Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for January 28, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: This is a disaster with some serious consequences. When I think about the lives of Canadians that are being detained in China right now, this has very serious implications for them.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Conservative critics were quick to point to the troubling ripple effects of the statements that cost John McCallum his ambassador's job to China this weekend. From his first musings over the extradition proceedings for a detained Huawei executive to his apologetic climb-down and then his double down, Mr. McCallum angered his political bosses, their political critics and that in turn upset a whole layer of Chinese observers and politicians. And in the balance Canadians detained in China and a China-Canada relationship some worry is now even more frayed. We are on that in a moment. Along with the political standoff playing out in Venezuela where two men continue to claim the power to lead the country. And then we're looking at ideas for a better justice system.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Out of every estimated one thousand sexual assault, three result in convictions and yet, we continue to merrily carry on as if our justice system is actually serving the needs of women.

AMT: The statistics are increasingly unacceptable to those seeking legal reform for victims of sexual assault. Now momentum is building in Quebec for a separate sex assault court. We'll bring you the details in half an hour. Also today, American journalist, Jason Rezaian, was arrested in Iran on his way to his mother-in-law's birthday. He would be held for 544 days, much of it in solitary confinement.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: In solitary I could hear the people who were in cells next to me and one thing that will always haunt me is the screams and cries of some of those cellmates.

AMT: Jason Rezaian on the pain and politics behind his imprisonment and why he still appreciates Iran and its regular people, in an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

After McCallum's firing, expert looks at what's next in Canada-China spat

Guests: Guy Saint-Jacques

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It's clear that Justin Trudeau has been incredibly weak on this issue. He should have shown leadership right from the beginning and fired his ambassador. Instead, he's allowed different messages to be delivered on different days to different media causing further damage to Canada's reputation and our ability to handle this very important case. But this is I think part of a bigger problem and that is Justin Trudeau's approach to diplomacy where he thought that he could conduct image over substance foreign affairs and now Canadians are paying for his mistakes.

AMT: Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, reacting this weekend to the prime minister's decision to fire Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum. The ouster of Mr. McCallum, a long-time liberal and former cabinet minister, comes with Canadian-Chinese relations already on the rocks and it is sure to dominate when MPs return to the House of Commons today, after the winter break. Justin Trudeau asked for Mr. McCallum's resignation Friday night, following a series of comments he made last week about the extradition case of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. Mr. McCallum apologised and then hours later, made more comments. The apparent fallout from Ms. Meng's extradition arrest includes the detention of two Canadians living in China, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, on allegations of endangering national security. Yesterday the South China Morning Post reported that another Canadian man has been detained on fraud allegations although that has not been confirmed. Now analysts say Mr. McCallum's ouster will make Ottawa's efforts to secure the Canadians release and stabilize the relationship with China even more difficult. Guy Saint-Jacques is a former Canadian ambassador to China. He's now a senior fellow with the China Institute at the University of Alberta and a senior fellow at the Montreal Institute for International Studies. And he's in Montreal. Hello.

GUY SAINT-JACQUES: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: What do you think of the prime minister's decision to ask for Mr. McCallum's resignation?

GSJ: Well first, I would like to say that when I learned that Mr. McCallum had resigned on Saturday, I felt very saddened, but I think that after the comments that Mr. McCallum made on Friday, that the prime minister had no choice because it's clear that at this stage, it would have been important to keep the ambassador in Beijin,g but again it was a question of confidence and once this was lost, the prime minister had no choice, but to replace Mr. McCallum.

AMT: And we see in the Chinese news media, the denunciation of this, the latest from the Global Times says that the resignation reveals political interference on the part of the prime minister and actually calls Ottawa as sensitive as a frightened bird. How emblematic is that kind of view in the media of the official view do you think in Beijing?

GSJ: Well you know this illustrates the problem following the comments of Mr. McCallum because I fear that Beijing would jump on that to see, look this is likely what we told you. This is all political and in fact I was afraid that it would come to the conclusion that they just have to keep up the pressure and that Canada will buckle at some point and that we will return Ms. Meng. But the Global Times reflects a pretty accurately the feeling in Beijing and again this is another demonstration that you know China sees us as the junior partner and wants to call all the shots.

AMT: You know at the same time there are those who would argue that the substance of what Mr. McCallum said last week saying that Ms. Wanzhou had a strong case to fight extradition, that it would help Canada if Washington dropped that extradition request, is merely stating something that most people are thinking.

GSJ: Well all this you're right, all this might be true, but it's not the kind of message that you want to give publicly because in fact it undermines the legal process. It undermines Canada's position and so Mr. McCallum could have chosen to raise these points in private once he was back in Beijing. I would add that the idea of a meeting with Canadian Chinese media was a good one because we have to reach out to the Chinese community to explain to them the predicament that Canada is in. But in fact it's unfortunate that Mr. McCallum went beyond his talking points.

AMT: And we are talking about a very seasoned politician, a long-time member of the inner cabinet and under more than one Liberal prime minister. Why do you think he said what he said?

GSJ: Well it's difficult to know, I think maybe you know some politicians or former politicians want to be nice and I'm sure that he thought what he said and you know we tend to agree that the lawyers of Ms. Meng a good case, but it will be for the judge to decide and you know you have to exercise some restraint in your comments, especially when you are a senior official because automatically everyone will come to the conclusion that what he was saying was the government position, which was not the case.

AMT: And so now there is a career foreign service officer, the deputy there in China, Jim Nickel who takes over as acting ambassador. What do you expect Mr. Trudeau to do now? Will they appoint someone new quickly, what do you think should happen?

GSJ: Well there are a number of things I think that need to happen first. The process to find a replacement for Mr. McCallum has to start right away. Hopefully they will find someone who's a senior, who has the experiences and competencies required. But as you can imagine, if such a person is found, he or she is already doing a job. So this person will have to extricate their self from their present job and then it's not like naming a new CEO. You have there's a formal process whereby you have to send a request, that means for the accreditation of the new ambassador. In my case the process was relatively quick. The Chinese took only three weeks to provide them, but all this to say that this process could take a few months. You know if the new ambassador were to be in place in two or three months, that would be extremely fast in my view. In the meantime, I think Prime Minister has a few choices. He could maybe appoint a higher level envoy who would be specifically charged with trying to lower the temperature. Or as I have said previously he could have the national security and rule of law dialogue rapidly convened because this is the forum that was created back in September 2016 to deal exactly with this kind of high level consular cases. And I think you know we are at a stage where we need a good face to face discussion.

AMT: How high level should that envoy be?

GSJ: Well in my view it could be Ms. Freeland, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it could be also a former prime minister who is well regarded, but this person will need to be strong because what we have seen so far is that the Chinese don't show a disposition to listen and it will be important to have, to listen to all their grievances, but then to bring them hopefully to our position and explain that we are in this predicament, it's not our choice, but they are doing in the meantime a lot of damage and we have to find ways to lower the temperature and move forward.

AMT: And a former prime minister because that would send a signal that this matters. This matters at the highest level.

GSJ: And I think you know it would and it's required knowing that this is the worst crisis in the bilateral relationship since we have established diplomatic relations.

AMT: And so there's a couple of former prime ministers. Anyone in particular they should look at? There's Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Harper, Mr. Chretien, Mr. Martin.

GSJ: Well we have a few, there's also Mr. Maloney and Mr. Clark. So I think there is a good selection, but also you know I would like to know whether Ms. Freeland was able to have any discussion with the Chinese delegation while in Dallas last week. And so I suspect there might be already some contact on the side and hopefully we'll hear about some devolvement, but although we also need some quiet diplomacy.

AMT: And what do you think China needs to do at this point?

GSJ: Well they have to show a bit more understanding for our problem. Of course, I hope that they will also be able to resolve their problem with the United States, although there's no guarantee on that, but they have to lower the temperature. And the fact we're able to rally international support, I think took them by surprise. But it just confirmed that their image internationally is been damaged by all this and for that reason they should show some restraint.

AMT: Ok well Mr. Saint-Jacques, thank you for your time and your insights today.

GSJ: Thank you and have a good day.

AMT: Guy Saint-Jacques is a former Canadian ambassador to China. He's now a senior fellow at both the China Institute at the University of Alberta and the Montreal Institute for International Studies. He's in Montreal. And just not to leave anyone out as we name former Canadian prime ministers who are out there, from Stephen Harper, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clarke. Lots of former prime ministers from whom to choose, if in fact Mr. Trudeau decides to do that. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti.

Back To Top »

Foreign intervention risks 'the hostility of most Venezuelans,' warns expert

Guests: Alan McPherson

AMT: This is The Current on CBC Radio One. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Well we're going from a strain on Canada-China relations to tensions of a different sort in another part of the world.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We're not considering anything, but all options are on the table.

AMT: That's the U.S. president Donald Trump on Venezuela, as the world watched to see if Americans would intervene directly into that country's ongoing political chaos. As you have been following, opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself interim leader last week and gained the support of the United States, Canada and several other countries, but President Nicolas Maduro has Russia in his court. In fact there was a display of Russian military hardware that he just happened to be overseeing yesterday. And Mr. Maduro says what is happening is a coup that he will fight.

SOUNDCLIP

[Translation from Spanish]

VOICE: We will defeat a coup d'etat could that intends to intervene in the political life, throw Venezuelan sovereignty to the side and install a puppet regime for the interests of the United States empire and its allies in the western world.

AMT: Mr. Maduro charges the United States is behind the attempt to remove him from office. That drama has added to the already staggering challenges faced by regular Venezuelans. Maria Isabel Penya is an architect and urban designer in Caracas. This is how she describes life amidst the turmoil.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: There is a tension in the air that you can cut with a knife and it's incredible because that means if you want to buy things for your house or whatever, you do it during the day and of course you want to go back as soon as possible to your house to feel that you are secure. So to be in the streets freely is really risky, I would say.

AMT: So as the standoff over who actually leads Venezuela continues, there is real uncertainty over how the United States will react. Alan McPherson has spent a lot of time tracking the relationships between the United States and its southern neighbors. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University. He's also the author of A Short History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean, and he joins us from Philadelphia. Hello.

ALAN MCPHERSON: Hello.

AMT: President Trump says all options are open in how the US deals with the crisis in Venezuela. Will he use the military?

AM: It's possible, I mean if he says all options are open, that's clearly one of the options and clearly the Pentagon must have contingency plans for that kind of operation.

AMT: And so we just heard that last clip, she's talking about the tension. What would, what are the things that U.S. advisors might be considering right now do you think?

AM: Well I think the most likely plan is not a direct U.S. intervention, it's probably some kind of political diplomatic pressure or they are coordinating with whatever portions of the Venezuelan military they can peel off from the Maduro loyalists and try to encourage some kind of a switch or some kind of coup.

AMT: That's really the key right because the military has remained behind Mr. Maduro so far?

AM: That is correct, well at least the top leaders, the top brass. I mean who knows what's going on within the military, there might be junior officers, that often happens in Latin American history. Junior officers will rebell because they don't benefit as much from corrupt regimes as do the top brass.

AMT: And you know there have been reports that Mr. Guaido and his supporters were receiving secret support from foreign leaders before he declared himself interim present. Could that be a problem for his legitimacy in the eyes of Venezuelans?

AM: I think so. I mean we don't know the full scale of that kind of support, whether it was simply rhetorical or political or whether there was something else. But certainly you know he's not completely new. He's the protege of other opposition leaders. They've been in touch with American foreign policy leaders for many months and so if it were shown that he was you know somehow a puppet of the United States, that would definitely hurt his legitimacy as an independent candidate, but at this point who knows what the Venezuelan people are ready to tolerate.

AMT: Now we have seen U.S. military's involvement in various South American countries and central in the past. What would actually trigger a U.S. move to send in troops to Venezuela at this point?

AM: Yeah I mean it's it's hard to say, but generally speaking the United States is not triggered intervention unless there were some sort of perceived or actual threat to U.S. citizens. I mean if you look at the U.S. intervention in Panama in 89 or in Grenada in 83, both of these were essentially justified by threats to American citizens. They weren't necessarily real threats or small aggressions, but essentially these were you know justifications.

AMT: And of course then there was Chile.

AM: That's true although that wasn't a massive U.S. military intervention.

AMT: That was meddling.

AM: That's right. There certainly was meddling on the part of the CIA and there's been a lot of that. But to be able to sort of send American soldiers in harm's way, it usually takes you know you got to sort of scare the American public into thinking that they are somehow threatened.

AMT: Okay and so do you see any difference in how the average Venezuelans might view help from the United States or intervention or whatever you want to call it, now versus the days when we saw real denunciations of that?

AM: I mean the Venezuelan public is so divided that you know half would probably welcome some kind of intervention. It really depends how it goes, you know whether it's this support for Guaido and part of the military, I think that would be somehow acceptable, but an actual full scale foreign intervention, especially a unilateral one, just from the United States, I think that would garner the hostility of most Venezuelans. In fact they've been saying so in sort of you know on the street polls.

AMT: Yeah and we see many South American countries have come out in support of Mr. Guaido, but what do you think, how weary are they of the U.S. right now doing anything, the surrounding countries?

AM: Yeah, well depends what the U.S. does. You know if it's lining up with most nations and most multilateral institutions and simply denouncing Maduro, not recognizing his government, that's one thing. Even economic retaliation is one thing, but an invasion is really quite something else. I mean the entire cornerstone of Latin American diplomacy throughout the 20th century has been non-intervention. And so it doesn't really matter what the regime is like, how undemocratic it is, Latin Americans will not support an American intervention, even a multilateral one.

AMT: We did see Mr. Maduro presiding over a display of Russian military hardware on the weekend. What's the message there?

AM: Well that's another issue that's quite new. You know I mean the Russians have been selling military hardware for you know a couple dozen years now to the Venezuelans, you know hundreds of thousands of rifles and tanks and so on. They've been doing military exercises with them. I don't think they have any sort of control of Maduro does or not, but Maduro is trying to sort of use the Russians as leverage, sort of symbolic leverage against the Americans to say, look who I've got in my corner.

AMT: So what are you watching for right now?

AM: You know more signs on what the military's doing, you know doing or not doing. It's really all going to depend on the Venezuelan military. I don't think the United States would simply launch an invasion. I think we have to understand that you know talk of invasion is a little bit absurd these days because this is a much, much bigger country than United States has ever invaded, I mean in Latin America. I mean this is you know twice the size of Iraq, the same population as Iraq. The United States has in fact never launched a full scale invasion in any country south of Central America. You know it's never invaded Brazil or Argentina or Colombia, these big countries. This would be a massive operation that would cause thousands of American deaths, not to mention Venezuelan ones.

AMT: So again we've just have this standoff between these two leaders. We just have to see how this plays out over the coming days too.

AM: We do.

AMT: Okay and the military is a key. Alan McPherson thanks for your insights.

AM: You're welcome.

AMT: Alan McPherson, director of the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University. He is the author of A Short History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. He joined us from Philadelphia. Well stay with us, the news is next. But before that I want to let you know about a survey we're posting on our website. We're going to revamp our podcast for The Current. And we want to know what you are thinking. We want your opinions. The survey is up now, cbc.ca/thecurrent. Go there. Find it. It will be live until the 1st of March. So please take a minute, let us know what you'd like to hear, as we make some changes to our daily podcast for The Current. And stay with us because the CBC News is next and then we're going to be talking about the push for dedicated courts to deal with sexual assault. That would be separate courts for sexual assault in Quebec. It is gathering momentum in Quebec and we'll talk about that. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current on CBC Radio One.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Why this Quebec politician says courts, not victims, must adapt to deal with sex assault crimes

Guests: Veronique Hivon, Eric Sutton, Shahida Poole

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, four years ago Iranian-American journalist Jason Rezaian was confronted by security forces in Tehran and sent to the notorious Evin prison for more than 500 days. He survived to tell that tale and to launch a lawsuit against Iran. He'll join me in half an hour. But first, restoring faith in the legal system with a new kind of court.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Gilbert Rozon, the founder of Just For Laughs has been charged with sex-related crimes. Quebec's crown prosecutors office says Rozon is facing one count of indecent assault and one count of rape. The alleged crime dates back to 1979. The term rape is no longer used in the criminal code.

AMT: When news broke last month that Just For Laughs founder Gilbert Rozon was being charged with rape and indecent assault, it shook Quebecs entertainment industry as deeply as the Harvey Weinstein allegations shook Hollywood. But shock soon turned to anger for many. Fourteen women had made allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Rozon. Mr. Rozon's criminal charges stem solely from one of those complaints. From many women that served as more evidence that Canada's criminal justice system does not work for victims of sexual misconduct and sexual violence. Veronique Hivon believes she may have a solution. She is a Parti Quebecois member of the Quebec National Assembly. She is leading efforts in the province to develop separate courts that deal specifically with sexual crimes. Quebec Premier Francois Legault says he is open to the idea. The justice minister Sonia Lebel convened an all party meeting earlier this month to study the proposal. Veronique Hivon joins me now from Joliette, Quebec. Hello.

VERONIQUE HIVON: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: Why do you think a court that would be specifically to deal with sexual assault is needed in Quebec?

VH: Well first of all I think there is an emergency to really rebuild the confidence between victims of sexual violence and the justice system in general. Just the me too movement in itself is an illustration that this confidence is lacking, because women and men of course take you know, public stance in media to see what happened to them instead of filing formal complaints and I think that we have to acknowledge that, and that we have to acknowledge the fact that the justice system finally has to adapt to those very specific and difficult crimes instead of always asking the victims to adapt to this system that is not of course you know done for them with less time for them. So this idea is really one of the ideas that I have but to have a specific court which could be inside a new division of the court of Quebec, or the division in the criminal division just to make sure that the people first of all the judges the crump prosecutors the people who work within that court are specialized, they are properly trained always you know keeping track of the training that they specialize so the victims know that they're not dealing with somebody who has theft cases and then fraud cases and then battery cases, so it's from the start sending an important signal with the legislation of court.

AMT: OK. So and then of course the criminal code is the responsibility of the federal government, but you're saying the province could actually do that, so that you have people working like the crown would specifically stay on those things.

VH: We can do it because we are responsible for the administration of justice in the handling of the court. We can also with their rules of practice. Of course the rules relating to the Criminal Code the presumption of innocence is still there. The burden of proof of course but we can also that for example that the testimony of the victim which is central in those cases because of the evidence mostly relies most of the time only on the burden of the victim and one person which is deeply traumatized, so that we can adapt the rule for the testimony. We can give a more important role for the victim. Of course we are in an adversarial system but it does mean that the victim can have a more active role in the system. We can also think that we can have a formalized role for social workers and social experts to under one hand accompany the victims more properly and also guide the court on an expert point of view about the consequences of the trauma on the testimony of the victim for example.

AMT: Right. So hypothetically maybe walk me through, if someone calls the police and reports a sexual assault or they go to a police station and report a sexual assaults, what would happen under the new system like under what you're proposing versus what happens now?

VH: Well you would at the end of thespectrum of the process this specialised court, with specialised people and the rules adapted the practic rules. But at the start of the process if we look at it then in South Africa I know you will stab somebody later. Well is there any effort from there Starrett when their complaints filed youre an adult facing a police officer youre facing integrative center services for the victims so you will talk to a police officer but at the same time. You will have psychologists to help you sort out worker crimes prosecutor Kym be there so people explain to you properly what will happen if you decide to go to with the judicial process. And at the same time you're already starting to have you know psychological support to go through that but also to go to what happened to you in your life as a victim. So those two processes I led you know together sensibly in ways that led to live victims decide to withdraw their complaint because they feel that they are proud of the process. They feel that they are properly accompanied and also what can be interesting is you know it's not just a police officer facing you in a police station sometimes it's it is you then you know in their public health. It's changing the approach to make sure that you know that victims know that we know that they're not just a part of evidence, but they are somebody who have to be accompanied and who count you know for the system.

AMT: Now I mentioned Gilbert Rozon in my introduction. The prosecutor decided not to proceed with charges in 13 of the 14 complaints made against him. What do you think should happen to the other complainants?

VH: Well it's it's an important question and I think that we have to look at everything. We have to look outside the filter that the prosecutors take before they decide to bring a case in front or as a judge of course putting into question the word there was then precisely in this case I think that in general it's a good thing to have such an important filter from the prosecutors but I think that we have also to ask ourselves Is it the right way. I think that you know there are other means but this is like civil action like our thought. We could also look at other means of campaigning those victims outside of the system if this system cannot be there for them. So those are all things that we have to look at. I think that we have to add that the judicial system for the ones who want to go to and I think it's important also that those crimes don't see unpunished. But I think that also we have to look at it from another point of view how we can accompany victims who don't necessarily want to go through that system, but still yet reparation, restorative justice for example.

AMT: You are gathering momentum, but not everyone agrees with you and we have one of those people waiting in the wings. Eric Sutton is a criminal defense lawyer in Montreal. He has had clients facing charges of a sexual nature. He joins us from our Montreal studio. Hi Eric Sutton.

ERIC SUTTON: Good Morning Anna Maria.

AMT: What do you think of this idea of a separate sexual assault court?

ES: Well I'm somewhat skeptical. I'm also concerned that the Rozon case has become somewhat of a tipping point that has led to the type of initiative that Madame Hivon is proposing. And I happen to have followed the case. I know the prosecutor very well. He is a very hard working prosecutor, very sensitive to sexual assault complainants and the particularities that they may face and the misgivings they may have about the system. And if he starts to refuse 13 of the 14 complaints I'm sure he had very good reasons. And I think it's really unfair that there should be this constant reference to as being some kind of feel youre on the justice system part. It wasn't. They didn't withdraw their complaints. They made their complaints. The police accept them, submitted them to the crown. Why is it shattered, I don't understand. It should be reinforced actually.

AMT: But there are you know the talk of the need for the treatment of victims of sexual assault differently before the criminal courts did not start with allegations against Mr.Rozon. So what do you think the wider issue on the fact that so many victims of sexual assault feel that the criminal justice system doesn't help them and that now there's a proposal that there would be a separate court?

ES: Well you know the criminal justice system is not a therapeutic process. Victims should be told that when they enter a court room they're not doing so to make themselves ultimately better cope with some tragedy they might they might have incidents they might might have lived through. It's ultimately a process to determine if an accused person is guilty or not. And I think in terms of the treatment of alleged victims the support they may have should be left to health and social services it shouldn't be handled in a courtroom setting there. And I think they've been misguided misled by by the proponents of what Medema you've always is is suggesting we have to we have an old system that could always be adapted it could always be improved it's not perfect, but I shudder to think that judges will be trained, have specialized training, on issues of sexual assault. I think we're all very sensitive to the stereotyping that has been has has really for the most part disappeared because of changes to our criminal code. You can all argue talk about a sexual assault complainant's reputation, their sexual past, their names are not published. We know how much progress has been made. But to now start training judges to think a certain way is going to create a bias, possibly a favourable bias, and could result in in wrongful convictions.

AMT: Well there are those who say that the judges need training because the judges already have a bias. I mean you know yourself, you've heard those cases where the judge suggested somebody keep their knees together like some of the stuff we've heard out of judges in Canadian courtrooms in the last five years, kind of suggests that judges do need training, does it not?

ES: Well those are you know it's terrible when an exceptional incident becomes a basis to to make structural changes to adjust the system. I agree though the remarks you refer to made by a judge were worthy of serious sanction and in fact I believe there were consequences and it was widely published. I think if you were in the court room every day you're going to see the judges are very patient and sensitive to the test went when sexual solve complex complainants testify. The prosecutors are also very patient and then provide the guidance they should before and after, but once the process begins I would rather judge listen to a witness like any other witness with a completely open mind. Some witnesses may mislead they may lie some tell the truth and a judge nothing should be should have one type of training for certain types of witnesses in a different track type of training for another type.

AMT: We know that out of every estimated 1000 sexual assaults, only three resulting convictions. A 2017 investigation by the Globe and Mail found that police dismiss one in five sexual assault claims as baseless or unfounded. Do you think the current criminal justice system is working for those who alleged sexual assault or misconduct?

AMT: Well you know my experience is more in the court room the intake level is it is something else. If people dont come forward to have to to make a complaint it could be that they're there they're afraid or fearful of the process and it's not a friendly process. You know a court room is not intended. We're not friends in a court. The judge is not my friend the witnesses and my friend the prosecutor is not a friend. We try and respect each other. But the concept the stakes are high. So if people are fearful of that process I don't think we can really change that radically. Some people may not make complaints because they are ambiguous about what really happened and might have misgivings about what really happened. Some may be fearful of the system but the police for the most part are very they are specialised the police officers at least in Montreal or in a sexual assault unit that that's really all they do. Much like the prosecutors who are in on it in a sexual assault team that's all they do. So they already have a certain specialised insight and training and I don't know what more we can do. I think it's unfortunate if people who are the legitimate victims fail to make complaints simply because they're fearful of the system, I think we have to educate them better.

AMT: OK well Eric Sutton, I'll just get Veronique Hivon to come back into this conversation. Ms. Hivon, how do you respond to what Mr. Sutton is saying there?

VH: Well many things. I think that you know we can all study that from the point of view of the actors of the judicial system, but we should start to study it from the standpoint of the victims not because the court process should become a therapeutic process. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm just asking that at least it's not a new traumatization for the victim, that of course the adversarial process is still there, and I don't think that because a judge is better specialised that it we'll be having bias. That would be quite concerning because the they are supposed to already have training for their training it cover leads by it I don't think so. I think that the idea is to start from the standpoint of the victim a little bit more and seeing how we can adapt so that the victim feels more comfortable, that from the start of it, they know more what they're getting into, that they that the people will be there judges included will have proper training. Of course we don't feel exceptions but again at the beginning of the month there was a court of appeals that struck down first stance decision from just last year because there were once again stereotypes about the victim in sexual offense. I'm not saying that in the case every day but it seems that it's enough so that we have to ask ourselves questions you know. Do we just give up and say, well just too bad for those types of crimes, the justice system just doesn't work because the victims don't have confidence in it? I think that as legislators as people raise it Prue present dating the people we have to find ways in the justice system and also outside the justice.

AMT: You know, as we know this is a debate in Quebec and we've heard both of you and I'm going to stop it there because we've got someone waiting in the wings where they have changed the system and we'll hear how that has worked for them. So thank you both for weighing in on this important issue.

VH: Thank you.

ES: Thank you Anna Maria.

AMT: That is Veronique Hivon. She's a Parti Quebecois member of Quebec's National Assembly. She's in Joliette. And Eric Sutton is a criminal defense lawyer. He's in Montreal. Well South Africa has separate sex offense courts and they've had them for years. That was the inspiration for what is being proposed in Quebec. Shahida Poole is a senior prosecutor at the sex offences court in Wynberg Magistrates Court in Wynberg, South Africa, a district of Cape Town and that's where we have reached her. Hello. Welcome.

SHAHIDA POOLE: Good morning Anna Maria, thank you.

AMT: As you listened to my last two guests, what do you think of what Ms. Hivon has said about how she envisions sexual assaults court working in Quebec.

SP: Well speaking on experience, we had a perfect years ago. We did not have separate sexual offence courts. All our cases were tried in regional courts. But dating back as far as 1993, there was public outcry from the community in terms of the inefficient handling of rape cases, especially in the magistrate court. Because normally the process used to be the victim would go to the police station, stand in a line with other victims and be treated the same. So in terms of what happened and that in itself was a second reform of victimization. We've found because it wasn't special regarding this, victims fail to report these cases. And I'm sure you're aware that South Africa is one of the countries with the highest amount of sexual abuse currently. And I think because of that, in 1993 they decided to establish a sexual offenses court and Wynberg was the first cour that was established at that time. Wynberg was to be used as a pilot project.

AMT: So how do how do the courts you have now, these special sex offense courts, how do they differ from a standard criminal court in South Africa?

SP: Well you've got the dedicated ones and we've got the ones that do normal cases, but they do certain sexual offenses court. But let's focus on the dedicated sexual offences. In Wynberg, we have three dedicated sexual offences courts. That means that only the judges, the only method relating to sexual offences. No other offences is tried in that court. We also have, we have a big building with five floors, but the first floor is dedicated only to sexual offences. In other words, all the people that come to this floor, as only charged with these offences or the victim and their family witnesses that come to them. We also have a specific court where social workers, where court reporters that feed our victims that come to court. Witnesses that come from poor communities. We have to make sure that they're ready at the time good and they need to testify. But in our dedicated sexual offences court, we have two prosecutors per court. In other words when a case releases to the police station and it's elevated to the prosecutor. So why not plead their case for the very first time would case until the message is finalized. That is the purpose behind sexual offences, so that one prosecutor takes from the onset until it's finalized.

AMT: Okay well I'm going to interrupt you because we don't have a lot of time and I want to ask you something very specific. We heard Mr. Sutton raise concerns that the training of judges to deal with a specific court could end up biasing a judge. How have you seen, what have you seen with your judges?

SP: I've seen in actual fact, only the prosecutors with the judges because when we're dealing with our young victims especially, there's lots of and telling their children lies. Social workers people they're going to understand the debate if they're children. Because as you know all our judges are parents. So sometimes it's really say especially difficult to leave the evidence of a young victim. So it's important the judges are sensitive to that. So they're able to protect the victim when they know it won't be allowed or why they forget to report years later.

AMT: OK well Ms. Poole, it's important to hear your voice on this. Thank you for explaining it to me.

SP: You're welcome.

AMT: That is Shahida Poole, she is the senior prosecutor at the sex offences court at Wynberg Magistrates Court in Wynberg, South Africa. And we apologize for the line there, it wasn't as clear as we hoped it would be. Hopefully you could hear what she had to say. Let us know what you think of this issue and this proposal and what is gathering momentum in Quebec. You can tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. Go to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. And I've just got a couple more minutes just to say again that we're going to be changing our podcast for The Current and we're interested in knowing what you, our listeners, who also listen to our podcast or go back and forth between the two, want to hear or might be thinking, we set up a survey, so you can go to our site cbc.ca/thecurrent. Find the survey. It'll be live until the 1st of March. Take a minute, let us know what you'd like to hear, as we make changes to our daily podcast. And stay with us, the number is 544 days. That is the number of days Iranian-American journalist Jason Rezian endured in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. He is my guest in our next half hour. He went through a lot. He says he loves Iran and the people of Iran. His problem's with the government. You'll hear what he has to say when we return. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM, online on cbc.ca/thecurrent, on podcast and on your radio app.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Why Jason Rezaian, who spent 544 days in a Tehran prison, thinks suing Iran will help others

Guests: Jason Rezaian

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

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: You like it? You happy here?

VOICE 2: Look I'm at a point now after five years where I'll miss certain things about home. I miss my buddies. I miss burritos. I miss having certain beverages with my buddies and burritos at certain types of establishments. But I love it. I love it and I hate it, you know, but it's home. It's become home.

AMT: In a way that's a typical example of Parts Unkown, the much loved travel show with a difference, created by the late Anthony Bourdain. And Jason Rezaian, the man he's interviewing was exactly the kind of person he loved to meet, a keen political and cultural observer, someone with deep knowledge of a place and the ability to translate it for a North American audience, not to mention, a passion for food and drink. But just a few weeks after that interview was taped in 2014, Jason Rezaian was arrested. It is the kind of case that often ends in tragedy in Iran, but in 2016, after intense negotiations against the backdrop of the Iran nuclear deal, Jason Rezaian was set free. He is has now written a memoir of his time in detention and the extraordinary efforts to win his release. It is called Prisoner: My 544 in an Iranian Prison. Jason Rezaian joins me from Washington D.C. Hello.

JASON REZAIAN: Hi. How are you?

AMT: I'm well and I'm really glad that you can join us and take us through your story. So let's start on July 22nd of 2014, the day of your arrest. What happened?

JR: Well you know it was a day that mostly started like any other, but sort of midway through the afternoon I got a frantic call from my wife that she had received a sort of threatening e-mail, almost a black blackmail type email and she said you know somebody is trying to destroy our lives. I hightailed it home and when I got there she was frantic. Her e-mail accounts had been hacked into as had mine. My social media accounts, my Facebook and Twitter had to have the passwords changed. So you know something was going on. We had been targeted and hacked by who we didn't know. We called a friend of ours who handles you know IT matters and had helped set up our you know kind of very basic security systems on our servers and internet connections. He arrived, you know identified the problem, changed our passwords and set up you know all of the multistep verifications for us. And we thought you know the problems were behind us. We dressed to get ready to go to a surprise birthday party for my mother in law, waiting for our taxi driver car to arrive to take us to to that party and when we got a call from the doorman, we lived in a tall skyscraper. We went down to the basement where cars would pick you up and when the elevator door opened there was a man standing there with a gun and several other security agents behind him and they forced their way into the elevator. Took us back up to our apartment, ransacked the place, separated my wife and I and after about an hour and a half, let us out of our apartment into a van with tinted windows, blindfolded both of us, handcuffed me and took us off to Evin prison. That was the start.

AMT: What were you thinking as all of this happened?

JR: My thought was this is all a big mistake and whatever this is, it's going to pass very quickly because I'm an established reporter here in this country. I'm a known commodity, I'm an employee of The Washington Post. People know who I am. I'm working here with forestay authorization. Literally the day that my wife and I were arrested we were both given one year extension extensions of our press credentials. So I just you know I was certain that this was something that was a mistake that would would boil over very quickly.

AMT: Did you tell them that?

JR: Yeah look I mean at that first moment you know they're not telling you when they're in your house what they're there for. What you're being accused. Why you're being subjected to this intrusion into your life and it was very violent you know they were ripping through everything they seized our our laptops our cellphones took our documents our passports money everything everything that they could could find. It had to be frightening. It was incredibly frightening and became more so as more agents showed up all of them you know with surgical masks over their mouth and nose to hide their identity. Some of them with guns and others with the video cameras taping the whole scene for what purposes. We didn't know it wasn't you couldn't talk to your wife. I was not allowed to talk to my wife.

AMT: What's her name?

JR: Yeganeh, but we call her Yegi.

AMT: OK.

JR: So Yegi and I were, we're in the same room, but separated and not allowed to talk to each other and then you know unceremoniously hauled off to Evin prison, which happened to be just a couple of miles from our apartment.

AMT: Before we go any further with that then let's back up for a moment. You arrive in Iran, in what year?

JR: 2009, although I'd been travelling there very regularly since 2001.

AMT: And why did you go there to work?

JR: I knew as has a young college graduate aspiring journalist that I wanted to be out in the world reporting from other places. I traveled quite a bit in my 20s. And when I made my first trip to Iran which was my father's ancestral homeland where he grew up in 2001 I was just struck by this place that was so complex and vibrant and interesting and ultimately so different then how it was portrayed in all of the news reports I had read or seen about it over the years.

AMT: You end up working for the big papers and then full-time for The Washington Post by what year?

JR: By 2012. You know I was one of the few people that remained in Iran from 2009 until 2014. You know of that period of time was a very dark one in Iran's history. It was that after the protests that followed the still contested reelection of my would Ahmadinejad in 2009 a time when there was a mass exodus of foreign correspondents. I was literally the only American one that stuck around and stayed in I had this attitude that you know I have to see what happens next.

AMT: Do you have dual citizenship.

JR: I do.

AMT: Because of your dad's ancestry, right?

JR: Exactly.

AMT: Okay. But one of the reasons you might have been the only American was because there were some American and Canadian Iranian journalists they were getting picked up. Were you aware of the risks of being an American dual citizen?

JR: Of course. And actually in that period right at the time of the election, I left the country for a couple of months, as all foreign correspondents except for one or two were were forced to do. They called us in for a used to call that initial experience they had with the authorities and interrogation until I experienced real interrogations. But they called me in for some questioning and they said you know this is not a safe moment for journalists to be in this country. We can't protect you and you know reporting in the west from New Years is know problematic for us and our advice to you is to to leave the country. It was a veiled threat.

AMT: There are some absurd things about the accusations your interrogators make, what did they accuse you of?

JR: They accused me of everything and nothing. I mean essentially the bottom line was that they accused me of doing journalism but in that process I was at turns you know an agent of the CIA the MI6, the Mossad representatives of the Behi community of the monarchists of the Mujahadeen organization, which was a group that I had written vehemently against it and still do. That I was fomenting a feminist revolution and most absurd of all a Kickstarter project that I had started about the desire to bring avocadoes to Iran was somehow a veiled and secret plan to overthrow the Iranian regime and it was one that was interrogated about you know persistently and consistently over several months.

AMT: Avocadoes.

JR: Yeah.

AMT: They also at some point say well in fact you're doing such nice stories about us, you're trying to soften Americans up and that's going to make people like us more and that's going to end up making our regime more liberal.

JR: Exactly.

AMT: I couldn't get by, I had to read that like three times to figure that out.

JR: Well that was you know it was a head scratcher for me living through it you know. I think ultimately the conclusions and the leaps of logic that they were trying to make were even too much for them to fully buy into and over time it just became you know what you are what we say you are because it's what we say.

AMT: Bahari calls it Kafka meaning Monty Python.

JR: Yeah I mean I think that that's a good a good parallel to draw.

AMT: Except that you're in Evin prison and you're being interrogated. What were the conditions like?

JR: Well in the early days and weeks I was in solitary confinement and that is not a laughing matter, although at times I tried to poke some fun at it in the book because for me that's become the one way that I can best get past this, this ordeal that I experienced. But I was in a tiny cell that you know I could lie lied lie down in one direction and not the other. I think it was about four and a half by eight and a half feet had a hole in the ground for a toilet you know two very small windows high up near the ceiling of the cell with bars over them but that you know gave me a little bit of light to tell me what time of day it was. Lights were on Lot a lay up was in the cells that I slept in for the entire 24 hours of the 544 days I was held there. It's pretty dank a place in it's prison you know. Well is a hero in you there in solitary. I could hear the people who were in cells next to me but you know in a very muffled way. And one thing that will always haunt me is the screams and cries of some of those cellmates people who obviously nobody's really prepared to be thrown into that situation, but you know who just couldn't handle it. I worried that I might be driven to that over time. I took a much more quiet approach to my experience in solitary confinement.

AMT: What did you do?

JR: You know I walked, I paced that tiny cell as much as I could and kept count of those paces back and forth. I tried to make plans for my future. I tried to remember conversations that I had to think about things that I'd like to correct you know mistakes or regrets that I had in relationships that I wanted to apologize for. You should take stock. I mean you know it says close to death without you know physical symptoms as you can imagine because you can find in the tiniest space that there is literally no sense of an exit from it. You dont know when you're going to be let out.

AMT: And of course when you're taken, Yegis taken you don't know anything about where she is at this point, right?

JR: Absolutely not. We were separated for 35 days until we had any interaction. I had no knowledge of where she was or what they might be doing to her. And when we were finally able to see each other, it was probably the moment of most relief in my life up to that point.

AMT: At some point the timing of all of this really sinks in for you and you make the point that they were really holding you hostage. What was going on outside?

JR: So that was the period of the most intense nuclear negotiations that really in sort of November December of 2014 kicked into high gear. It's no coincidence that every time that I was taking it into the courtroom to testify in the case against me it was coinciding with with one of those rounds of nuclear negotiations. Oftentimes we think of Iran as a monolith and we dont acknowledge the fact that there are internal politics and factions vying for influence and power and trying to undermine each others efforts. While the Rowhani administration was completely committed to negotiating this deal with major powers including the United States the revolutionary guard corps was not and they wanted to do whatever they could to make that process as complicated for their internal adversaries as possible and in that process I was a piece of collateral damage.

AMT: So when you go to trial, can you describe the scene in that court room?

JR: Yeah. I mean you know Im taken to the judge's chambers before each session in this court and Judge Salavati who's known you know simultaneously as the hanging judge or the judge of death because of the number of death warrants he signed over the years and it's a very jovial atmosphere. He's doing business in this office. So you know he wasn't particularly mean to me in the confines of his chambers, but you know in his court room where you know the state television cameras were on, he became very accusatory and we're going to execute you and you know was the ultimate good cop bad cop play, which I'd been experiencing for the previous year.

AMT: What approach did you decide to take in your own defense?

JR: I took the defence of I didn't do anything. You know and anything that I may have said or acknowledged doing in the context of my interrogations was said under duress because of words and without any evidence of the things that you're accusing me of you know you have to acquit me and this process is a ridiculous one. They filmed all those sessions with the know purpose of having a propaganda video. I had seen through this process in very real ways and realize that you know pleading guilty was not an option. So you know I screwed up their plan.

AMT: Was there a verdict to sentence?

JR: They claim that there was a verdict. It's never been issued publicly. They claim that there was sentencing also never issued publicly. So you know I told that it's still reported in Iran. I know it's still reported ignore that I was a convicted spy. I also know that the American negotiators made it very clear that if overtip was pin money it would make things much more difficult. So there was a lot of jockeying going on back and forth and in the last day of my trial you know I knew that it was mandatory for them to issue a verdict within seven days. So I ask the judge I'll be back here in seven days to receive the verdict. And he said yeah of course I mean that's that's the rule that's the law. You know we're coming up on four years since that last meeting I had with them and there's still no verdict.

AMT: When did you learn you were going to be set free?

JR: It was about 10 days before I was released that my interrogators came to me and said that I would be released in a swap and I had heard that and so many other things in the previous five hundred thirty something days that didn't put a lot of stock in it at first in those last 10 days were so tense and so filled with with hope but also anxiety. You know I talk about how I still have nightmares and the nightmares are exactly the same every time. You know I was supposed to be set free and wasn't.

AMT: And so there are high level efforts we learn like President Obama gets involved.

JR: Well I mean President Obama ordered the negotiations for the release of me and other Americans take place. Secretary Kerry and Wendy Sherman were involved in setting up those negotiations, setting up a process for those negotiations that took place away from nuclear negotiations in different locations and those went on for 14 months.

AMT: What was the moment that you knew that it was over, that you were really free?

JR: It wasn't until January 17th, 2016 when I was brought into a room where Amir Hekmati, the American Marine who had been held for over four years and a pastor who had been held for almost four years were in front of me. These were two people whose stories I'd covered in the past and here we are all being released and then being reunited you know several hours later with my mother and my wife who you know I was told would not be allowed to leave with me. But it wasn't until we got on that plane, got up in the air and we're told that we were out of Iranian airspace that I knew that this was over.

AMT: How are you doing now?

JR: That's a great question and that's a hard one to answer. I'm coping, you know I'm back to work full time with the Washington Post. I feel like I have a sense of purpose. I write a lot about U.S. Iran relations and things that happened inside Iran and I also write a lot about press freedom issues. So that feels very fulfilling. Me and my wife and I are making a life for ourselves in a new city here in Washington D.C. And it's a city that's treated us very well since our arrival, but ultimately you know this is not the life that we chose for ourselves.

AMT: You know as I listen to you, I've got my headphones on and you're cranked up a bit and I can hear when you talk to me, there are a couple of moments when you're talking to me and I wondered, am I going to trigger something? should I have asked him. You've been through so much.

JR: Look I mean know I get that sometimes and you know I feel like with this book and also with with the decision I've made to come and talk about it in different venues Im opening my opening myself up for the possibility of having those things that trigamy come up. But you know I believe that it helps me get to the next station you know to the next step. I don't know if that's true or not but not if this is therapeutic in any kind of way but talking about it helps me understand it better myself.

AMT: And now you and your family your mother and brother are suing Iran over your ordeal for one billion dollars in damages. What went into the decision to pursue that case?

JR: So you know I was denied every lever of justice available to me in Iran for the entire year and a half that I was held there. You people talk about Iran as a lawless place. It's not a lawless place. It has laws. It has a constitution, it has a penal code and it has you know a modicum of due process and people are supposed to be held in detention for longer than a certain prescribed period of time they're supposed to have lawyers on day one they're not supposed to be interrogated relentlessly without contact with the outside world they're not supposed to be kept in solitary confinement. All of these things that were done to me were in violation not only of Iraqi law but of international law. So far even though Iran did not ever issue an official verdict in my case the Iraqi and state version of events is the only official one out there and I couldn't live with that. I want and I want justice. I want justice for what was done to my family and the things that were taken from us and the damage that was inflicted on us. And as far as the damages that we're seeking are punitive damages. But you know there are limits to what can ever be paid out to a victim and that's the case. That being said I want to tour Iran from never doing this again and they have not stopped doing this to people just in the last week we heard about another American taken in Iran. There are at least six Americans, American persons in prison in Iran, missing in Iran. Bob Levinson is an American who's been missing in Iran since 2007 and they've done this with zero accountability, why? Because they think they can get away with.

AMT: And you're suing the government and at the same time this is the country that another whole level, you really love that place.

JR: Yeah and I'm suing the government. I'm not suing the people of Iran, I'm not suing Iran as an idea or as a culture. I love that place. It's part of me. It will always be part of me. You know I very much want to go back and that's not a rare thing. There are many many millions of Iranians and people of other nationalities of countries whose native homelands are overrun by authoritarians who can't go back to their homes, but still love them very much.

AMT: Jason, it's really important to hear your story. Thanks for speaking with me.

JR: Thanks so much for having me on.

AMT: Jason Rezaian is a former Tehran bureau chief for The Washington Post. He's now an opinion writer for the paper. His memoir is called Prisoner: My 544 days in an Iranian Prison and he joined us from Washington D.C. We did request a comment from Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iran's Special Interest Section in Washington D.C., Iran's mission to the U.N. and the office of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. So far we have not received any responses. That's our program for today. Stay with Radio One for Q. You can learn all about the little known genre of cowboy poetry from two cowboy poets. And remember we want to hear from you. We're revamping our podcast here on The Current and we'd like your input about what you'd like to hear on it. There's a survey up on our website now at cbc.ca/thecurrent. And we'd appreciate your thoughts, cbc.ca/thecurrent and go to that survey. If you have the time, we'd really appreciate it. Now after our look at the uncertain future of Venezuela earlier today, we're going to go out with some music conducted by one of Venezuela's most celebrated sons, Gustavo Dudamel. For the past decade he has been music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, but he came of age in Venezuela's famous El Sistema musical education program. Here he is conducting the Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra of Venezuela. This is Scherzo from Beethoven's Third. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

[Music: "Scherzo" performed by the Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra]

Back To Top »

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Jan. 28, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This