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 May 2, 2019

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

I'm an althlete. My focus is more for me getting healthy and complete. I really don't have time for nonsense.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: For a decade Caster Semenya, the celebrated South African runner, the two time Olympic gold medallist has been chased by authorities questioning her gender and her right to compete. There were international rules created just for her to force her to reduce high testosterone levels caused by her condition; hyperandrogenism. Now she's lost her latest fight. Follow those rules or else. Her critics say anything less would threaten women's sports. Her supporters ask why is she not seen as woman enough. The controversy that continues to swirl around Caster Semenya in an hour. Also today Nanfu Wang takes a trip home to the Chinese village where she grew up and revisits the restrictions of the one child policy.

SOUNDCLIP

I asked my neighbour to take me to see the former head of my village, who was in charge when the one child policy began. He was one of the people my grandpa argued with about sterilizing my mom.

AMT: It was not solely about restricting the number of children born. It was about infanticide, the abandonment of newborn girls and the forced sterilization of countless women. And getting people to talk about it all required stealth. The story of one child nation in half an hour. But we're starting with Premier Jason Kenney's turn off the taps law.

SOUNDCLIP

He's a bit like a gunslinger who's swaggering down the streets waving his gun after intentionally taking the bullets out of it.

AMT: The former Alberta Premier takes a swing at the new Alberta Premier and as Alberta and BC both dig in, what can we expect? I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Oilfields are economy of the past, expanding them would be like building a Blockbuster video, says lawyer

Guest: Deborah YEDLIN, Eugene Kung

SOUNDCLIP

It's simply baffling to Albertans and to most Canadians who understand the facts that we as a country would inflict this punishment on ourselves. The Canadian oil and gas industry has the most highly regulated, cleanest, fairest and most inclusive resource management regime on the face of the planet. Why would you do further damage through this bill to the industry that has been the greatest engine of middle class growth in the modern Canadian economy? This is inexplicable to us.

AMT: That is Alberta Premier Jason Kenney speaking to the Senate Energy Committee this morning on a topic he's tackled full force in his first two days in office, protecting and promoting pipelines. The Senate is looking at Bill 69, the Federal Government's environmental assessment overhaul. The new Alberta government has also proclaimed into law a Bill 12 the so-called 'turn off the taps' legislation that was passed by the previous NDP government. Yesterday Mr. Kenny said that Alberta is ready to use that law to curtail oil shipments to B.C. if the province doesn't back down on its opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. But the B.C. Premier John Horgan is not backing off from his Government's court challenge.

SOUNDCLIP

My job as is his is to protect and defend the interests of the province that I represent. At no time over the past two years have we disrupted or delayed the permitting process in any way beyond those delays that would be required to protect the interests of British Columbia. From the beginning I have been using existing court actions to ensure that British Columbia's interests are protected and we have also started a reference case to assert jurisdiction and we will proceed with that at this time.

AMT: To help us understand the motivations behind each government's move and what might happen next, I'm joined by two people: Deborah Yedlin is a freelance business commentator and partner with Long View Communications. She's in Calgary. Eugene Kung is a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. He's worked with First Nations in the past on court challenges of the Trans Mountain expansion pipe project. He is in Vancouver. Hello to you both.

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Good morning.

EUGENE KUNG: Good morning.

AMT: Deborah Yedlin, how do you think Albertans are reacting to Mr. Kenney's inaction of Bill twelve.

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Well Albertans are very frustrated with the lack of progress on Trans Mountain and they're looking at a premier who said he was going to go forward with this legislation and to someone who followed through with proclaiming, built 12 giving him and the Alberta government the ability to act to move forward and curtail production to British Columbia.

AMT: Now we know that this was brought in by the last government, the one that he defeated. What does that say?

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Well what it says was that what Premier rightly put in place was laying the groundwork for some more action. Now obviously we had a different approach with Premier Notley in terms of trying to work with the B.C. government and to have more of a collaborative approach in terms of solving this issue. That story didn't quite get written the way people thought it might as fast as it did. And so now Premier Kenney has taken advantage of that legislation that was very wisely put in place from an Albertans perspective and now he can move forward.

AMT: Eugene Kung, British Columbians are more divided than Albertans on the pipeline expansion. How much support do you think Mr. Horgan actually has for challenging Alberta's law in court?

EUGENE KUNG: I think the support for this challenge is high in B.C. The actions of Alberta you know as a retaliation seem primarily politically motivated and obviously no one wants to see the tops turned off. This is not the way to kind of work through these issues. But in general I think the opposition to the project here remains strong as well as very deep. The level of that opposition is very high.

AMT: How are higher gas prices in B.C. affecting the public sentiment on this issue, Eugene?

EUGENE KUNG: I think high gas prices get everyone's attention. That impacts everyone. I think most British Columbians who are paying attention understand that the two issues - the transit and pipeline and high gas prices - are not connected and they're being used by politicians to kind of drive a fear and drive people's motivation. In reality if the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was built it would actually increase gas prices here. So I don't think most British Columbians are being fooled by that lie.

AMT: How so would it increase?

EUGENE KUNG: Well quite simply the tolls would increase, which would then increase the cost of shipping any product whether it's unrefined or refined crude through the pipeline and that would increase the cost at the pump in B.C. as well as, you know, this theory that Tidewater axis is going to increase the price which I don't believe to be true in the markets and doesn't demonstrate that to be true. Think about that [unintelligible] have an impact on B.C. prices, it would also increase the price here at the pump.

AMT: Deborah Yedlin Premier Kenney says he will not necessarily turn off the taps unless B.C. stands in the way of the project. What do you think might prompt him to use that law?

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Well you know obviously we there have been challenges in terms of permits taking much longer to be issued by various municipalities. And because municipalities are creatures of provincial statute they actually have to follow through, and when we get approval for a project timing of a project is part of that public interest determination. And so to try and frustrate that is is a challenge and so Premier Kennedy is going to look and see where that sort of matrix is going. Obviously it's a piece of infrastructure that is in the hands of, that is owned by the by the federal government. So this does get a bit more complicated. But to see Premier Horgan perhaps being a bit more realistic in terms of supporting the project and what it means for people in B.C., to have a $1.70 For gasoline prices is is high and it does hit people in the wallet, and the thing is what people don't realize is that, you know, B.C. consumes three times the amount of fuel that it refines. So 100,000 barrels a day comes from Alberta, 50,000 by rail and truck and 50,000 via the Trans Mountain pipeline. So if you do increase the size of that pipeline, there will be more refined products going into B.C. eventually and so that will help provide a more sustainable supply for British Columbians. So that the maths works out on a pretty straightforward basis. By the same token if that 50,000 barrels a day or even half of it disappeared, that would really bite you into the province of British Columbia.

AMT: So Deborah how literally should people take the threat? Does the Premier actually have access? Like can he actually turn off the taps? Does he have to get agreement from the energy companies, the pipeline companies to actually stop that?

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Yes he's got to talk. He's got to have agreements from the shippers on the pipeline and he has to work with Trans Mountain which means he's got to work with the federal government. So it is complicated but I want to remind everybody that in 1981 after passing a bill in November of 1980 and warning Prime Minister Trudeau senior, Premier [unintelligible] flash volumes by 60000 barrels a day on the 1st of April and 1981 and they did the same thing on June 30th. There was a third cut set for September and it wasn't necessary because by then the prime minister was at the bargaining table and ready to make a deal regarding the National Energy Program. So this has this has precedent from a premier who was a very wise individual who stood up for Alberta's interests and also knew when to pull different levers to get what Alberta needed to advance Alberta's interests. And of course the biggest thing being making sure that provinces had sovereignty over natural resource development which includes the energy resources from a constitutional perspective. So this has been done before.

AMT: So Mr. Kenney hasn't uttered that phrase but just watch me might be. Okay well then Eugene Kung, B.C. is arguing Bill 12 is unconstitutional. Just briefly give us the argument it's likely to make. How is it unconstitutional?

EUGENE KUNG: The Supreme Court just a couple of years ago issued a case, commonly known as the free the beer case, that looked at the restriction of alcohol between - - in that case Quebec and New Brunswick. And what the court said was there are valid reasons to restrict the flow of certain goods that are consistent with the Constitution. The primary purpose in that case is whether it's health or protecting the environment, those are valid reasons to regulate the flow of a product. And some of those issues are brought up in the B.C. Court of Appeal reference case. Here I think what B.C. will argue is that this bill, that's just been proclaimed, is unconstitutional because of the way that it actually limits the flow of a very specific product for consumption and as retaliation. So I think this is going to be very interesting to follow before the court.

AMT: So let me just clarify though. They'd said they could restrict the flow. So that means that Alberta can restrict the flow? Or they could restrict the flow coming in. Is your point with the beer case?

EUGENE KUNG: That's right.

AMT: Just to clarify right. Okay. So Deborah what is Alberta's constitutional argument?

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Well you know let's go back to the constitution of 1980. You know as it was put in the in the Constitution 1982 and talk about how provinces own their own natural resources, and that is what Peter Lockheed ensured would be there. And so from Alberta's perspective we'll say this: we have the ability to develop our natural resources, our oil and gas resources. We could argue very easily that we've had billions of dollars of investment leave this province - and the country for that matter - in energy investment because of the lack of certainty in the inability to get it pipeline infrastructure built and gain access to tidewater, which is what Trans Mountain is about in which what Northern Gateway was about. And I will say that the International Energy Agency every year publishes a forecast, and last year they had Canada as being one of the top suppliers of contributing to non OPEC's supply on the global stage and in the global matrix of oil and gas supply oil supply. This year at the [unintelligible] conference in Houston, there was no mention of Canada in that top tier of suppliers for boosting non OPEC's supply on the world stage. And they cited specifically our inability to get our act together when it comes to building infrastructure. So you could make the constitutional argument that because we have not been able to get our infrastructure built, our ability to develop our natural resources, our oil and gas resources has been frustrated. And from a constitutional standpoint, from a lost legal standpoint you could probably say that that means that B.C. implicitly explicitly is interfering in our ability to develop our resources by not helping to advance the development of much needed and pipeline infrastructure. You know that is an argument that could be made.

AMT: Eugene Kung, despite the legal and political jockeying both Mr. Kenney and Mr. Horgan said they had a cordial phone call. They're looking forward to discussing this issue at greater length in the next month. We just heard a lot of bluster in the microphones versus what's really going on behind the scenes.

EUGENE KUNG: I mean there's definitely a lot of politics that have informed this conversation on both sides. And I think something that needs to be clear to Canadians is that the delays that are currently facing this project which I'll just say does not have an approval in this moment and permits cannot be issued in this moment. It's not primarily from B.C.'s political opposition. It came because the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the federal approvals back in August of last year. That was entirely due to the federal government's failure to meet its constitutional duty to First Nations. So the idea that somehow B.C. alone through their actions has caused all of this delay and the subsequent challenges to Alberta's economy, I think it's just false.

AMT: And we should point out, has the federal government actually now consulted with First Nations more broadly, Eugene?

EUGENE KUNG: It's my understanding that those consultations are ongoing. You may recall that the federal governor has just given themselves an extension until June 18th to do more consultation. So you know the Federal Court of Appeal was very clear that the round of consultation last time was well below the mark set by the Supreme Court of Canada. And ultimately that's where I think a lot of the action is right now and a lot of where of the fate of this of this project will be held up.

AMT: Deborah Yedlin surely Mr. Kenney knows that.

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Oh absolutely and I think that's absolutely the case. I think that the challenges is that there's so much rhetoric that has polarized this debate in a way that's not constructive for Alberta or for the country, I would argue. The challenges that this is seen as Alberta's energy industry not Canada's energy industry and Canadian exports of petroleum products was 125 billion last year. That's 65 percent more than autos and nearly triple that of base metals. So you know you want to talk about trade surpluses and deficits, if we do not have the ability to develop the resources and export them and actually increase the value of those exports, this is a very big blow to the Canadian economy and that's one of the arguments that we have to look at things on a broader scale which is why the rhetoric is so frustrating. Consumers are very much a part of the emissions issues as you know when you look at the broader picture. And so we need to actually stand back and say hey why is this important. Yes we have to consult and you know certainly the government is doing what it needs to do in order to fulfil the mandate that was handed down by that last court case.

AMT: And you know we've been hearing the rhetoric for several years now. So why Deborah do you think that it hasn't progressed in a way the Alberta government wants it to? What is the stop then? Because surely everyone knows that argument.

DEBORAH YEDLIN: You know intellectually perhaps they do but we've never had. We know we've always seen Alberta spin out there on its own making the case for why energy development is important as has the energy sector itself perhaps it could be criticized for not doing as good a job as it should have. But the point is that it's been Alberta's battle and we've never had the kind of conversations we have in Alberta about responsible energy development. We don't hear the numbers about how much research and development has decreased emissions, decreased water use and how that curve continues to decline because of the work that's being done within the sector itself. Those stories aren't told the way they need to be told across the country. They're not being told at boardroom tables or kitchen tables or soccer fields the way they're talked about here and that's a failure.

AMT: Eugene, would you agree with that view?

EUGENE KUNG: I would agree that there has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides and we are in a moment now where we need to be thinking about the economy of the future not the economy of the past. The idea of building this expansion which essentially locks in production and expansion of the oil sands for the next several decades is the exact wrong direction we need to go. It'd be like building a Blockbuster Video franchise in 2012. We need to be starting to invest in renewable energy which is already employs more people than those that are employed in the oil sands, and provide for a transition for those workers so that we can move towards a new economy.

AMT: And Deborah Yedlin, Premier Kenney will be before the Senate today. What does he need to hear in Ottawa?

DEBORAH YEDLIN: He needs to hear that the government understands the importance of the Trans Mountain pipeline and of the energy sector as a whole. And he's also looking for assurances that the government's going to and take into consideration the concerns that have been put forward about Bill C 69 and Bill C 48 as they relate to Canada's energy future. And there's a lot of concern over those two bills. But you know June 18th will come quickly enough and the Premier will be looking for assurances from Prime Minister Trudeau that the project will get a go ahead from the Federal Cabinet.

AMT: And Eugene just to clarify does Premier Horgan do anything right now? It's before the courts, right. Can he do anything one way or the other or does he wait?

EUGENE KUNG: While a B.C. has challenged this bill and my understanding that there is a hearing coming up next week, and I suppose in theory if Premier Kenney tried to use it before then that the B.C. government could to ask the Alberta courts to beef heard earlier. But at this point it is before the courts in Alberta. Just like the B.C. was before the courts in the reference case here at the Court of Appeal. And so just playing those out and watching how those turn out is the next step.

AMT: We're almost out of time here. But as we see the political fighting, do you feel this on the ground? Are British Columbians and Albertans mad at each other, individually as people versus government?

DEBORAH YEDLIN: People are frustrated because we are part of a confederation and that conversation seems to be lost and nobody wants to hear, respectfully listen to the other side of the argument and really understand where there is a middle ground. I mean when Premier Horgan said this week that he wanted Alberta to build a refinery to supply more gasoline to B.C., you could have heard the laughter. It was unmistakable, the irony in these comments given what's been going on for the last little while.

AMT: Eugene briefly.

EUGENE KUNG: I mean I don't have any animosity towards anyone in Alberta and no one I know who is here in B.C. feels that way. Certainly the way that the politicians have increased this rhetoric and tried to play up this dispute is unfortunate.

AMT: We'll have to leave it there. We're out of time. Thank you both.

DEBORAH YEDLIN: Thank you.

EUGENE KUNG: Thank you.

AMT: Deborah Yedlin with Long View Communications, freelance business commentator. Eugene Kung staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. Let us know what you think. We're @TheCurrentCBC on Twitter. cbc.ca/thecurrent.

Back To Top »

China's one-child policy was enforced through abortion and sterilization, says documentary director

Guests: Nanfu Wang, Jailing Zhang

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

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come.

SOUNDCLIP

Semenya running for gold now in front of the [unintelligible]. But she's like the others you in a way and she runs away and wins it brilliantly.

AMT: That's Caster Semenya the South African runner winning Olympic gold in 2016. This week however she has suffered a loss. She challenged rules governing acceptable testosterone levels for female athletes. Once again the news has divided the sports world. In half an hour, I will speak with Australian runner Madeleine Pape who competed against, and lost to, Caster Semenya. But first, One Child Nation.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I was born in China in 1985 a time when China's population crisis was making headlines around the world.

VOICE 2: There are more than a billion Chinese, that one big statistic more than anything else is at the heart of that country's huge economic problems.

VOICE 3: By the middle of the next century if China's families have an average of three children there will be starvation. However, with one child per family the standard of living doubled.

VOICE 4: So now there is a desperate effort underway to control the population to limit families to just one child. Chinese officials are using fines, economic incentives and propaganda.

AMT: That is from a powerful new documentary about China's one child policy. The film makes it clear that it was not only fines, economic incentives and propaganda that Chinese officials used to control the country's population growth. One Child Nation documents just how shocking the reality of China's 35 year effort was. It features people who enforced the policy and those who submitted to it some who regret what they did, others who did not. One Child Nation is screening as part of the Hot Docs film festival in Toronto. The co-directors Nanfu Wang and Jailing Zhang. Join me in our Toronto studio. Hello and welcome.

NANFU WANG: Thank you for having us.

JAILING ZHANG: Thank you.

AMT: Nanfu, I thought I knew what the one child policy meant.

NANFU WANG: We thought we knew what the one child policy meant too and we were wrong. Jailing and I both were born in 1980s and we grew up, we spend almost our entire life in China. And we thought of course we knew. Who else would know better than us, but only when we started making this film we discovered how many things we didn't know and most people still didn't know.

AMT: So Jailing, first of all remind us what the one child policy was, what its restrictions really were.

JAILING ZHANG: Yes. It was in enforced Chinese 1979 and in 2015. That idea is that that for every family is restricted to have only one child. But over the year the government make the policy more less, that allowed family in the rural countryside to have a second child when they have their first child is a girl. So that's the policy was enforced in China for over 35 years. It has shaped the lives of hundreds and millions.

AMT: And they could have a second child if the first child was a girl and they waited five years, right?

JAILING ZHANG: Yes. In rural countryside. Is depends in different provinces. But that's basically the idea.

AMT: And why did they bring this in? What was their reasoning?

JAILING ZHANG: The last time there was this growing public concern on overpopulation in China. We just came out of the cultural revolution and the great starvation in the 1960s. And in the late 70s the country is starting to talk about economic development. So at that time they were this general fear of starvation coming again. So the government manipulated that fear and enforced a policy in a very hasty manner and without a lot of public debate. It just was put into force right top down.

AMT: Mmm okay. So that was their reasoning and that was what the propaganda that you so clearly outline that went on for a while. Nanfu Wong you were in one of those families where your parents were allowed to have a second child.

NANFU WANG: Yes I have a younger brother who is five years younger.

AMT: What did you learn that your grandmother did when your mother was in labour with your brother?

NANFU WANG: You know during the one child policy the gender test during pregnancy is prohibited. So my mom and my family didn't know whether she was pregnant it was a girl or a boy. So the day where she was in labour my grandma - it's a home delivery - and my grandma put a basket in front of my mom's bedroom as she announced: If it's a girl, if it was born a girl, she's going to put the baby girl in the basket take it out and abandon the baby on the streets.

AMT: When you learned that what did you think?

NANFU WANG: I always think I was grateful that I was the first one. If I were the second one I don't know what would have happened to me. And when my young-- luckily, my mom gave birth to a boy. So instead of taking the baby to the streets they celebrated it with firecrackers, you know. And my brother learned the story now and he had a question what if I was a girl? What would happen?

AMT: It shocked him too. Yes. And we would learn of course that this happened a lot. So you meet a midwife who talks to you about the scope of this because she can barely live with what she'd done. What does she tell you that she did during that period?

NANFU WANG: I went to Mit, who is this midwife who is 84 years old and delivered all the babies in the village, including me, and I asked her 'Hey do you remember how many babies you delivered throughout your career?' And she said 'I don't have the number of deliveries but I do remember I did 50,000 to 60,000 abortions and I counted that because I felt guilty'. And then why I was shocked, she told me more that nowadays she exclusively treats infertility disorders because she felt she had enough abortions and sterilizations that she hoped by helping families having babies, she can counteract to what she did in the past and to basically atone her sin.

AMT: 50 to 60 thousand abortions. She makes the point that a lot of these were very late term. Women were essentially giving birth and there was infanticide involved. That they were killed, were they not?

NANFU WANG: Yes she told me that sometimes a late term baby would be born alive and she would have to kill the baby after deliver it. And she told me how her hands would tremble where she did that.

AMT: She was also expected to sterilize the women who came in.

NANFU WANG: Yes. During the one child policy almost every woman after giving birth at some point they had to be sterilized to forcefully. It is very common.

AMT: You have some pictures in the film, a still of a woman being taken by both arms. They didn't want this.

NANFU WANG: Exactly. I think a lot of people would think oh China is starting the one child policy is good for them to control the population, but then the country is almost a billion people and the tradition, thoughts of having a son is so prevalent. So it's really hard to enforce and most of the times the people are forced to have sterilization and abortion. And the government had to physically abduct the woman into the clinic office and to implement the policy.

AMT: Your grandfather fought so that your mother would not be sterilized. What happened?

NANFU WANG: Right after I was born, the local officials I was arrived at our family wanted to take my mom to sterilization and my grandfather fought against it because he wanted to have a grandson in order to carry on the family name. They believed that if there is no boys then the family would go extinct, the Wang family. So eventually that's why the local officials allowed us, allowed my parents, to have a second child. They paid a substantial fine, waited for five years. That's why also the stake of whether to have a boy or a girl for the second pregnancy was so high that my grandma would want to abandon the girl, if it was a girl to.

AMT: let let's talk a little bit about the local officials because you guys go and see those people. What did you learn?

JAILING ZHANG: Yes they are local officials I think to some extent to which we feel very related and because they are to call by the nation to sacrifice themselves to contribute to the better to common good. The idea was very familiar when we were growing up in China even as a student. You're always part of some kind of organization and part of a group, and then when the country can't call you to do something you feel very proud. And that sense of fulfilment, we can see very clearly in the family planning officials. Some of them do suffer from guilt like the midwife. But remember she performed from 40 to 60 thousand abortion, five or six a day at least, over 25 years and nobody really force her to do that. But her primary identity as a loyal communist party member and she fulfil her duty before she quit. So I think of this. They really made me think a lot. Like why would you make those [unintelligible] up choices, like even when they choice that the country wants you to make is in conflict with your personal value. And it is something that I learn a lot from making this film.

AMT: About the choices.

JAILING ZHANG: Yes.

AMT: Well what did you learn? When you asked people about their choices, the enforcing, what did they tell you?

JAILING ZHANG: Most people said I don't have a choice. This is my job. This is for the greater good. We could. There was nothing we could do. They felt that they had no choice whether to allow a baby to be alive or dead. And it's because when you live in China you will not encourage to make your own life decision. Throughout your life, you were taught what to do, what is the right thing to do. And over time one would lose the ability to think for themselves, is this really the right thing to do, or simply because we were taught that was the right thing to do?

AMT: And not only losing the ability to think for yourself but the losing the right to ask questions because you go and see the local officials, who we should point out, are part of the community that your mom still lives in. They're neighbours. And what happens when you go and you talk to the man who was making the decisions for the community and his wife?

JAILING ZHANG: I visited my village official, the chief, the former chief of the village because he was the one that when the policies started he implemented it. And I asked him to describe what he did and what he witnessed and he was very frank. He said 'Oh that was crazy times. I could barely able to see those, so brutal. Women were forced. The houses were demolished'. And the we finished our interview. On our way out, his wife was playing cards with a few other women and she overheard our conversation, and I mentioned that now I wanted to visit a feel women in the village who are forced to abort. And she suddenly got furious. This is the woman who saw me grew up, who knows my mother, who is saying family friends and then she became really angry. She's like 'don't bring any trouble to my husband. If you dare to do that your mom would have to pay for it'. And it just shows how - even after decades - the pain and the scar and even the fear of speaking up is still so deeply rooted in everybody's minds and hearts.

AMT: Have you put your mom in danger with her still?

JAILING ZHANG: I asked my mom how she fell about everything. My mom was very supportive. And my mom believed everything I told was truthful and she actually saw the film after it's finished. She said this is all so too and the reality was much worse. And ironically she said 'but I still believe the policy was good'.

AMT: Hmm. How were you two able to work. I mean how worried were you about yourselves doing this, because again this is like the nitty gritty details of this policy are not widely known outside of the places where they occurred.

JAILING ZHANG: Yes. So one of the challenge when we made this film is that we want to be able to finish it without attracting too much attention from the government. So whenever we travel to China it is always one person. Mostly it's Nanfu. So we maintain a very minimum number of crew and then Nanfu try not to check into any hotels or by any train tickets or aeroplane ticket if she can, because those are part of the government's surveillance system and you require nation I.D. to buy tickets. And if the press is on a government's watch list, maybe if she buyed a ticket then the system would send some alert and then local government can get ready. So we take into consideration all case of risk factors and try not to run any unnecessary risk. When for example we would do research, some of the interviewees we interviewed they are local activist and the government install surveillance camera at their door and we will avoid going there.

AMT: And you had done an earlier film. Hooligans Sparrow was that the name?

JAILING ZHANG: Yes that was my first the film which the government wasn't happy about it. It's about a feminist who staged a protest. And what happened after the protests, the government reacted strongly with a series of arrests, interrogations, harassment to the activists and to myself because I was there and captured everything.

AMT: Okay. So you were already on their radar so to speak. Great. Yes.

JAILING ZHANG: Yes.

AMT: And a couple of things I have to pick up on, one is demolished houses. So that was another thing, if you went against this law, if you had the second child, what would they do? They would destroy your house?

JAILING ZHANG: Yes. So when the one child policy started there were a lot of resistance especially in rural areas where every family wanted to have a boys, because farming is the only way that they can make income and they need male labour in order to do so. So they would do anything they can to avoid being sterilised. And in this sense the government - if they cannot find the pregnant woman, if the woman is in hide - they would demolish the house, take all your property, take a pig, take it your dining table, your dresser, everything, in order to force the family to surrender. And sometimes when even families they were so willing to risk and let them demolish the houses in order to have another child, the government would take even more serious measures by arresting the husband, arresting and the parents, arresting very family member in the family in order to force the pregnant woman to come out.

AMT: I want to go back to the midwife who wanted to atone for what she had done and she told you that she was working on infertility now, and that she would be sent these banners that kind of look like penance and these red banners with gold lettering on them as thank you. And she starts to show you and you see they're all over the wall. Then you go into another room and they're all over that wall. And you go in another room and they're all over that wall. It's so powerful.

JAILING ZHANG: Yes. It was almost like a installation in the museum. Rooms of after room, she has all those red flags that people send. 'Thank you for helping me treating my infertility problem'. And on each flag there was a picture of a newborn baby. It's hard for me to imagine how she could live in this space like that and being reminded every day visually of what she had done in the past and what she is suffering from. It was that moment I realized that that she too is a just like everybody, every woman she aborted, she was a victim as well.

AMT: And so you also meet a man who starts finding so many baby girls abandoned and bringing them to orphanages. Tell me a little bit about what you learned about the abandonment of babies and where they ended up.

JAILING ZHANG: So just the leg of what my grandma wanted my mom to do, a lot of people - including my uncle, my aunt - abandoned their newborn girls and left them on the streets to die. So gradually, in every village locally there are people who go and find some of the abandoned babies and to send them to the orphanage. And that was during the early 1980s, China just started the international adoption program. So a lot of orphanages actually would pay people for bringing in a young child, a baby infant, to the orphanage because they then can put those babies into adoption. And each international adoption baby the family would pay up to thousands of fee in order to adopt this child. So it became a business. People would get paid for bringing those children to the orphanage. Orphanages would then send them to adoption and they, eventually, when people started question a lot of the fabricated documents, that's when the government cracked down and arrested the people that the orphanage hired. But the government officials almost like none of them except for one were charged for what they did.

AMT: It's quite an image of people going on, literally, going along the road and finding, just seeing an infant lying there on the side of the road. You know I'm asking because in this country - and I think in the United States too - out there are hundreds of young women and girls now who that is their story. They were you know- Canadians went to China and adopted them and they're living here now and they're growing up here. I'm guessing that some of the things in your film are going to be painful for them.

NANFU WANG: Yes. One aspect of the story of which Jailing and I didn't expect was besides those abandoned girls, at some point some of the local governments were very aggressive because of the profit of the orphanage. They would allow women to give birth and then, after the baby is born, they would go and take the baby away from the family and claiming that they violated the one child policy. They would forcefully took this baby and put it in the orphanage. So most of the adoptive families thought that they had a adopted an orphan. And in fact they are not orphans. Their families, their biological parents, were devastated and throughout their life a lot of them are still trying to find where their children went.

AMT: I'm wondering what kind of emotions you two are left with after doing this and really seeing what was going on, that even you didn't know till you came there. Like are you angry or like how do you process everything you learned?

JAILING ZHANG: Yes there are a lot of emotions deck in the making out of them. For example at the beginning I was very upset when I learned about the parents abandoned kids in the street. I was thinking how can you sleep for the rest of their life. But now we listen to their story and meet more and more people out there and then understand the circumstances. I have finally realized. It's like every is a victim, even the officials. The policy just make you [unintelligible] without choice. Like the people who abandon their kids, if China make it so difficult for domestic adoption and they cannot do- and if they keep their child they will be heavy fines and they can lose everything. So what can you do? So I try to understand the circumstances that made them make those desperate action. And of course I also feel that one of the emotion I felt was horror. Like I can imagine if their policy- Those decades I can't imagine if I were one of them, what choices would I make. So I haven't got an answer to this question by something that film like one if the country was forced to enforce a policy and tell the people is for the good of the country, but is so incmfort to what's beneficial for a people is something so horrifying.

AMT: And now there the one child policy is over and now you point out the propaganda is now the other way. Instead saying only one kid, it's now have another child this is the best thing for China.

NANFU WANG: Right now China is a face in the problem of lack of a workforce and elderly care problem. So the country reversed the policy. That's why at the end of 2015 the one child policy ended now is two child policy. And the slogans, which used to be One is the Best, now is one has to few two is just about right.

AMT: So there we go. We're going to have to leave it there but thank you both for the work you did and for giving us the real story behind that story.

NANFU WANG: Thank you so much.

JAILING ZHANG: Thank you.

AMT: That is Nanfu Wang and Jailing Zhang they are co-directors of One Child Nation. It's screening in Toronto as part of The Hot Docs Film Festival and will show up elsewhere as well as the months go on. If you're interested in hearing some of our previous stories about the one child policy there's a conversation I'll never forget with Shin Rahn, author of a book called Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother. You can find it on our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. Stay with us. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

How a former rival had a change of heart about Caster Semenya's right to compete

Guests: Gerald Imray, Madeleine Pape, Robert Blecker

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

SOUNDCLIP

Would it be easier for you if I wasn't so fast? Will it be simpler if I stop winning? Would you would be more comfortable if I was less proud?

AMT: The words of South African middle distance runner and two time Olympic gold medallist Caster Semenya in an ad for Nike. She ends by saying I was born to do this. But now a ruling from the Court of Arbitration for Sport the CFS means she may not be able to race on the world stage after all. Miss Semenya has identified as a woman her entire life. She is believed to have a condition known as hyperandrogenism, which means her body naturally produces male sex hormones that include testosterone at a higher level than levels normally found in other women. That used to be referred to as intersex. The ruling athletic body now calls it DSD, differences of sexual development. The court has now upheld the rules imposed by that international track and field body, the IAAF. It says that athletes with naturally elevated testosterone levels need to bring the levels down with medication. James Bunting is a Toronto based lawyer who was part of Caster Semenya as legal team. In his reaction to the ruling he says Miss Semenya should be allowed to compete freely.

SOUNDCLIP

So in fairness to everyone it is a very complicated issue at some level. On the other level we see it in a very simple way which is that in sport we celebrate the genetic outliers. We celebrate those people who have differences that make them exceptional. They become our heroes. And Miss Semenya is one of those heroines. She has a genetic variation, as do many other successful athletes, that give her an ability to perform at a higher level. And I would dispute that it's just testosterone levels. There's a whole number of things that go into an athlete's makeup. But in our view it doesn't make sense to discriminate against this one genetic variation when we celebrate all others.

AMT: In a moment we will hear from a former athlete who competed against Caster Semenya and was critical but who has now had a change of heart about the case. First to South Africa where Caster Semenya's many fans reacted with anger and disappointment to the latest news. Gerald Imray is a sports reporter with The Associated Press. He's been covering this story for a decade and we've reached him in Cape Town. Hello.

GERALD IMRAY: Hi there Anna Maria. Thanks for having me on the show.

AMT: What can you tell us more about how the public's been reacting to this decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport?

GERALD IMRAY: Well, anger, quite simply. Anna Maria it's a very angry country because Caster Semenya is a huge star, a huge hero in South Africa, and not just for your regular sports fan on the street. South Africans take it personally that when Semenya loses a court case like she's lost it's a slight on their country and one of their biggest sports stars.

AMT: So there's no ambiguity about her in South Africa.

GERALD IMRAY: Not at all. It's a very difficult issue but for your average sports fan in South Africa Caster Semenya is a great runner. She illustrates many South Africans situations of coming from a poor background, a background of hardship and adversity, and succeeding and in that way she encapsulates the hopes of a nation. And so to have a almost blocked from succeeding by what some people call rules that are tailored just to stop her specifically, is very hard for South Africans to take.

AMT: What's the bottom line here? What does this decision tell her about her ability to compete?

GERALD IMRAY: Well when you're talking about the 800 meters - which she's a two time Olympic champion and quite simply the most dominant runner in the world at the moment - it means that she can't run freely in her natural form in the 800 meters for the remainder of a career. She has to take medication. She has to lower her testosterone levels to fit into a limit that the IAAF has set. And she has to do that not just the day before a race - this is quite important - she has to do that consistently for six months in the buildup to a world class race like the Olympics or the World Championships. So Caster Semenya is looking at a career, if she continues running in the 800 meters and the 1500 meters, she must medicate. She can refuse to take the medication and compete in events above 1500 meters. But that's not her strong point. She's an 800 meter runner and she's the best in the world.

AMT: The court has said that the rules are discriminatory but they are justified. Is that right?

GERALD IMRAY: Yes that's right. In the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland is the highest court in the world. The judgment at itself is one of the most difficult it's ever given and this is a sports court that's been around for decades and done all the biggest force cases in the world. And the reason why it's so difficult is because what you've talked about there, Anna Maria. You've got an idea that you have to be discriminatory against someone to ensure fairness to everyone and that's what Caster has said. It does discriminate against Caster Semenya but we have to because the fairness of female competition is at stake here and they've called that the discrimination necessary and proportionate. Casater Semenya's lawyers will obviously argue it's neither of those.

AMT: Remind us why the IAAF developed these rules in the first place?

GERALD IMRAY: Well quite simply it goes back a decade. It goes back to the 2009 world championships and Caster Semenya arrived there an 18 year old unknown. It was the first major athlete's meet. It was one of the first time she'd ever left South Africa, you know, travelled internationally. And she won the world title and she blew the rest of the world's best runners away. She's a teenage girl who's never been seen before. Now the IAAF suddenly take notice because this looks like doping. They find it's not doping but they find it something else that they've never ever come across before on this level. We're talking about an athlete who's an incredibly talented athlete anyway. But the IAAF says she's got this major advantage. And so the IAAF has had to scramble to deal with this situation after Semenya arrived because they had no real rules to deal with it before. So suddenly you're getting into a situation where you're writing rules retroactively. And that's where the IAAF effort has been for the last decade, almost trying to catch up with this hugely unusual and special case.

AMT: And it only applies to certain distances. Why?

GERALD IMRAY: Well that's interesting Anna Maria and the IAAF says that they've done the science on 400 meters through to1500 meters in a mile and they don't have the signs for other events. Now critics of the IAAF will immediately say well surely when you're talking about testosterone you're looking at power as well as speed, and events like the shot put in the field events which involved throwing are clearly in this realm of testosterone would give you a good advantage. They haven't done the research on that which fuels Caster Semenya argument that they are specifically targeting her. They're targeting one athlete and trying to sideline her. Crucially, CAS has said that the 400 and 800 they accept the evidence. CAS has said there is not enough evidence for the 1500 meters. And the IAAF should delay regulations on that specific event but it's only advice from CAS. CAS Can't force the IAAF to do that. The IAAF today, Sebastian Coe the president who said the IAAF will not heed that advice. It will enforce those regulations in the 1500. And that's significant for Semenya because in the last couple of years Semenya has tried out the 1500 and got some success. She's a bronze medallist at the World Championships. So she's looking at alternatives to the 800 and it appears to her, and certainly her lawyers feel this way, that this is another attempt by the IAAF to target her. Okay. You're going to try the fifteen hundred metres, we're going to regulate that event as well, and we're going to push you out and out and out until you're no longer a contender, no longer a threat.

AMT: You know you made the point that there is a real story of adversity and triumph over adversity and her story. She is a black South African athlete. How does race enter into all of this?

GERALD IMRAY: Well it does. You know I'm a sports reporter so I'm hesitant to talk about this. But you can't ignore it. It doesn't turn it entered because of the fact that the IAAF is generally run by Western European men. It's based in Western Europe. And what you now have is a room full of white men telling a black woman what she should look like to be a woman, what she should look like to be female. And that's an very uncomfortable space to be in any debate. The problem I have with this debate as I say is because sometimes it detracts from the facts of the matter which are science, testosterone and competitive advantage. But there's no doubt Anna Maria that that debate has been thrown in. And specifically here in South Africa where people feel that Semenya is targeted because she's black and because she's a woman from a country outside of Western Europe from the developing world. You ask yourself a question what a hugely hugely successful athlete from North America or Western Europe be treated in a similar way. I can't answer that question. But people like to ask that question.

AMT: Gerald I'm wondering how other athletes have responded to this case and what you might be hearing, even privately, since you've covered this for so long.

GERALD IMRAY: Look nothing .quite simply the athletes who are currently competing who are Semenya's rivals have been very wary to talk about this because of the delicate nature of the case. But also you know athletes probably don't want to be seen to be groaning, moaning that they're losing to a better runner. But there's no doubt, Anna Maria, the murmurs underlying discontent has been there for a while in 2016 at the Rio Olympics. What we've got from these athletes was this real discontent that they felt that they couldn't beat Caster Semenya and other athletes. Caster Semenya is not the only athlete with a DSD not the only athlete that's affected by unusually high levels of natural testosterone. The athletes not affected his condition felt they couldn't beat these athletes no matter how hard they train. And what that does is it breeds an atmosphere of this is no longer sport because I have no chance no matter what. It's a field where it's considered uneven. Whether you buy their argument or not is up to you. But the murmurs of discontent from other athletes were there and some to an extent where it became personal and a little bit nasty. And what you then need to ask yourself is how much does the IAAF have to deal with these murmurs of discontent from a range of other athletes? Does the IAAF tell them to keep quiet? Or does it take their views on board and try and even the playing field? Even if it means evening the playing field by harming someone else's chances. Which is in a sporting context a ridiculous situation to be in. One of our AP writers yesterday wrote about forget about performance enhancing drugs. We've now got performance reducing drugs for Caster Semenya. It's a sporting nonsense but it's where we are.

AMT: Gerald that raises lots more questions. Thank you for your insights today.

GERALD IMRAY: Thank you very much Anna Maria. Great to be talking to you guys.

AMT: Gerald M. Ray sports reporter with The Associated Press. He joined us from Cape Town South Africa. Well my next guest knows exactly what it is like to compete against Caster Semenya. In 2009 at the World Athletics Championships in Berlin, Madeleine Pape ran against the South African athlete in the world's 800 meter event. That was the race that introduced Caster Semenya to the world. After losing to her Madeleine Pape was part of a chorus of athletes who said Caster Semenya is elevated levels of testosterone gave her an unfair advantage. But that was then. Today this former competitor is one of Miss Semenya most vocal supporters. In addition to running she's done research into attitudes toward female athletes with high testosterone inside the track world. Madeleine Pape is a PhD student in sociology at the University of Wisconsin Madison and she's joining us from Madison. Hello.

MADELEINE PAPE: Hi Anna Maria. Thanks for having me.

AMT: What was it like competing against Caster Semenya in 2009?

MADELEINE PAPE: Yes it was an interesting time. I mean Semenya at the time was very new on the scene. This was our first experience I guess witnessing her tremendous ability on the international stage. So there was a lot of I think uncertainty about how to react to her performance. But I guess one thing that is important to remember is that on the night before the final of the women's 800 meters the IAAF announced to the world that they had concerns about Semenya as biological sex and that they were going to be conducting investigations into that. And so that really set the tone I think for how people then talked about and accused Semenya of having an unfair advantage.

AMT: What were your feelings at the time?

MADELEINE PAPE: At the time I was very quick to join other people around me in saying that, sure, Semenya had an unfair advantage. I mean on the hand, there weren't any other points of view being presented at that time. I was very much hearing only one opinion on this topic. So I certainly wasn't being challenged to think differently or critically about where my own views were coming from. And also another part of this I think in my case was that it was somewhat self-serving to be able to accuse her of having an unfair advantage since I had been very disappointed with my own performance at those championships. So you know for me this this brought a little bit of consolation.

AMT: You weren't alone though among athletes at the time. You were not alone among the other competitors when you felt that way.

MADELEINE PAPE: Right. Correct. Yeah. At that time, I mean in some of media coverage of the final in particular there were some competitors from the women's 800 meters final that sort of spoke out. And I think that points to I guess sort of the lack of sensitivity about this topic at the time. You know we really didn't have the language or the sort of framework to make sense of what was happening and be able to talk in a more respectful way about the issue.

AMT: How have your views about that race and about Ms. Semenya changed?

MADELEINE PAPE: I've been on a real journey I guess since 2009. I wasn't able to continue running because of an injury and ended up coming to the United States to do my PhD in sociology. And it was through that experience that, quite unexpectedly actually, I started to be exposed to the very vast literature that's been written about this topic by advocates of women's sport and I decided to delve into the scientific and the ethical complexities and begin to question my own point of view. So as it stands now, and this is also I'd like to mention influenced by my personal experiences befriending women with high testosterone and sort of getting to see this issue from a much more personal point of view, I now don't feel that there's any place for these kinds of rules in women's sport. And I think it's actually in the interests of women athletes to not be trying to impede the performances of superstars like Caster Semenya.

AMT: It's interesting because she's not alone. India's Dutee Chand also faced these restrictions and actually won and got them lifted for a while, am I right?

MADELEINE PAPE: Yeah that's right. So that was in 2015. Dutee Chand, who's a 100-meter runner, took an appeal against the previous set of rules that were quite similar to the current set, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and I suppose that the fact that she was victorious in that instance kind of points to the sort of scientific challenges here of actually trying to tease out exactly to what extent testosterone is impacting athletic performance. I mean there's science to be considered on both sides of that debate and I suppose that's the debate that the CAS has been trying to wade through. Athletic performance is very complicated. It's impacted by a whole range of different factors and testosterone is just one of those factors. So to be able to come up with clear measures of exactly how much it's affecting athletic ability is a very big challenge.

AMT: So how surprised are you by the court of arbitration or the CAS upholding the rules in the case of Caster Semenya?

MADELEINE PAPE: Anna Maria I wouldn't say I was surprised. I was more disappointed, I think. I mean I think since 2009 the sport of track and field has come a long way and that is largely on the back of Caster Semenya because her journey has challenged us to think differently about the complexity of sex and testosterone. So I think given the outpouring of support that we've seen for Semenya, not just recently but over the last couple of years, that it indicates a sport that is in a good position to be able to take a different road when it comes to regulating women with high testosterone. So I was really hoping that Semenya would be the athlete to change what was actually a very long history of trying to exclude women who don't fit normative definitions of female.

AMT: Madeleine Pape want you to stay with me I'm going to bring another voice into this conversation. Robert Blecker is listening. He's a criminal law professor at New York Law School. He writes about culture and sport and he's joining us from Roslyn, New York. Hello Robert Blecker.

ROBERT BLECKER: Hello Anna Maria Tremonti How justified do you think the rules are on regulating female athletes testosterone levels.

ROBERT BLECKER: It's an impossible situation that we're facing. I mean I'm delighted to hear the voices criticizing. There's more to be said though in favour than what we're hearing so far. This is a very complex issue and there's no easy answer. There's no good answer right now. Caster Semenya has done nothing wrong. She's a great athlete. It feels like and seems like she's being punished which she shouldn't be. But having said all that there is a problem in terms of restricting athletic performance too. I don't know the correct phrasing. Restricted females, traditional females. I mean it's very difficult. Women's sport can be destroyed easily. Women are a protected class here. This struggle has been for separate and equally funded sport under Title 9 in the United States. And male elite athletes come with biologically privileged bodies. That has led us to properly protect female sport as a separate category. And the essence of law of course is to impose discrete grids on what are otherwise continuous situations and when you do that instances that fall just on either side of the line seem arbitrary. So I mean I'm conflicted. I think what's emerged here in this very good discussion and introduction is that virtually everybody is conflicted at some level. There's no clear answer. I mean she cannot be and should not be punished. She has done nothing wrong. She has done a lot right and has done nothing wrong.

AMT: But let me ask you in yet because you do teach law. If she's done nothing wrong, this is essentially a punishment. Why should this exist?

ROBERT BLECKER: It's essentially a penalty. I mean this may sound like semantic distinction of no significance but it's of great significance. She is being penalized but she should not be punished. The United States Supreme Court for example struck down punishment for status crimes. That is you may never be punished for who you are only for what you've done. And she didn't do anything wrong. So it can't be a punishment. It shouldn't be a punishment. There is no denunciation that can attach to it. Having said all that, in order to preserve women's sport you might need to impose restrictions like this. You know in the introduction it was pointed out correctly that athletes like this are privileged in other sports. The scientific research - and I'm in no position to validate it or support it. I'm not an expert in it - but it not only showed advantages in middle distance running, it also showed advantages in Hammer and pole vault. Those aren't being restricted similarly. I don't understand that gives credence to her being singled out.

AMT: Okay so Robert I just want to pick up on something else you said. You said that women's sport can be destroyed. I want you to hear a clip. Madeline I want you to hear it as well. Well a lot of athletes and fans have rallied around Miss Semenya. This is the view of British marathon runner Paula Radcliffe. She picks up on what you're saying there, Robert Blecker.

SOUNDCLIP

But it's a number of athletes and could be a growing number. Essentially you have a body that has always gone through male puberty and is stronger physiological differences,, bone mass the strength not having to deal with periods, not having to worry about managing your menstrual cycle around competitions. Those ramifications for what it means for the future of female sport and also what it will do in terms of the whole transgender question and would open the door up there to transgender actually being able to say, no, we don't need to bring our levels down, either, we don't need to have any kind of [unintelligible] we can just identify how we feel and then we can just come in and compete. That would be the death of women's sport.

AMT: Madeline Pape I want you to comment on that and what Robert Blecker saying.

MADELEINE PAPE: Yes thanks. I think there's a couple of things to unpack there. I mean one thing I really appreciated Robert saying was that women have had to fight really hard to get the these opportunities to compete at the elite level and that fight isn't over yet. And certainly advocates of Caster Semenya and people who oppose her I think can at least agree that we want to do what's right for women's sport. So it's been interesting to see some leading organizations in the space of women's sport come out in support of Caster Semenya. So organizations like the Women's Sports Foundation in the US, also the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women in Sport are in favour of Caster Semenya. So I think there's a debate to be had there about rightful Women's sport, but I'd like to say something on also the--

AMT: Idea of the death of women's sport. I don't want to run out of time here. Can you comment on that view?

MADELEINE PAPE: I think the point that these organizations who are working for women's rights in sport are making is that actually Semenya is making a very positive contribution to women's sport, so we shouldn't be catching it in terms of death. We should be seeing this as an opportunity to celebrate a really exceptional female athlete.

AMT: I just wanted to ask about that because we're living in a time where the very rigid definitions of male and female are changing in our societies. And does that not suggest that sports might have to change with it at some point anyway Robert Blecker?

ROBERT BLECKER: Yes that's an that's an excellent point. I mean another way of phrasing that same question is if we had it to do all over again and in this era where gender is on a spectrum now, and some say we live in a genderless society, would we even have the traditional male-female categories of sport today? And I don't think that it's obvious that we would. I'm glad that we do. But it seems that there is irony abounding on both sides of it. On the one hand we say no doping and then we require her to take drugs and that's been pointed out. On the other hand, we have a category, we have groups of people who say gender is long since passed. And yet they want to preserve women's sport, and I think rightfully. One other thing, my problem with the ruling includes the fact that, number one, there's no dissenting opinion that's published by CAS. I have a real problem with that. This was a two to one decision. So there is someone who's dissenting. One of the judges who’s dissenting. I want to hear from that judge and they will not publish a dissenting opinion. They never have. And so far they refused to. And a second problem I have with it is that they're imposing strict liability, that is if Caster Semenya chooses to comply with it, or any other similarly situated athlete, and they go through this drug treatment in order to reduce their testosterone level and for some reason it doesn't take or it doesn't take fully and they go above the minimum threshold, even briefly, even if they're not at fault and not negligent even if they have absolutely no fault, they will be disqualified.

AMT: Okay. We're going to have to end it there. But we hear what you're saying. Thank you both for weighing in on this. There's a lot to talk about. Thank you for taking the time. I've been speaking with Madeleine Pape. She competed against Caster Semenya at the World Athletic champions in Berlin in 2009. She's in Madison, Wisconsin. Robert Blecker is a criminal law professor at New York Law School. He writes about culture and sport. He's in Roslyn, New York. Let us know what you think as you listen to what they had to say. You can tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Find us on Facebook. Go to our Web site cbc.ca/thecurrent. Stay with Radio One for Q. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Thursday May 2, 2019 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This