Question Period this afternoon. And you can hear more, much more on this story, tomorrow morning with the CBC's David Cochrane on the current with Anna Maria Tremonti.

NYC private/public dog park

Guest: Geoffrey Croft

JD: All dogs are equal. Some dogs though, are more equal than others — especially if you're a dog living the high life in New York’s Tribeca neighbourhood. The local Warren Street Dog Park was a thing of doggie dreams. It was private. No riff raff. Only good dogs, and their owners paid a pretty penny to take them there. One problem though, that Park was public property. And now the New York City Parks Department has intervened. Last Friday, they made the park public once again. Geoffrey Croft is the head of NYC park advocates. We reached Mr. Croft in New York.

CO: Geoffrey, this sounds like some sort of exclusive country club for dogs. Can you describe how it works?

GEOFFREY CROFT: Well, a group of individuals privatized a public park, a dog park, in Tribeca in Manhattan, and if you were not a member you were prohibited from entering the public park. They had a lock, a key lock, and you had to sign up guests to enter this facility and it's a pretty unique situation as far as what they did.

CO: It's a public park though, right?

GC: It is a public park. And what was particularly egregious is this has been gone for more than a decade. And right on their website it stated and I quote “The Warren Street dog park is privately owned and the Parks Department has no involvement whatsoever with the park.” You know, certainly it was not privately owned. It was publicly owned and they took it upon themselves to commit fraud in that respect.

CO: Before we get into how that came about, just tell me how you become a member? What do you have to actually do?

GC: You go on their website. You have to read and sign a membership agreement. And you also have to abide by the park rules and you make your payment. And then once all three of these steps were completed this group this group the Dog Owners Of Tribeca Inc. would give you an access code.

CO: How much money would it cost to become a member of this club?

GC: It was a $120 a year, or ten dollars a month.

CO: And let’s talk about the rules, because there are 23 of them.

GC: There are, yes.

CO: Some of them are kind of what you'd expect about behaviour and stuff like that. But there's a lot of things that you have to comply with. I mean, especially the kinds of dogs — they actually say, rule number 23: The dog is the member, not the owner. And they want a certain kind of a dog. Can you describe what they were looking for?

GC: Well, they were looking for dogs that certainly socially interacted well with others. You know dog owner groups are very — they can be very vocal. I once had a person tell me that my dog pays taxes. But yes, you are not allowed to have children in the dog park. And if you wanted to have a guest you have to put that person on a list. I mean, it's pretty detailed membership rules for such a very small park.

CO: So if this is a public park, public area, if someone does walk by this park would they know it was there? Would they say oh this looks nice, I’m going to take my dog for a walk in there?

GC: Well, not only would you not know — I mean you could see through the fence that it was a space and there were dogs in it — but there were no city parks department signs. Here we are today, over the last couple of days they removed the lock that had been there and they put in their standard parks department lock and they have now large parks department signs up. So, I mean, literally overnight this neighbourhood in Lower Manhattan got a brand new dog park.

CO: OK, you mentioned the lock, you have to put in the passcode to get in. And if you shared it with — if you let people in that weren’t members you would automatically void your membership. I mean, there's a whole bunch of ways you could be tossed out, because your dog is the member not you, but you could lose your membership rights in a heartbeat if you brought the wrong person into that park with you.

GC: Absolutely. And that's, again, one of the more egregious rules. I mean, look they treated this as a private facility. It's definitely outrageous.

CO: How did it happen? How could they have taken over this park for 10 years and there was no complaint?

GC: You know, unfortunately in New York City we have a very large parks department. And historically it is underfunded and there is a huge lack of accountability in our parks system and the elected officials don't seem to care. And, you know, we see these privatizations throughout the city. But this particular one they got they got caught. But it's negligence, total lack of accountability from the city and the Parks Department. And these things can go on unless someone complains. And over the last couple of weeks that started to happen.

CO: They argue — the group that calls themselves the Dog Owners Of Tribeca, or DOOT — and they argue that they created a community asset, that they had run a good show, that was really clean and before they took over it wasn't like that — it was aggressive dogs and bad behaviour and antisocial animals and they made it better. So what do you say to them?

GC: I say if you have an issue with how a city facility is being run then force the city to do its job. And that's the big take away here, is that obviously whose home privatized and lie on your website about the ownership and charge membership and create an exclusive access plan. I mean, that's illegal. And so, you know, the city encourages this by the way, this obviously, group took it too far but it's the city job legally to take care of its parks. And if the city refuses to do it then that the public needs to step up and hold their feet to the fire. And in this case that did not happen. They took matters into their own hands and this is the result.

CO: So does it look like the fancy dogs are going to have to hang out the hoi polloi now?

GC: Well, I was down there a couple of times in the last couple of days and certainly there's a much greater mixture of dogs. And to be honest, a lot of the people I spoke with are very happy. They were outraged. They didn't even know that it was a public park. The word is out there now and a lot of people are coming there. It's a very small space. I mean, we're talking about a very small space, but in New York City, real estate being what it is, every inch counts.

CO: Geoffrey, thank you. Good to talk to you.

GC: Absolutely.

JD: Geoffrey Croft is the head of the NYC park advocates. We reached him in New York.

[Music: Ambient Synth And Strings]

Back To Top »

Part 2: Spain rape case, U.K. toxic caterpillars

Spain rape case

Guest: Melissa Kitson

JD: They want answers and they want change. Last week, protests erupted in Spain after the verdict in a case involving five men accused of gang raping an 18-year-old woman during Pamplona’s running of the bulls. A group of men called themselves the ‘wolfpack.’ They were not convicted of rape or sexual aggression. They were found guilty of a lesser offense — sexual abuse. On Saturday, more than 35,000 people attended a march in Pamplona. They held signs that read "No es abuso es agresión". And they demanded Spain's conservative government take action. Melissa Kitson is the deputy editor of The English edition of El Pais. She attended the first march in Madrid after the judges handed down their decision. We reached her in Níjar, Spain. And a warning, this interview does contain disturbing details about a sexual assault.

CO: Melissa, what is the message that the protesters wanted to send the government?

MELISSA KITSON: I think the main message is that it is impossible that these men could receive such a short sentence. Nine years full for sexual abuse instead of rape, which I think is one of the key messages here as well. You have a judge saying this woman who was gang raped by five men was not raped, she was sexually abused because, according to them, there was no violence or intimidation, which is a necessary requirement for a rape conviction. And the women, I mean, not just the women, but know society more generally, I would say, are just fed up with the machista-style patriarchal, horrible verdicts, which are continuing to oppress women and let rapists get away with their horrible crime.

CO: Can you just tell us a bit — now this is a case that happened two years ago. An 18-year-old who was walking to her car at the running of the bulls festival, she was walking to a target when she encountered this group of men who offered to walk her to her car. What happened to her?

MK: She followed these men, she agreed to be led to her car and then they manoeuvered her into a doorway lobby. They surrounded her and they raped her in every way possible. We know she was raped anally, vaginally, forced to perform fellatio with five men, sometimes simultaneously. And after this happened they stole her stone, stole her bag and left her crying on the doorstep.

CO: And these men on their Whatsapp group they call themselves the ‘wolfpack’

MK: ‘La Manada’ in Spanish and there’s actually 21 of them in this group chat. So after this happened — well this is the other point — they recorded the whole attack on their mobile phone and then sent it to their friends saying “We're having a great time in Pamplona. We've just had sex, you know, one girl with five men. This is the best trip ever.”

CO: What evidence did the defense give as to why they believe this, or claim this, to be a consensual sexual act.

MK: They said that she never said no, that she did not put up a fight, basically. That in the video she seemed to be going along with the men, physically not struggling enough. And, you know, the judge didn't rule that the consent had been compromised. And you can hear her crying with pain, but even still, they accept the men’s argument that there wasn't intimidation and the girl is basically compliant.

CO: The prosecutor described it this way: “The defendants want us to believe that on this night they met an 18-year-old girl living a normal life, who after 20 minutes of conversation with people she didn't know, agreed to group sex involving every type of penetration, sometimes simultaneously, without using a condom.” That was what she presented to the court. Why wasn't that accepted?

MK: I mean, there are different theories. I think one thing to consider is that within the group one is a civil guard and another is from the military. And this idea of kind of the old school patriarchal men club closing ranks around establishment is one element. Another issue was that in making the sentences relied really heavily on case law in the Supreme Court, which says that violence is physical harm, and intimidation is the announcement of the threat of future harm. Without actually looking at the situation, here an 18-year-old girl surrounded by five men, I mean, of course, you're going to feel intimidated.

CO: Now what does it say about how the courts how, judges, regard sexual assault?

MK: It’s repulsive. In fact, that is a 340-page sentence and 200 pages were dedicated but were written by this one judge, more than half, on his personal rant about how what he saw was sexual acts in an atmosphere of revelry and delight. You know, what this says about the courts, really, is that women have had such little resources. And what has come up a lot with the protests is this kind of chant: They don't believe us unless they kill us — this idea that you have to basically put your life in jeopardy fighting off five men if you're to believe that you were raped. And this resounds with the case that also happened in 2016 where there was the Madrid teen name Diana Quer, who was killed fighting off her attacker. And I think women here are a completely beyond disappointed at this ruling and this sentence — who can you trust if this happens to you and you go to the courts you relive the trauma and the experience is traumatic and even still not you’re not believed because you didn’t walk away with bruises or stab wounds. What actually has to happen in order to prove that this is not consensual?

CO: So now 35,000 people are out on the streets on the weekend protesting against this verdict, calls for the justice minister to resign. What will come of this? Is there is there enough momentum, is there enough going on to actually persuade or force the government to reform the laws around sexual assault?

MK: The Spanish government has said they will review the terminology and the definition of sexual crimes. And there is a lot of pushback to get this particular judge is Ricardo Gonzalez — to have him removed. There is a petition signed by 1.2 million people in two days also to the Supreme Court to make sure the changes to the law happen. I think, least in the case in the Supreme Court, this case has a much better chance of getting the 21 years asked for for the men. But whether or not this leads to long lasting change, I mean, we can hope so. But I think it's tricky.

CO: We will be watching this case, Melissa. And thank you for telling us this story, it's very disturbing. Thank you.

JD: Melissa Kitson is a deputy editor with the English edition of the newspaper El Pais. We reached her in Nijar, Spain.

[Music: Ambient Bass]

Safe Third Country Agreement

JD: There is absolutely no need to tinker with the safe third country agreement. That is what Canada's immigration minister said last year about the agreement, which sends refugee claimants back to the U.S. if they make their claim at an official border point. But with so many people simply bypassing those official ports of entry, tinker time may finally have arrived. An unnamed source inside the U.S. Department of Homeland Security told Reuters that Canada is proposing a rewrite of the Safe Third Country Agreement, and that it would allow for the return of anyone entering Canada regardless of where. That had the Minister of Public Safety fielding some questions in Ottawa. Here is some of what Ralph Goodale had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

RALPH GOODALE: No, there is no formal proposal at the moment. There is a conversation about how we make our border, both ways, strong effective and secure from the perspective of both countries. That conversation will be ongoing.

REPORTER: Does that include making the entirety of the border an official port of entry?

RG: Look, that's a conservative proposition, which is entirely impractical. That would actually complicate the issues at the border. If you eliminate the notion of official ports of entry and change the entire concept of what the border means, that actually would increase insecurity at the border and make the crossing issue less safe. So it's not it's not a wise proposition.

REPORTER: It’s not part of the conversation?

RG: That would actually be counterproductive to Canada's interest.

REPORTER: What solutions are part of the discussion?

RG: Well, look it's a discussion that we're having with the Americans about the various techniques that that could be pursued on both sides of the border to ensure security and integrity. If, and when, that conversation matures into a specific negotiation, we'll have further things to say about it. But this is very exploratory at the moment, scoping issues and potential solutions. It's very early days.

REPORTER: Are you considering reopening the Safe Third Country Agreement? And are they open to it?

RG: We would be prepared to have a conversation about that, yes. But the American position in response that is not yet determined.

JD: That was Public Safety Minister, Ralph Goodale, speaking to reporters in Ottawa earlier today.

U.K. toxic caterpillars

Guest: James Mallet

JD: One may not think of England as being a country of dangerous animals, beyond, of course, the volatile European hedgehog. But now London is being attacked by different tiny soft-looking creatures, and officials are warning that bad things do indeed come in small fuzzy packages. They're invasive toxic caterpillars. They have been emerging en masse, since mid-April. Eventually they will become oak processionary moths. But right now they're just little hairy monsters. And the U.K. Forestry Commission is stressing that the public should stay as far as possible from them. James Mallet is an entomologist at Harvard. We reached him in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

CO: Professor Mallet, what dangers do these caterpillars pose to people?

JAMES MALLET: Well, the problem is the hairs on the caterpillars. They can stick into you and cause allergies. They’ll cause some irritation even in somebody who isn’t allergic. But to people who are allergic, it can be quite severe, and in some cases, you might get a anaphylactic shock, which can lead to death.

CO: So these caterpillars could actually kill people?

JM: That is true but that's true of a lot of other things as well, that cause allergies in people.

CO: Has there been a death from the hairs of these caterpillars, anybody die from it?

JM: I don't think in England. I think I would have heard about that. There are severe problems. Somebody on the Internet posted a picture of a dog that had very severe welts on its nose.

CO: But how do the hairs affect people? Do you have to have contact with them, do you have to pick up the caterpillar or is it airborne in any way?

JM: If you brush against them you may get the hairs, but they are also reported to be airborne and some people who live near trees may experience some examples of allergies that are probably caused by that, including respiratory allergies.

CO: But now they're called the Oak processionary moth or caterpillar, which is a very regal sounding name. Why that name? Tell us about these creatures?

JM: They're unusual in that they follow each other nose-to-tail in a procession with everybody pressed their head against the previous ones butt, to be technical. And for that reason they call processionary because they make processions. They pretty much only feed on oaks. They will feed on a few other species of trees. But I don't think they'll affect that many trees in very urban areas. So my guess is that this danger is somewhat overblown. It's a typical British news story: Danger! Caterpillars.

CO: Well I'm reading it in the New York Times and it says ‘invasion of these toxic caterpillars’ so I'm not entirely to blame it on the U.K media.

JM: Well, The New York Times is obviously lapping it up. But every year a couple of years there are outbreaks of caterpillars on the south coast, which are a different species called the brown tail moth and these also have hairs. And you can find, you know, newspaper articles about these things and they do cause a medical condition if you brush against them or, you know, in the rare cases you get some sort of airborne hairs.

CO: So what advice are authorities giving for how people should treat these creatures or avoid them or what?

JM: Well, apparently the Forestry Commission would like to get rid of them. They’re a forest pest, so they're advising people to call the Forestry Commission if the public see an infestation and then they will come and try and destroy them or contain them in some way. And the reason is that it's an invasive species it's not a native species.

CO: And what about in North America, Canada or the United States? Have you seen any sightings of the oak processionary moth over here?

JM: As far as I know, not. But you've got some nasty species, some of which are related, which can also cause rashes and possibly more severe outcome.

CO: Like what, for instance?

JM: They're usually in the families of Arctiidae or Saturniidae, that doesn't mean much, does it? The Tiger Moth, woolly bear type caterpillars. Usually hairy caterpillars are a problem. I personally got rashes from spiky caterpilars as well.

CO: Well these are things that kids like to pick up and play with.

JM: Yeah. Most kids, I think, can do it OK. But you don't want to brush the back of your hand your lips or anything like that, or face against the hairy part.

CO: And you shouldn't because them, I guess?

[LAUGHTER]

JM: Yeah, you shouldn't kiss them. Just because they look lovely and cuddly — they’re not very cuddly. But I was interested in Lepidoptera, but I personally had allergies, you know. And so it's quite likely I could have broken out. But I have never had really serious problems. I mean, in this country poison ivy is much worse than the threat from caterpillars.

CO: Good heavens, don't go out in the woods today or you’re bound to get something.

[LAUGHTER]

JM: And Lyme disease.

CO: And speaking of sensationalists, you’re doing a pretty good job of scaring us.

JM: I’m sorry. Go out into the world. It's fun out there and I'm sure you’ll survive. I’ve spent most of my career in the jungle hunting butterflies in South America. And although I've seen the odd snake I've never actually been bitten by one. But I know some of those snakes are absolutely lethal. If you got one bite you're too far away from antivenin you can die. So, you know, I think we should all take a few risks, otherwise life wouldn't be worth living.

CO: All right. But just don't get too intimate.

JM: Yes, not with those caterpillars.

CO: All right, Professor Mallet, thank you.

JM: OK, thank you very much.

JM: That was Professor James Mallet, an entomologist at Harvard University. We reached him in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[Music: Whimsical Tones]

Sweden Twitter

Guest:

JD: Sweden's official Twitter account is generally pleasant and unsurprising. Tweets about Sweden being number two on the world press freedom index and Abba and how Sweden is addressing gender inequality in terms of income — and Abba — and Abba. And then on Saturday someone just threw this out there quote “Swedish meatballs are actually based on a recipe King Charles the 12^th brought home from Turkey in the early 18th century. Let's stick to the facts.” Unquote. Excuse me Sweden's official Twitter account? You just tweet that between something about Abba and something about the annual spring celebration and Valborg and then you just walk away. Now admittedly, this was not really a secret. We already knew the King Charles the 12^th was exiled to Istanbul in the early 18^th century and he did return to Sweden with that recipe. Still, that particular dish couldn't be more identified with that particular country. It's right there in the name — Swedish meatballs. Although, in retrospect, maybe that should have been a hint? I mean, we don't call it Canadian poutine or French foie gras or American fried whatever. It turns out someone was protesting too, too much. Well anyway thanks for your candor Sweden's official Twitter account. It was kind of a shock. But for Swedes preparing meat for their national dish, it probably won't change the daily grind.

[Music: Guitar]

Michelle Wolf Correspondents Dinner Response

JD: The White House Correspondents Dinner does usually include a roast. But as you have likely heard by now there are a lot of people who seem to think that the temperature of Michelle Wolf set was closer to broil or incinerate. As the comedian dutifully scorched the president and his inner circle, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders looks increasingly unhappy in her seat at the head table. And yesterday, the White House Correspondents Association issued a statement condemning Ms. Wolf's performance, saying it wasn't in the quote “spirit” of the evening's quote “unifying message.” Today, Ms. Wolf went on NPR's Fresh Air to defend her set. But first one of the jokes referenced in the interview directed at Ms. Sanders.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHELLE WOLF: I actually really like Sarah, I think she's very resourceful. Like, she burns facts and then she uses that as to create a perfect smokey eye. Maybe she's born with it? Maybe it’s lies? It’s probably lies.

JD: OK, so that was Michelle Wolf making a joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night. Now here is Ms. Wolf speaking to Fresh Air host Terry Gross about the criticism she has faced for that joke and others, earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHELLE WOLF: You know, I think it's clear that the joke wasn't about Sarah’s looks. But I don't think you know — it's, to me it's so obvious that I don't even really need to defend it. I think if you listen to the joke you'll understand that it's about the fact that she lies. And if it's taken another way I think you should go back and listen to it again.

TERRY GROSS: So when you mention her eyeliner, are you criticizing her eyeliner and if so, is criticizing her eyeliner different than criticizing how she looks?

MW: I said she had a perfect smokey eye. So I was complimenting her eyeliner because it's fine, her makeup’s fine. It's the fact that she uses — I was saying — she burns facts and she uses lies for her smokey eye.

TG: After one of your jokes about the women's march and the, I can't say the word, the “P” hats that women wore, and then you made a joke about female genitalia. You said and I quote “You should have done more research before you got me to do this.” I got the impression you really meant that.

MW: Yeah, I mean, I think — I don't know maybe I'm projecting this — but I think sometimes they look at a woman and they think ‘Oh, she'll be nice.’ And if you've seen any of my comedy you know that I don't — I'm not — I don't pull punches. I'm not afraid to talk about things. And, you know, I don't think they expected that from me. I think they still have preconceived notions of how women will present themselves. And I don't fit in that box.

TG: Do you have any regrets about having done the dinner?

MW: I'm honestly — I wouldn't change a single word that I said. I'm very happy with what I said. And I'm glad I stuck to my guns.

JD: That was comedian Michelle Wolf on NPR's Fresh Air, earlier today.

[Music: Ambient Bass]

Back To Top »

Part 3: Afghanistan attack, Hijab event

Afghanistan attack

Guest: Hamid Haidari

JD: In Afghanistan today, the country's journalists had an incredibly difficult assignment. They had covered the funerals of their own friends and colleagues. On Monday, a bombing killed nine reporters and photographers in Kabul, among others. In a separate part of the country a BBC journalist was also killed. Reports suggest bombers in Kabul specifically targeted reporters who had arrived to report on an earlier attack. Hamid Haidari is a journalist with 1TV. Two of his colleagues were killed in the blast. We reached him in Kabul.

CO: Hamid, first of all, I'm so sorry for the loss of your friends.

HAMID HAIDARI: Thank you so much. And we are also saw her for the incident that happened yesterday in Kabul.

CO: You've lost two colleagues, your reporter Ghazi Rasuli, and the cameraman Nawruz Ali Rajabi. Tell us the last time you saw them. What were they going off to do what to do? What did they understand?

HH: It was before 8 o’clock I was in the office yesterday. When I called the police a spokesperson he confirmed that there was a suicide attack in Kabul. Nawruz Ali has his camera. I asked him ‘What are you doing?’ And he told me that “I'm going to get to scene of the suicide blast to cover this news.”

CO: So these two men, Ghazi and Nawruz, they were ready to go to go cover the blast. You sent them off to be your reporters to cover the first explosion, is that right?

HH: Yes, yes. They wanted to go cover the blast.

CO: And that's the last you saw of them?

HH: It was the last time that I saw the face of Ghazi, and he was just looking at me and said, “Goodbye.” It was just between 25-30 minutes when they went to cover the first blast and the second explosion I heard in the office. I was sitting and I was looking at the TV channels and the second explosion happened. I called their phones and their phones were off. When I called the driver he said the second explosion happened in the area where the other journalists were gathered to cover the first explosion. I called Ghazi’s phone many times. I left the office to go to the site of the explosion and I could just feel that something happened because I had heard from the security forces, I heard from the police officers that the second explosion happened among the journalists.

CO: Hamid, I'm so sorry.

HH: Thanks, I'm also sorry for them.

CO: And there are reports that it seems the second bomber may have been targeting the journalists, that he may have been disguised as a reporter and he went — once the journalists were there to cover the first explosion — that man came to set off his device to blow up the reporters. Have you heard that?

HH: One thing that we can confirm is that the main target was the journalists. And nowadays we see that the war in Afghanistan has been changed. The terrorist organizations and the terrorist groups, such as ISIS, their main targets are civilians and civil activities, mosques, people gathering and now they have changed their tactics in Afghanistan.

CO: There are nine journalists killed in that blast out of the 25 people who died. And there are stories that journalists had to go and cover the funerals of their friends, of their colleagues. And I know you were at the funerals of your colleagues. Can you tell us about that, how their families are?

HH: Yesterday we went to the funeral of Mr. Ghazi Rasuli, and especially his mother and his brothers were not good. They were crying and saying that in the coming months they were going to have an engagement party for Ghazi, but unfortunately Nawruz Ali Rajabi has no none. He was the only guy for his family and he has a wife and his mother. He has no father, no brother and his wife is also pregnant.

CO: And there are other stories like that. Some of the journalists were about to get married. They were supporting their families. A photographer who had six children, a newborn baby and some of his family members were blind that he was supporting and they’re all so young. The ones who have been identified — such young people.

HH: Yes, yes. Ghazi was 26 and Nawruz was 24. They were young and professional journalists.

CO: Do you think this will change the way you do journalism? Do you think there will be a hard to get people to work in this profession given that journalists are the targets now?

HH: It will not change our ways. We will not stop in these actions and will continue our ways. We assure that that terrorist organizations cannot stop us.

CO: Thank you, Hamid. Thank you for your courage and continuing to do your journalism.

HH: Thank you so much. Have a nice day and thank you again.

CO: Bye.

JD: Hamid Haidari is a journalist with 1TV. We reached him in Kabul, Afghanistan.

[Music: Somber Piano Ballad]

Kanye West TMZ

JD: If you have been following Kanye West on Twitter lately — or have been following his career over the past decade or so you, get the sense that he doesn't get called out very much. Kanye does what Kanye wants. Kanye says what Kanye wants. Recently, it has been an ongoing series of tweets complimenting President Donald Trump. But today, live on the celebrity website TMZ, Kanye did find a challenger and was seemingly left speechless. Kanye had just finished pontificating on slavery. He said quote “When you hear about slavery for 400 years that sounds like a choice. It's like we're mentally in prison,” unquote. Sometime after that TMZ reporter Van Lathan stood up — and this happened. First voice you hear is Kanye.

KANYE WEST: Do you feel that I’m feeling? Do you feel that I’m being free and I'm thinking free?

VAN LATHAN: I actually, I actually don't think you're thinking anything. I think what you're doing right now is actually the absence of thought. And the reason why I feel like that is because, Kanye you're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to believe whatever you want but there is fact and real world, real life consequence behind everything that you just said. While you are making music and being an artist and living the life that you've earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives. We have to deal with the marginalization that's come from the 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice. Frankly, I'm disappointed, I'm appalled and brother, I am believably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something, to me, that's not real.

JD: That was TMZ reporter Van Lathan confronting Kanye West during a live broadcast today.

[Music: Uptempo Walzt]

B.C. Municipality Song

JD: You may be familiar with Justin McElroy's work. He is the CBC's legislative reporter in Victoria. What you may not be familiar with are his musical stylings. But recently Mr. McElroy won first prize at CBC Vancouver's annual talent show. His speciality: Reciting all of British Columbia's municipalities in song. Here's part of it.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN MCELROY SINGING: Revelstoke, Enderby, Sicamous, Kimberley Castelger, Cranbrook and Trail.

New Denver and Windemere, Sparwood and Invermere Silverton, Fernie, Fruitvale.

Keremeos, Penticton, Osoyoos then Princeton Vernon and Salmo.

The Kelownas, Lake Country, Oyama then Coldstream and Salmon Arm, Lumby and Kaslo.

There’s Grand Forks and Greenwood, the Radium Hot Springs, Armstrong and Elkford and Peachland

Oliver, Naskup, Midway Creston and Montrose and Rossland and Slocan.

Victoria, Sidney, North Cowichan, Courtney The Sanniches, Langford, Nanaimo.

Duncan and Ladysmith, Lantzville and Shimanus Oak Bay, Uclulet, Tofino.

Qualicam, Parksville, Zeballos, Queen Charlotte, Gulf Islands, Esquiamlt and Tas-his.

Colwood, Lake Cowichan, Bowser, Mt. Washington, Sooke Shirley Sayward and Masset.

Port Alberni and Alice Clements and Edward and Hardy, McNeil all spoken. Cumberland Royston, Comoz, Campbell River, the Highlands, View Royal, Metchosin.

JD: The voice of CBC's Justin McElroy. He has posted the full lyrics of his song to Twitter. If, as he said, you for whatever weird reason would like to sing a song listing every municipality in B.C.

[Music: Industrial Pop]

Hijab event

Guest: Racha

JD: For the past two years a Montreal Muslim organization has rented a school auditorium to celebrate the nine to 12 year old girls who have decided to wear the hijab. And this year, once again, the Commission Scolaire de Montréal, the school board known by the abbreviation CSDM, had agreed to rent that organization, the hall. The event was to take place on Sunday. But then on Thursday, Le Journal de Montréal ran a column by Lise Ravary. And she criticized the event and she criticized the board for renting the space for the event. And then far-right groups on Facebook picked up that particular article and suddenly people were pressuring the venue to cancel. Racha, is a spokesperson for the Centre Communautaire Musulman de Montréal, the group that planned the event. We are withholding her last name as she fears reprisals.

CO: Racha, you have been holding this event, annually, for years now. Have you ever had so much trouble before?

RACHA: No, no. We've never had trouble like this. We've had negative media attention where there was an article once in one of the daily journals in Montreal that wrote about this event on the same lines of thought as what was written last Thursday. Like, it’s oppressive, abusive, but we've never had any of these negative opinions have an actual weight on how our event proceeds.

CO: And, of course, you're referring to last Thursday in Journal de Montréal the column, the columnist there, she wrote that your event was tantamount to abuse because the columnist claims that it treats girls as “sexual objects who must be covered with a veil by the age of nine.” That's a quote. How do you respond to that criticism?

R: This criticism is false propaganda. These girls have worn the hijab throughout the year. Their decision to wear the hijab happened at home with their families. And we’re talking about girls aged nine to 12, who when they wear the hijab they don't do it because they think they are sex objects that's very offensive. These are innocent girls. They do it because they want to show a devotion to God, to their religion and they do it because they identify more with the hijab. They want to express themselves so they choose to wear the hijab because it better reflects their identity. There is absolutely no reference in our event to anything sexual.

CO: And this is completely — they're doing this voluntarily? No one has told them to wear hijab?

R: Absolutely voluntarily. They have made this decision on their own. They've been going to school, the same schools, they've been going to the schools of the CSDM with their hijabs on. We at the centre decided to celebrate their choice and give them an opportunity to walk on stage with a gown, with their family members clapping for them, to celebrate the choice that they've done.

CO: So now this column appears to have led to the trouble that you're referring to, in that the contract, the rental contract you had with the school board, which you're using their venue. What were the reasons given for cancelling your rental agreement?

R: The CSDM claim that they received some threat because of this event. And so for security purposes they wanted to cancel the event. Now we have been targeted by some right wing groups that usually post false or negative social media about our event. They have tried, before, to propagate a lot of hate online. And yes, this is a point of concern for us. How big are these groups? How effective are they? But we believe as a community that we have the right to be protected. Yesterday, we actually called law enforcement and said OK we have a police car surveying the area and nothing happened. So yes, they said that there was a security threat but the response that we expected from them is to say “Yeah you can have your event and we would get law enforcement to help us and to make sure that nothing happened,” if there were something to happen.

CO: But instead they just cancelled your contract and said go elsewhere.

R: And they did it 48 hours in advance of the event that has been practiced for and prepared for for three months.

CO: Some of the Facebook sites that were spreading this message, they claimed responsibility. They said that it was their victory that the event, your event was cancelled and they put on their sites. “No to Quebec-phobia and racism towards Quebeckers.” That was the message it seems from those who claimed that they were the ones who got you forced out of your venue.

R: Yes. And the CSDM unfortunately turned a listening ear to them and not to their students.

CO: You tried to get another venue, the Chateau Royale in Laval and then it escalated, didn't it? Tell us what happened after you chose this other venue.

R: So we went to the Chateau Royale and the manager there said yes you have my word. They will build us a stage by Sunday, this was Saturday. And then they started receiving calls with threats that their reputation will be hindered, with comments that they are hosting pedophiles. They affected the Chateau Royale managers’ decision and who then said “OK, you know, we have to cancel.” So the Chateau Royale also listened to these right wing extremist groups.

CO: And this is the groups that are named says Révolution Ptrk. And it's apparently a splinter group from La Meute, which is another far-right group in Quebec that is anti-Islam and Islamophobic. So that was what we're up against. And what did you finally do? How did you finally get to hold the event?

R: Once we decided that OK we cannot find the venue, we just said we're going to do it at our local community centre. We do have a hall, it is a very small hall, but we had to make it work. Some of our volunteers stayed up all night and we actually hired more help and we had to practice everything such that it would fit on this little stage.

CO: Did the Journal de Montreal, have they retracted or done any correction about the column that claimed that this was an event that was to turn girls into sexual objects?

R: No, unfortunately our experience with some of the mainstream media here is that they've always been giving the negative opinion about hijab. What we want portrayed about what we practice and what we believe is never portrayed. And usually when they hear something they always manage to twist the story somehow.

CO: We will leave it there. Racha, I appreciate speaking to you. Thank you.

JD: Racha has a spokesperson is a spokesperson for the Centre Communautaire Musulman de Montréal. We're not using her last name, she is concerned about backlash. We reached Racha in Montreal.

[Music: Electronic]

Red Fox Update

SOUNDCLIP

BUSH DUMVILLE: So the class presented the argument for the red fox the byname the official animal to be known as — the red fox adopted as the animal emblem of the province.

JD: To recap a story we told you about last week that was Bush Dumville, independent member of the Prince Edward Island legislature. Mr. Dumville was explaining his bill to have the red fox declared the province's official animal emblem. Mr. Dumville was inspired by a convincing presentation by grade 7 students from Montague Intermediate School.

SOUNDCLIP

ALAN MCISAAC: Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I move this amendment to Bill 113 to adopt Holstein cow the animal emblem for Prince Edward Island.

JD: That was Liberal MLA Alan McIsaac concluding his own presentation on why the Holstein cow should be named the province's official animal emblem. That was inspired by his party being mad at Mr. Dumville. Now it seems like Mr. McIsaac substituted the cow for the red fox just to get back at Mr. Dumville for leaving the Liberal Party, last January. Funny stuff — except that undermined years of work by those kids. As the P.E.I. newspaper The Guardian said today about its childish MLAs, quote “We'd say they're acting like grade-schoolers but that would be giving them too much credit” unquote. Well, after we aired that story Claude McCabe of Toronto sent us a note quote “As P.E.I. animal emblem, I would suggest the Malpeque Bay oyster. It is P.E.I.’s best known animal. It is unique to P.E.I. and it's hard shell and soft centre are sort of typical of P.E.I. residents. Beats foxes or cows,” unquote. Well thank you for writing and complicating this whole animal emblem thing further Claude. Or maybe a bivalve is the bipartisan solution because apparently they're going to need a less political animal.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 1, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This