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 2021

The AIH Transcript For September 27, 2021

[hosts]Carol Off, Chris Howden[/hosts]

CAROL Off: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[music: theme]

Prologue

CH: Tonight:

CO: Points of entry. Kevin Garratt spent more than 700 days in a Chinese prison. Tonight, he'll offer Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor a few tips as they begin their first full week back on Canadian soil.

CH: Left behind. While the Kovrig and Spavor families celebrate, Kamila Telendibayeva asks whether Canada will now act on behalf of her husband, the Canadian citizen, and a Uyghur human rights activist who's been imprisoned in China for 15 years.

CO: Plot points. A reporter uncovers a scheme by the Canadian military to use propaganda techniques on unsuspecting Canadians -- and he says this is not the first time.

CH: Partying words. Thousands of students celebrated Homecoming in the streets of Halifax this weekend. And although Dalhousie’s Student Union president condemns the scenes, she tells us strict campus policies contributed to the chaos.

CO: Walk on the rewilded side. There’s an ambitious new plan to return a huge swath of the Scottish Highlands to its natural state. And the person behind the project provides some spoilers in making a landscape unspoiled.

CH: And... out of control inflation. Thirty-five years ago today, Cleveland set a world record by releasing 1.5 million helium balloons. But the city went very quickly from bursting with pride to bursting into tears.

CH: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that warns the thing about balloons is there are always strings attached.

[music: theme]

Part 1

The Two Michaels Are Free

Guest: Kevin Garratt

CH: Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have begun their journey back to normal life. The two men were allowed to return from China on Friday. It was the end of nearly three years of detention that began shortly after the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in Canada. The Michaels' flight back to Canada is hard to imagine. Unless you're Kevin Garratt. Mr. Garratt spent nearly 800 days in a Chinese prison after he and his wife Julia were accused of spying in 2014. We reached Kevin Garratt in Vancouver.

CO: Kevin, I'm sure you had some memories of when you were finally released and able to come back to Canada when you got the news that the Michaels -- Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor -- were finally in the air. What did... what came to mind?

KEVIN GARRATT: Well, what happened to me, you know, just over five years ago, it was September 15, 2015, when, you know, I got the news I was being released. Almost didn't believe it, really, that it was happening. It was kind of a shock, but it was a good kind of shock, as was all the other bad shocks I'd been having those two years. But I was thrilled for... for the both the Michaels that they were being released. And I know their families are ecstatic right now. And just... but now, you know, settling back into their life is going to take some time.

CO: And for you, it was very sudden, wasn't it? You had been in detention for, well, in one form or another for... for 700 days or so.

KG: Yeah.

CO: You were there with these trumped-up charges. You were then convicted and sentenced to an eight-year prison term. And then, bang, two days later, you were... you were out on your way to Canada, right?

KG: Exactly. Yeah, they took me to court, sentenced me to eight years and then it wasn't clear from the court proceedings that I was going to be deported right away. But there was an extrajudicial meeting that happened in the evening after the court proceedings. And I was told by the embassy officials the next day. You could be deported as early as tomorrow, which would have been September 15th. And that's exactly what happened.

CO: And, of course, the uncanny parallels between what happened to you and what happened to both the Michaels that they were detained because of the arrest and extradition process of Meng Wanzhou. You were apparently in retaliation for Canada's decision to arrest a Chinese businessman, Su Bin. Did… did you know anything about what was going on, all the machinations going on in Canada and within the Chinese government?

KG: No, I had no idea that we were taken because of Su Bin. I didn't know until I was released. You know, sometime a few months before I was released, I saw his name in a China daily paper that I was able to get. But I had no idea he was connected to what was going on with us. So, you know, for two years, they said, you're spies. And I'm thinking, how did they get it so wrong? You know, we're just doing humanitarian work. We're working with churches and things.

CO: When you say we, you're referring to you and your wife. And you both invested a lot of your life energy in China, didn't you?

KG: Yeah, we spent 30 years there working in seven different cities doing various kinds of aid projects. But we also… we taught English. We studied Chinese. We ran a coffee shop on the border was the last thing we did -- the border with China and North Korea. I think part of the reason we were taken is because we lived in a sensitive area. And, you know, I thought, well, we've been there a long time. We must know something. That's the only thing that makes sense to me why they would take us. But I guess they wanted someone from Vancouver area as well since Su Bin was from the Vancouver area.

CO: You were in the same prison as Michael Spavor, right?

KG: Yeah, probably just down the hall from him, if I'm not mistaken. I understood he was in cell 315. I was in 318. So I know very well what would go on in that area.

CO: But this is a country, China... you and your wife not only dedicated all that energy, you loved the country. And from what we've heard of the... of both of these men -- Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor -- they were very fond of... of China. They were very engaged, very involved in that. So, how difficult is it to come to terms with the fact that a country you loved had treated you that way?

KG: Well, I separated the system, which is not a good system, and the people. You know, we worked with tremendous people, had lots of friends in China, and I'm sure both Michael's did as well. But the system has some flaws. And they don't value people, really. They want to get their own way. So they'll... hostage diplomacy is something they use right now.

CO: I also wonder what it was like to hear some of the remarks from Meng Wanzhou after she was released. After she came... well, the extradition was dropped. She said, without a powerful motherland, I would not have my freedom today. She talked of the torturous 1,000 days that she spent. And now, that she's free. And we know that she spent all of that time in a very nice house in British Columbia. So, did that rankle a bit when you hear her remarks?

KG: Well, yeah. Because they want to make it look like she was in... well, as you say, a torturous situation. I don't call an ankle bracelet, and being able to, you know, travel around Vancouver between, I guess, 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. and/or 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. to bad. Being able to rent restaurants and, you know, for your family and friends to go to. I don't find that too torturous at all. But from what we... I went through, my wife went through, and the two Michaels went through, that's torturous. I mean, that's... there's no freedom in that. You're very controlled. It is a very regimented, military-type environment. Not... no choices. You know, not even what you want to eat or read or anything like that.

CO: And sometimes, not even getting anything to eat.

KG: Exactly, yeah. And I happened to figure it out. It was 28.4 per cent of the time. I didn't get food to purchase. That's the other thing, you have to purchase your food there.

CO: After all that time and the effect it has on you. What advice would you give to Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig as they try and readjust to being home?

KG: It's going to take some time to readjust. I mean, it probably took me a year-and-a-half to really fully readjust. And there's still, you know, things, you know, when I see, you know, Chinese following us or something, I'm like, oh, what's going on here again, you know? So there are things that will always be there. There were sounds that you... in the first six months, we're in a black jail. And that was, you know, interrogated and separated, isolated, you know, there's things that would go on there. You'd hear car doors and think, oh, is someone coming to get me again? Or something like that. But it's not... I wouldn't say it's a fear we have. It's just they trigger memories, and then you go on.

CO: And what... what helps you get past that?

KG: Just doing regular things. You know, spending time with family and friends. Doing the work that we enjoy doing. We're still helping people overseas. And we spoke a lot, and continue to speak, about our story and about, really, how God took us through it. And that's very healing as well.

CO: Would you like to go back to China someday?

KG: Well, I would like to go back, but I don't think we... we could. I don't think China would give us a visa. And I think, you know, they would view us with suspicion, probably. Because, you know, we're technically... I'm technically convicted as a spy in China. So they would treat me that way.

CO: Kevin, we will leave it there. And once again, I'm glad to speak with you. Thank you.

KG: You're welcome.

CH: Kevin Garratt spent 775 days in a Chinese jail. His wife Julia was under house arrest for 17 months. Mr. Garratt is in Vancouver. And We have more on that story on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[no music. Hard in to next segment]

Detained Activist

Guest: Kamila Telendibayeva

CH: And while the celebrations continue for the return of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, other Canadians are still in China, and are still behind bars. Kamila Telendibayeva's husband Husseyin Celil has been detained since 2006, when he was extradited from Uzbekistan, and convicted of supporting Uighur terrorism. We reached Kamila Telendibayeva in Burlington, Ontario.

CO : Ms. Telendibayeva, what does the freeing of Meng Wanzhou and the return of the two Micheals, what does it mean for you?

KAMILA TELENDIBAYEVA: Yeah, when I read the news, when I hear the news, I was, you know, I was happy. On the other side, I was disappointed.

CO: I can guess why you were happy. You’re happy for the families of these men?

KT: Yes, yeah.

CO: Why were you disappointed?

KT: You know, I... it is good news for the Canada. It is really nice news. Now, we can see that Canada can do something, enough for the Canadian citizens. I was disappointed because they pushed by Husseyin Celil’s case. They didn't, you know, include it.

CO: And that was from the very beginning of the... all the efforts to bring them…. the two Michaels home. You were agitating, as others were agitating, that they should include the release of your husband, Husseyin Celil, at the same time, right?

KT: Yes, that's right. So, it was great news for the family. They were reunited with the family, those two Michaels. But what about Husseyin’s case? Husseyin has been in jail for 16 years in the country China. And now, he's a Canadian citizen. Does he have a right? He doesn't have a right?

CO: Sixteen years, I mean, we know that it was... the Michaels went through more than 1,000 days, but this is a decade-and-a-half that your husband has been in prison.

KT: Yes, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

CO: And you haven't had much contact with him in the past years, is that right? When's the last time you were able to have any contact with your husband?

KT: I haven't contract since they arrest him in 2006, but I was getting little... little information by his family. And then this information cut off 2017. It totally cut off when they stopped the concentration camp in China when they built a new prison in China.

CO: So you're referring to when they started to detain the Uyghurs, the Muslims, in China.

KT: Yes.

CO: And this is something, your husband, he'd spoken out in support of Uyghurs and their human rights. And this is what has undoubtedly landed him in prison.

CO: I don't know if you saw a column the… a colum that Haroon Siddiqui, a columnist for the Toronto Star, he wrote that the only difference between your husband and the two Michaels is that your husband is... is a Canadian, but he’s a new Canadian, that he's Muslim and is not white. And that we don't seem to care about your husband the way we cared about the others. Is that your feeling?

KT: I don't think so. But they can do something. They can do something, you know? Now, I can see. Now, I open my eyes, you know? I see two Michaels be brought, and then... so they can... they can do some deal for my husband's case.

CO: What do you think they can do? What... what would you like to see them do?

KT: Yeah, they can't do business. They can stop one of the business from China. They can do something. They can call to Xi Jinping. And then send special envoy, which is you have sent for the two Michaels. We are telling send special envoy, send special envoy 16 years.

CO: Does the release of these... of… of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, does that give you hope?

KT: Yep, yes, yeah. I'm very positive after that, which is a release. And the, so we should push the government harder now. They can do something. Now, I open my eyes. They can do something anytime because they did it for the two Michaels, they can do for my husband. In this case, anything they can do, anything. Anything, I don't care what they're going to do. They should do it. They must do it. It's been decades... more than decades. He's spending 16 years for the… he work for the human rights, to protect people's rights.

CO: Ms. Telendibayeva, we'll be watching to see what happens with your husband. And I do appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KT: Yeah, thank you so much for calling. Thank you.

CH: Kamila Telendibayeva’s husband, Husseyin Celil, has been imprisoned in China on terrorism charges since 2006. We reached her in Burlington, Ontario. And we received this statement from Global Affairs Canada after that interview. “While the Chinese government has refused to recognise Mr Celil's Canadian citizenship, Canadian officials continue to raise his case with Chinese officials at senior levels and press for consular access. Mr Celil’s ongoing detention is deeply concerning, and we continue to engage with China to verify his health and wellbeing.”

[music: indie rock]

Highlands Rewilding

Guest: Alan McDonnell

CH: In 30 years, the north of Scotland could look a lot more like the highlands of myth and memory. A vast area is slated for an ambitious "rewilding" project that will include planting trees, restoring peat bogs, and encouraging more land-friendly farming. It's hoped that the project will also encourage more animals to return to the highlands. Alan McDonnell is the conservation manager at the group Trees for Life and is the rewilding project leader. We reached him in Inverness, Scotland.

CO: Alan, for those who haven't visited the Scottish Highlands, what does it look like now? What does it look like in the areas that you hope to change?

ALAN MCDONNELL: Well, much of what we have here, Carol, is some... some beautiful landscapes and some really stark mountain scenery, very steep side of mountains and glens. Kind of rivers flowing through the bottom. But on those mountainsides, there's... there's very little vegetation. They’re quite bare. It's quite bleak. And an ecological terms, there's... there's not much variety in the vegetation here. So we have pretty grassy hills with, you know, occasional trees trying to grow. And even heather... in some parts of the Highlands, even heather is struggling to grow nice. So, we have pretty flat, smooth hillsides.

CO: And if it had been untouched, I guess, by humans, what would it have looked like now?

AM: I think, naturally, this landscape would look much more wooded. So we would see many more trees in the landscape, some... some closed canopy woodland, but also lots of scattered trees around. And that creates great, great diversity for nature. It would also have more peatlands or more of our bogs -- these kinds of really rich, wet, wet habitats would be more intact than they are now. So, that kind of... that impact of people over time, particularly the animals they've brought onto the hills for grazing and trampling, sheep and that, deer that have grown in big numbers. They've had a real impact on the ecology here.

CO: It really is quite surprising when you walk in those regions if you've had the privilege to do so, that how few trees there are. And then you come to a place where there might be some location where sheep or deer couldn't get to, [chuckling] and you suddenly see trees. So you realize that there should be a lot of vegetation there, right?

AM: Yeah. We had an amazing day yesterday, actually. We were out walking on the West Coast and walked in... so there's an area where the landowner had protected the hillside with... with fencing that kept deer. And they... you know, the just the variety in the trees that are growing there and the length of time they'd be in and the age difference in the trees, it was just a really… it was just all the more striking because it's so rare to see... to see all these tree species and the plants underneath and... and then the birdlife and the insect life that comes with that. That's the real kind of, I guess, the foundation of nature recovery here.

CO: So this initiative would take a half a million acres of land area in the Highlands and rewild them. What are you proposing?

AM: One of the key things to do is to say is to... to re-establish tree cover. And you can do that through fencing to keep deer out. But I think also it's... it's important that we see... we've had such a long period of growth in this unchecked deer population to see that reduce where that's possible, just to ease the pressure on the land and to rebalance that dynamic between animals eating vegetation and the ability of vegetation to develop so that habitats could be there to support more wildlife. And also to restore peatland. When they... the actual... the trampling effect of animals on the land is exposure, and we’re leaking carbon at scale across the landscape. So, want to heal over these... these erosion scars and put that... that wet habitat back in place. And that... that’ll support the return of a whole range of wildlife here.

CO: And will you reintroduce wildlife, or do you feel it will just be drawn to these landscapes where they can actually thrive?

AM: I think we've already seen it in parts of the landscapes and the places where we've worked in the past. In somewhere like Glen Affric, where we replanted trees. And Trees for Life began planting trees about 30 years ago. And we've seen some rare animals already return to that. So to a large extent, well, life can return itself, obviously, there's species now they’re extinct, and there's a case, we think there's a case, to look at reintroducing some of those. And while we believe that's physically possible, actually, the main thing is... is what's socially possible. What will people here accept? Because, you know, if animals have been extinct for a few hundred years, how will they fit into... how might they affect modern land use? People need to understand that and feel comfortable with that before it can go ahead.

CO: OK, that's the important conversation to have, isn't it? Because this... these areas are denuded of this vegetation because of farming, because of grazing, because of other uses. So, what conversations are you having with people in the Highlands about this?

AM: People are still very emotionally invested in some of these land uses. They've been around for a couple of hundred years now. They're part of the tradition, part of the culture here. And so, you know, rewilding can be perceived as a threat to that. And so the... the conversations that we've… you know, we’ve tried to open and have got quite a way with this saying, we actually want to build on those land uses and the livelihoods that they support. We just want to take them forward in a different way, in a way that works with ecological recovery. So, with people using land in a way with nature. And that can mean changes to some practices. But we actually think it can be more profitable and more beneficial to communities here to work in that way. So that's it's just trying to advocate for that change and gently bring people with us on that.

CO: Well, it sounds like it's more than a subtle tweaking of the practices. People will have to change how they farm, how they use the land, right?

AM: Well, we don't think so. I mean, a lot of the land in Affric Highlands is used for... for deer hunting. And we… we still think that's a vital activity for the future. So that will continue. A lot of the... a lot of the debate here, and sometimes it gets controversial, is around how many deer are culled in any given year? And it's true that rewilding and looking to part of what it's doing, or part of what it advocates, is replacing the role of natural predation with increased human predation of deer. So that's a change and that's controversial. But it still doesn't change the land use itself. It’s just taking that in a slightly different direction.

CO: Can you give us a sense, give us a snapshot, of what you think this area might look like 30 years from now?

AM: Well, I think where we have a pretty bare hillsides now. Some of them look quite a lot like that landscape I was telling you about that I visited yesterday. And still open areas across the hillside, but young woodland starting to come through, going higher up the… up the hillsides, you know, towards the top of the mountains, you have a kind of a dwarf stunted shrub. Just with the winds and the temperatures cooler, so you get these kind of dwarf shrubs coming through. And that could be a very rich habitat. Areas of this can restore peatland and bogland there. So a real mosaic of different habitats, a more varied landscape, and... and a richer landscape with wildlife in it.

CO: Well, from the point of view of a potential future visitor to this area, Alan, it sounds lovely. [AM chuckles] And I thank you for speaking with us

AM: Well, you would be very welcome anytime. And no worries.

CH: Alan McDonnell is the conservation manager at the group Trees for Life and is the leader of a rewilding project in the north of Scotland. And you can find more on this story on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[music: banjo]

Cleveland Balloons

SOUNDCLIP

MAN: Five, four, three, two, one. Here they go!

MAN #2: Liftoff!

MAN: Ladies and gentlemen, isn’t it amazing?!

MAN #2: There they go, John!

[clapping and cheering]

MAN: Laddies and gentlemen, there is no mistake on the lake anymore. Cleveland has now broken the Guinness Book of World Records and released over one million, five hundred thousand balloons.

CH: That was the sound at 1:50 p.m., 35 years ago today -- when Cleveland tried to cast off its longtime nickname -- "The Mistake on the Lake" -- by releasing more than 1.5 million helium balloons. Unfortunately, within hours, that grandiose gesture was revealed to be a huge mistake pretty much everywhere. Especially on the lake. The balloon launch on this day in 1986, was meant to raise money for the local United Way, and to raise the profile of a city that had been dismissed and insulted. And there's no question that the sight of a cloud of balloons, flowing around the spire of Terminal Tower and filling the sky, was uplifting. As was the knowledge that the city had broken the Guinness World Record for Biggest Simultaneous Balloon Launch. But almost immediately, rain and plunging temperatures led to plunging balloons. There were car accidents. Balloons carpeted the runway of a local airport, forcing it to shut down. And hundreds of thousands of the balloons ended up in Lake Erie. Which was terrible for marine life -- and became tragic when two men who'd gone out fishing went missing.

SOUNDCLIP

MAN: Ironically, that big balloon launch in Cleveland today is one of the things that's making this search so tough for the Coast Guard. Can you imagine trying to find somebody floating out here or even spotting a lifejacket with all these balloons on the water?

MAN #2: It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack here.

CH: Yes. And the Coast Guard never did find the men -- who later washed up on shore. Guinness subsequently retired the Balloon Launch category. The majority of the balloons themselves subsequently wound up in Canada. So, instead of sending the city's spirits soaring, it left Cleveland feeling disastrously deflated.

[music: hip-hop beat]

Part 2

Dal Homecoming

Guest: Madeleine Stinson

CH: One Halifax city councilor called the scenes on the weekend "near-riot conditions." Thousands of students poured onto the streets to celebrate Homecoming. There were arrests for public drunkenness -- and concerns that the parties were flouting COVID restrictions. But some also say Dalhousie University's zero-tolerance policy for gatherings and drinking this year actually contributed to the mess. Madeleine Stinson is the president of Dalhousie's Student Union. We reached her in Halifax.

CO: Madeleine, what would you like to say to the Halifax residents who had to wade through these rowdy crowds of drunken partying students on the weekend?

MADELEINE STINSON: I think it's very fair for us to be clear that there is no excuse for a lot of the actions that went over the top and put community members are now at risk of harm. And in some cases, did cause harm. So, what we saw this weekend definitely wasn't the best representation of the values of Dalhousie student body.

CO: What did you see or hear? What was the... what was the most concerning to you?

MS: I think among the most concerning, we heard accounts from community members who experienced property damage and destruction. And also very concerning the strain that it placed on Halifax's emergency services.

CO: Can you give us some examples of that?

MS: I believe there was a tweet floating around from azn E.R. doctor who expressed a lot of frustration with how many students were coming into the E.R. dealing with alcohol-related injury.

CO: So, like, alcohol-related injuries as in they had hurt themselves or they were very sick or what? What're you talking about?

MS: Medical records for students and anyone, in general, aren't released. So I don't know the specifics. We just know that students ended up in the hospital.

CO: So, they were... this was disruptive. It was... it was... put a great strain on different... not just the emergency systems, but also police systems. They were also flaunting COVID rules, right? So what did you... there was one, I guess, house that actually put up a sign that said, "Relax, we're double-vaxxed". What do we make of that?

MS: I think there's a bit of a misconception among some youth populations that vaccination status means that you don't still need to act cautiously and with care for the rest of the community. And maybe folks who think that their vaccination means they don't need to get tested regularly, which they very much so do.

CO: Can you just give us a sense of what actually happened? There was actually an afternoon gathering and an evening one. What do you know about the different gatherings of young people and how many were there and where they were?

MS: So, there was a morning to mid-afternoon street party that typically happens in a student-heavy area of the south end. And, by all accounts, I heard from some teams at Dal after that had wrapped up. And, you know, students were actually back out on the street picking up trash. And there had been minimal interaction or need for emergency services for the afternoon partying. The problem really occurred, very similar to what happened at Western this year, is that students came back out in the evenings to a slightly... slightly different area of the south end. And no one was policing it. So the adequate resources weren't there.

CO: It was described as a flash mob party. Is that accurate?

MS: When people use the words a mob or a riot, I think a big distinction that is worth making is that when we're talking about those kinds of events, there's malintent involved. I don't think students set out to cause harm or do bad. I just think they set out to party.

CO: So how different... I mean, given that there were restrictions about moving in Halifax and gathering, how different were these gatherings than they... the similar parties in this time of year at Dalhousie in the past?

MS: I think we've had a few parties of similar size this time of year around Homecoming in the past. I think the... the largest one historically was in 2017. Although, I've… I've heard accounts that this one was larger. And it's been similar. I think the level of destruction might have been a bit higher this year. But this is the kind of party that Western and Laurier and Queen's see every year. It's just only now catching on at Dalhousie.

CO: And... and the ones we've seen elsewhere were unofficial parties. Like, Western has a Homecoming later on, but it has an unofficial one that has been known to get quite out of hand in London, Ontario, in past years. So you're thinking that's happening at Dalhousie now?

MS: I mean, if you look at our student demographics, we're seeing more and more students who are coming from Ontario. So I think it's just a matter of Dalhousie beginning to see, as we call it, a FoCo. And no one else is organizing it, so the students have taken it upon themselves to kind of have this party that is somewhat expected in university life in those other large universities in Ontario.

CO: But I guess, on that subject, I mean, Dalhousie University recently banned the possession and consumption of alcohol and cannabis on campus, even for those who are of the legal age to consume those things. And there have been some saying that if... if they would allow that, they would allow for partying to happen on campus, these... these kinds of... of street gatherings, these huge parties might not have happened if they'd been under the... under the auspices of the university with some control of campus police. What do you say to that?

MS: I think that's very accurate to say. We welcome thousands of students to campus to live directly on our campus and in residence. And we know that young people are going to drink. We know they're going to party. And when you tell them that they can't do it where they live, they're also not allowed to have visitors, so when you tell them their friends can't come over and that they can't drink on campus, they're going to find the second-best place, which is often the second closest place. And that is our immediate surrounding community.

CO: Do you think that Dalhousie should revisit that decision, that policy?

MS: Yeah, I think that we know as... as a harm-reduction-oriented community, largely, that prohibition and abstinence don't work, they're not effective. So we have to find other ways to curb this kind of destructive partying. And that can be done through harm-reduction programming and alternative programming. And I think as Dalhousie moves up in the ranks as one of the lead universities in Canada, it does have to start considering offering a student experience that rivals our other large universities in Canada, who do throw large on-campus events that are aimed at engaging students, keeping their partying local to where they have supports and services, and they're not in the community wreaking havoc.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Madeleine, thank you.

MS: Thank you for talking to me.

CH: Madeleine Stinson is the president of Dalhousie University's Student Union. She's in Halifax.

[music: Latin flare]

Cliff Freeman Obit

CH: Um, I can do this. Let's see. "Our patties are bigger." No, ah… "The meat we have is the best meat to cook for -- " Nope. Oh, wait: "There's more to us than our buns." Hmmm...getting there. There may be no such thing as bad publicity, but there is definitely such a thing as bad advertising. Because writing the right slogan at the right time is hard. Of course, once you catch that lightning in a bottle, it's like it was meant to be. But getting there involves a delicate alchemy of creativity and business sense -- and an ability to read the room, when the room is all the living rooms of an entire nation. Award-winning American ad man Cliff Freeman did all of the above like nobody else -- managing, over his long career, to catch the catchiest possible lightning, over and over. Thanks to a wacky sense of humour and a willingness to trust it.

SOUNDCLIP

[a contemporary rock song]

CHORUS OF MEN: Sometimes you feel like a nut.

CHORUS OF WOMEN: Sometimes you don't.

KID: Almond Joy’s got nuts.

MAN: Mounds don’t

CHORUS: Almond Joy’s got big chew chocolate

CHORUS: Mounds do too! Here we go! Oooo!

MAN: Will I get two pizzas for the price of one.

MAN #2: Don't think of it as one pizza. Think of it as one pizza and one box.

MAN: What am I going to do with a box?

MAN #2: Ever hear of origami?

[a wild clopping sound]

MAN: What’s that?

MAN #2: A pterodactyl!

[I guess this man making noises is like a pterodactyl?]

MAN: What’s that?

[pterodactyl sounds continue… they really shouldn’t]

ANNOUNCER: At Little Caesars, you never get just one pizza, you get --

MAN: Pizza-Pizza.

ANNOUNCER: Hello, we want you to remember our name: Outpost.com. That's why we've decided to fire gerbils out of this cannon through the “o” in Outpost. [ a gerbil cries] Cute little guy. Fire. [a cannon fire] And again, [chirping and cannon fire] So close.

CH: Cliff Freeman's ads for Almond Joy and Mounds, Little Caesar's, and something called Outpost-dot-com -- which I will definitely remember now, even though, of course, no real gerbils were harmed in the making of that ad. But it was this ad from 1984 that really leaped into the public consciousness and has never really left.

SOUNDCLIP

[a tuba… you know the exact sound it’s playing. The one that’s like du, du, du, du]

WOMAN: It’s a big bun!

WOMAN #2: It certainly is a very big bun.

WOMAN: Big, fluffy bun.

WOMAN #2: It's a very big fluffy bun. [a single piano note]

MAN: Where’s the beef

ANNOUNCER: Some hamburger places give you a lot less beef on a lot of bun.

MAN: Where’s the beef

ANNOUNCER: At Wendy’s, we serve a hamburger we modestly call a Single. And Wendy’s still has more beef than the Whopper or Big Mac. At Wendy’s you get more beef with less bun.

MAN: Hey! Where's the beef?

CH: And whether that slogan actually sent you to the Wendy's drive-through or not, people have been asking where the beef was ever since. Cliff Freeman -- who came up with that ad, and many others that still live in our subconscious -- died earlier this month. He was 80 years old.

[music: eerie rock]

CAF Propaganda Report

Guest: David Pugliese

CH: In April of 2020, while Canadians were busy stocking up on toilet paper and flour, the military was cooking up its own plan. It wanted to try out propaganda techniques that were used during the war in Afghanistan... on Canadians. That's according to a report by the Canadian Armed Forces that was just published by the Ottawa Citizen. David Pugliese got the report through an access to information request. He's a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen, and we reached him in Victoria, British Columbia.

CO: David, first of all, can you give us some examples of the propaganda techniques the military was planning to use on Canadians?

DAVID PUGLIESE: Well, one of the things they wanted to do was to set up speaker trucks to, you know, move down the streets and... and broadcast information to people. They're talking about setting up portable radio stations. A lot of these techniques they had taken from what they were doing in Afghanistan, trying to convince, you know, the Afghan people not to support the Taliban. [chuckling] Another one of their techniques that they wanted to do was to meet with village elders. [CO chuckles] I couldn't figure that one out well.

CO: Wow! And so, literally cut and pasted from the Afghanistan playbook if they're talking about talking to village elders, right? I mean, so --

DP: Exactly. Yes.

CO: But to... but to what end? I mean, what was... what was the goal if they had been able to do this? What were they... what were they going to try and do?

DP: Well, they seem to be focussed on civil disobedience, but they also wanted to see if they could not manip... well, I guess some people would say manipulate, get their messages, government messages across, in a positive form. And, at the same time, there are other units, particularly in Toronto, where they were doing social... social media data mining to find out what... what Ontarians were thinking about, you know, the Doug Ford government, for instance. And this was all supposedly in support of the deployment of military personnel to the long-term care homes.

CO: Wow, OK! How did they make that leap in justification?

DP: [laughing] I can never get a straight answer. I mean, so one of the other information they gathered was on the Black Lives Matter movement. And they had details about who the organizers were, where the gatherings had been taking place, that type of thing. And I asked the question, what does this have to do with long-term care homes? And...and the answer I got was, well, you never know. When we're transporting medical supplies, we might run into a Black Lives Matter gathering or demonstration or protest. And we don't want to interfere with that. But it doesn't make sense when you're... when you have details about who the individuals are that are organizing, you know, Black Lives Matter demonstrations and such.

CO: OK, so Canadians could be forgiven if they find all of this very alarming. I mean, given that this is... this was the military. This wasn't even the RCMP, which would be bad enough. But did they have any... any authority from the government? Did the… did anyone in government know this was going on?

DP: No. No one in government knew this was going on. The orders went out April 8th. And it was... it was the initiative of the Canadian Joint Operations Command. And the, you know, the investigation that the military conducted on what happened found that this command didn't believe that it needed authority from anyone higher up. [chuckling] And not even, you know, Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance. Vance was told about what was going on around the 15th of April. And he... he shot it down because these techniques are supposed to be used overseas in a wartime setting. And, you know, or on a domestic setting in a case of war.

CO: And these techniques in a situation... I mean, this is not a benign situation, is it? During COVID, people... there were people who believed, and still believe, in conspiracy theories. They believe they're being lied to. They believe that there are campaigns there to... to tell us things that are not true about this disease. And so, this is a very dangerous territory to be entering, isn't it?

DP: Yeah, it just feeds that conspiracy theory. And... or those conspiracy theories. And there is a real... people were upset inside national defence headquarters. That's why they came to me to tell me about this.

CO: And it's also about the reach and the lack of accountability, lack of oversight of this department, right?

DP: Um-hmm. That is a big issue. There's no one who has been disciplined in any way. I mean, the... only one person was disciplined. And that was with the infamous wolf issue in Nova Scotia. That was last year.

CO: Do you want to remind people about that one? That was quite extraordinary.

DP: Yeah. So, what happened is... and this is all called information operations, i.e. propaganda. And so, an information operations team was exercising its capabilities in Nova Scotia. So they decided to forge a letter on the province of Nova Scotia’s letterhead claiming that, well, wolves were in the area and the public should be aware of this. Then they had one of their sound trucks putting out wolf sounds at night. And this is all part of their exercise. But what happened was this information got out into the public domain. It was distributed to local residents who started freaking out and calling the province of Nova Scotia who didn't know what was going on. So it was a real debacle of information warfare, you know, [chuckling] gone... gone awry. And so one officer received some disciplinary... disciplinary measures, but that was it.

CO: And so... But the... obviously, enough people were alarmed by this to keep [chuckling] leaking stuff to you and telling you stuff and where to go look for it in access to information. So... but at the same time, is there an understanding of the implications of what they almost did?

DP: I don't think there is. There are some people in the military who don't understand what they did. They don't see it as wrong. They want to develop this capability further. There's a review going on right now on information operations capabilities within the Canadian forces. But there's... you know, there's a real grey area on... on the rules. And as you can see, you know, Joint Operations Command was able to... to proceed with their own... with their own information propaganda campaign in the middle of a pandemic without even the chief of defence staff being aware.

CO: all of this is very alarming. And I'm glad that you are on top of it, David. We look forward to other reports about all of this. And thank you for speaking with us.

DP: Great. Thank you.

CH: David Pugliese is an Ottawa Citizen reporter. He was in Victoria, B.C.

[music: ambient]

Winnipeg Lennon Interview Tapes

CH: Leo Zeilig grew up knowing that his father, Ken Zeilig, had once interviewed John Lennon and Yoko Ono. What he wasn't quite sure about was how the Winnipeg-born freelancer journalist managed to snag an interview with the iconic duo? But last year, he finally made some progress on solving that mystery -- with the chance discovery of tapes of those interviews. And it turns out it may have been a Canadian connection that did the trick. Leo Zeilig told the CBC about finding his father's rare recordings.

SOUNDCLIP

LEO ZILIG: Well, I mean, these are the... my earliest childhood memories. I mean, I knew that my dad interviewed John Lennon and Yoko Ono. I mean, it was what we grew up with. They were the tapes of the interview of legend. And we knew they were somewhere, but we had no idea. And there was a box of tapes in the basement of my sister's in L.A. And during the lockdown last year, she went to them, and she says, I can't believe what I found. You remember telling me about that legendary interview that Dad did with... with John Lennon and Yoko Ono? Well, I think I found it. So here we are. It's... it's on all sorts of levels. It's extraordinary. Partly because he's talking to a legend, who is fantastically articulate about what's happening in the world, and it was during a really interesting time in John Lennon and Yoko Ono's lives. Partly because they just met. And also because John's becoming more political. And that was kind of how my father connected to it. So, you know, there was a lot of talk in the interview about the protests and the anti-Vietnam War and then also just questions about the Beatles and music. And... and then lots of really sweet connections that were being made between my father and John Lennon. I can only say two things about how it happened for sure. One is that my father was exceptionally tenacious, so if he wanted an interview, he'll get it. The second thing is he was Canadian, and this counts because John and Yoko did... did their "Bed In For Peace when they kind of lay in a hotel bed and called the press in and said, we're not moving, we're not getting out of bed until there's peace in Vietnam. And they did it in Canada. And the choice of Canada was very important. And... and John and Yoko speak about it specifically how... how excited they are to be connected to Canada, how progressive the people are, how it feels like a base for their politics and their music. So there was a real Canada connection as well, which comes out in the interviews, which is very special.

CH: That was Leo Zeilig, telling CBC Manitoba's Karen Pauls about discovering tapes of his father's interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. The 12 reel-to-reel tapes of those interviews go up for auction tomorrow.

[music: folk]

Part 3

Annamie Paul Steps Down

CH: Annamie Paul has a message for the Greens: the soul of their party is in serious trouble. Today, Ms. Paul announced she is stepping down as the leader of the Green Party after less than a year in the position. During that time, infighting and a dispute over Israeli and Palestinian issues took up much of the conversation. One member crossed the floor to become a Liberal, and party executives tried to rescind Ms. Paul's membership just weeks before the election call. The end result was a disastrous showing in the election -- in which the Green leader herself did not win her seat. Today, Annamie Paul spoke about why she chose to step down -- and how she learned there would be a leadership review.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNAMIE PAUL: On the day of the election itself in the morning, the only email that I received from our council, from the president of our council, was an email calling for an emergency meeting to launch a leadership review. And then, on Saturday night, only a few days after the election, there was an announcement sent to all of the members, including myself, that a leadership review had been launched. And when I received those two things, at the time that I received them, I just asked myself whether this is something that I wanted to continue? And I just... I just don't have the heart for it. The election was very difficult for those who have been following. They will know that, you know, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when you head into an election without funding for your campaign, when you head into an election, without the staff to staff your campaign, when you head into an election, without a national campaign manager, when you head into an election, being again under the threat of a court process from your party, it's going to be very hard to convince people to... to vote for your party. And so there are those who will ask, why did I choose to go ahead in any case? And I can tell you that it was a tremendous struggle to decide to continue. I knew that we were likely not going to do well, and I knew that as the leader, even without those tools that I needed, the first person that the public would look at would be me. But I chose to continue because of some of the people that are standing here today. I also felt a responsibility, you know, to show that someone like me could get as far as... as... as I could. Because when I talked in the debate about that... crawling over that glass, what people need to... to realize is that when I was elected and put in this role, I was breaking a glass ceiling. What I didn't realize at the time is that... I was breaking a glass ceiling that was going to fall on my head and leave a lot of shards of glass that I was going to have to crawl over, you know, throughout my time as a leader. And when I arrived at that debate stage, I had crawled over that glass. I was spitting up blood, but I was determined to be there. I was determined to be there so that the next time someone like me thinks of running and wonders whether it's possible to be on that stage, they will know that it is possible to do that for those Green Party members, and there are many because I have met some of the very best people in my life through the Green Party. I want to say that there is a struggle that is going on for the soul of the party. For those of you that want to see the Green Party fulfil its promise and its values, then there is work to do. And for those Green Party members who have taken great pleasure in attacking me and calling for assaults against me and suggesting that I'm part of a conspiracy against the party, you may take small comfort in this for a moment. But please know that there are many more people like me than there are you, and you will not succeed in the end.

CH: That was Annamie Paul announcing that she is stepping down as the leader of the Green Party.

[music: ambient]

New German Chancellor

Guest: Marion Van Renterghem

CH: Angela Merkel is on her way out. But who will replace her as Germany's chancellor is still not clear. Neither of the two main parties won enough seats in yesterday's election to form a majority, so coalition talks will now begin. But the leaders of both the centre-left Social Democrats -- Olaf Scholz -- and of Ms. Merkel's centre-right bloc -- Armin Laschet -- both say they have a mandate to lead. Marion Van Renterghem has been watching the results closely. She's the author of a book and the director of a documentary about Angela Merkel. We reached her in Paris.

CO: Marion, what does the near deadlock in this election say to you about the state of German politics?

MARION VAN RENTERGHEM: Well, I think it can be read in two different ways. I mean, in one way, I think it shows the stability, extraordinary stability, of democracy in Germany. Because you have the four main parties are four very democratic ones, very pro-European parties. And on populists, the extremes and populist parties have been dismissed. It means the far-right and the far-left. So it's very different to what we are used to in France. But in another way, you can think that there is... like in many other countries in Europe, you have a sort of a... sort of an erosion of the main political parties. They call it volkspartei in German. It means these big popular parties which were used to lead the political life. And these parties tend to disappear or to... to be less and less important in favour of other ones, like ecologist Green Party, the Liberal Party and the other ones.

CO: You have written about Angela Merkel, and... and you've just studied her for so long. This is not a woman of great charisma and personality. This is not somebody who dominated the stage with her... with her presence. [both chuckle] But she captured the imagination of Germans for these past 16 years. And so what was that about?

MVR: Yeah, I think that she... she is not a reformer. She's not very audacious. She's not very brave in politics. She's extremely strong and stable. And I think that stability, she brought to Germany what they like most, it's stability. And she took Germany from a very poor state... that Germany was called the illman of Europe in the early 2000s because it just came out of the reunification and it has a high rate of unemployment. The growth was not good. And during the Merkel years, you've seen Germany come from this illman of Europe to the first economic power in Europe and one of the most powerful world powers. So a majority of the population are very grateful that she took German to... to prosperity, into happiness.

CO: One thing that people around the world, among many things watching Angela Merkel, that, yes, she's strong and stable, solid, predictable. And yet, and yet, a million refugees walked into your country, arrived at the borders of Germany, and she let them in. She found a place for them. She says we… we can make this work. And people were amazed. They thought this would topple the country, shift it to the right. What is it about her that made that decision possible?

MVR: Yeah, it's very... it's absolutely amazing. And what is amazing, too, is that, you know, immigration and Islam, et cetera, which are the main debates in many countries, are absolutely non-existent in this election. People were not concerned any more by the issue of immigration because the welcome of more than one million of migrants... migrants in 2015 have been extremely well-done and well-integrated after. So it's not an issue anymore. And I think that this act from Angela Merkel, when she said these three iconic words, [speaking german] We are going to make it, we can make it. I think this was absolutely extraordinary. And she saved the honour of all Europe because many countries, including France, were shameful by trying not to see the reality that these hundreds of thousands of people were in the situation of humanitarian urgency. And she did this. She... she said as a daughter of a pastor, as a girl who was brought up in Eastern Germany, that means under a dictatorship, she knows in her heart, deeply in a blood that you can't refuse freedom to people who ask it. And you can't take advantage of your situation being born on the right side of a wall or right side of a country. So, she has the immediate and spontaneous gesture to welcome these refugees. And I think she saved our honour.

CO: So, for 16 years, she was the right person in the right place, what Germans needed to be happy. What do Germans need now? What... where does Germany need to go?

MVR: Well, they need change because 16 years is a lot. And even if Merkel is very popular, it's time for her to go. And she… [chuckle] she didn't want to... to stay anymore. And I think there is a new generation now coming on. Even if Germany is a very old country, it's one of the problems in Germany that the majority of the population is now more than 50 years old. But you have all these young who are fed up with Merkel, and they want something new. The Liberal Party and the Green Party, which are going to be essential in the future coalition, are very much concerned about climate change and how to... to deal with these new challenges that Merkel didn't take on quite seriously. Because in this globally positive record that that Merkel has, there are many things that she didn't deal with very properly, like, for example, the infrastructures are deficient. And the climate change, you know, she took this decision to stop the nuclear plants quite suddenly, but then, in the same time, she led to a bigger use of gas, a bigger use of coal. And so Germany is not very good students for the environment results.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. I know there's still a lot more to go on politically before we know who chancellor is, for sure.

MVR: [chuckle] Yeah.

CO: But, Marion, it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

MVR: Thank you. Bye-bye.

CH: Marion Van Renterghem is a journalist who wrote a book about Angela Merkel. She was in Paris.

[music: ambient]

Liver Donation Suspended

CH: Krystal Graham says last Thursday was a "really hard" day for her and her family. That's when the Regina nurse learned that Saskatchewan would be suspending its organ donation program, in the midst of a COVID-19 surge in the province. Ms. Graham needs a liver transplant. And this morning, she talked to the CBC about how she and her family were feeling.

SOUNDCLIP

KRYSTAL GRAHAM: It's a whole bunch of different emotions. Like, we’re frustrated. It’s sad. It's stressful. Because, you know, they give you a timeline to where they think that you need a... I need a transplant in the next three months. Well, there's a very big possibility that that won't happen now.

STEFANI LANGNEGGER: And what would that mean?

KG: Um, just anything after three months, unfortunately, my mortality rate starts to rise up to about 50 per cent. Very... it's very, very stressful. [deep sigh] I just really hope people get vaccinated because I am a nurse, I talk with all my friends at the hospitals, and... and it's, unfortunately, most of the beds are being taken up by unvaccinated people. And it's not... it doesn't just affect, you know, people waiting for transplants. It affects cancer patients, heart patients, patients waiting for brain surgery. Like, it just... it affects so many people's lives. And we need these surgeries to live our life. And so I just really encourage everyone to get vaccinated so that things can get going again. And... and just to... so we can have our lives back.

SOUNDCLIP

CH: That was Krystal Graham speaking with the CBC's Stefani Langenegger on The Morning Edition. Saskatchewan has suspended its organ donation program, although some tissue donations will continue.

[music: industrial]

Tunisian Protests

Guest: Ahmed Gaaloul

CH: Thousands of people in Tunisia took to the street yesterday, calling on their president to resign. The protesters say President Kais Saide has been acting like a dictator. Last Wednesday, he announced that he would govern by presidential decree and ignore parts of the constitution. That announcement move follows his decision in July to dissolve what he described as a corrupt parliament. Ahmed Gaaloul is a former MP, and the advisor to the leader of the Ennahdha Party. We reached him in Hammamet, Tunisia.

CO: Mr. Gaaloul, you were at the protests in Tunis yesterday. Can you describe the scenes? What was it like and what did you hear from the people on the streets?

AHMED GAALOUL: People were basically calling against Mr. Kais Saide, especially against the decrees which he's declared himself, according to which he is the sole executive, legislative and judiciary power in the country.

CO: And President Siade isn't... isn't denying any of this. He says he has given himself the power to rule by decree. He has sacked your prime minister, suspended parliament. He assumed executive authority. He is not hiding any of this. He says, is necessary in order to get... to get a grip on your country on... on the corruption and on the economy. So what are... what are... what are people saying about that?

AG Well, I mean, if there are reasons for being a dictator, then we should basically have 90 per cent of the countries around the world as dictatorships. We cannot accept what Mr. Kais Saide is saying or basing his legitimacy on a crisis or a so-called crisis to put a firm grip on power.

CO: And that seems to be what he's doing, right? That he... because people are really fed up with the corruption and the... the unemployment, the economic problems, right? So... so... and there were counterprotests in Tunis, were there not, who were supporting president Saide?

AG: Yes, there was one the day before. And if you could count, if you have the picture of those ones, I mean, we can say that there was around 100, maximum 200 persons, supporting Mr. saide. But let's... let's... let's... let's suppose that there were thousands supporting him. How are we going to... to... to decide who has legitimacy? There is no other way of deciding but going to the ballot box, but through democratic means. Should we let the street, I mean, sort out our differences or should we use democratic means in order to sort out our differences?

CO: And we talk about the street. It's interesting that people outside of Tunisia might remember back to 2011 when... when there was a revolution spread throughout the Middle East, Arab Spring. And that the spark of that revolution started in your country, didn't it? And people looked to Tunisia as a place that was perhaps one of the few places where that democracy seemed to be taking root. But how difficult has it been to build that openness, to build a transparent democracy in your country?

AG: It is quite difficult. I mean, if we... if we look to other examples, not only Tunisia, everybody knows that, for example, in Eastern Europe there were regime change. And they have all gone through such difficulties. I mean, no... no regime change has succeeded without the support of the regional powers of the international community. So we have been successful up to now. And I hope and I am more than confident that they will... we will be successful in preserving our democracy and our freedom and our openness. And that we will go through this difficulty, this trouble. But this could not happen unless we are... we keep a tolerant approach to the public sphere because radicalism and populism cannot sort out the problems of the country.

CO: You mentioned that it's not possible to have... to have this size of a change without support from outside. And I wonder what role you think the international community, countries like Canada, should be playing in... in recognition of support for Tunisia. What do you want from us?

AG: I mean, Canada is one of the main members in the democratic countries. We are a democratic country. We are part of what you... what one could call the democratic club. We need a country like Canada to voice out and to voice up its view regarding a return to dictatorship. Because a return to dictatorship will bring... will bring frustration to our young ones. And then, it tells them that democratic... democracy is not good for them. They need to be radicals so that they can sort out their problems. So Western countries, Canada, the U.S., the NATO, the European Union, they need to raise their voices. They need to tell those who are against democracy in our country or those who are supporting this potential that Canada is not standing by them. And that this country, like any other democratic country, should stick to democracy, should stick to… to… to constitution. Should stick to... to peaceful means of reforms. That is the only way. Because we know that there was a lot of investments in Tunisia during the 90s through dictatorship. This has only brought failure. So investing again in another dictatorship will bring only more problems and will tell the youth that you cannot trust democratic countries. It will give legitimacy to the image of the American plane leaving Afghanistan while letting local people fall down from that plane. We do not want the plane of democracy to leave from our country and let the people behind. So the democratic world should stand up by the Tunisian people, by the Tunisian democracy. This is what we need this year.

CO: Mr. Gaaloul, we will leave it there. And we will be watching things in Tunisia. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

AG: Thank you very much. Thank you.

CH: Ahmed Gaaloul is a former MP and the advisor to the leader of the Ennahdha Party. We reached him in Hammamet, Tunisia

[music: indie rock]

FOA: Colonel Bagosora Obit

CH: The main architect of the Rwandan genocide is dead. Theoneste Bagosora is the former colonel who led the 1994 massacre of 800,000 people. He died in prison in Mali, where he was serving a 35-year sentence. Colonel Bagosora was put behind bars by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which found him guilty of crimes against humanity. At the time of the genocide, General Romeo Dallaire was the head of the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Rwanda. Major Brent Beardsley worked alongside him. And, when Colonel Bagosora was convicted in 2008, Major Beardsley spoke with Carol.

SOUNDCLIP

BRENT BEARDSLEY: In January of 2004, I had been subpoenaed to testify at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. First day in the courtroom, the first thing I was asked was to identify any of the defendants that I could. And I said there was only one I could identify, and that was Theoneste Bagosora. And I stood up and I walked across the room in the courtroom and I pointed directly at him. And I wanted to... had his attention so that he knew who I was. And it's something definitely that I had wanted to do to point the finger at this architect of the Rwandan disaster.

CO: Had you ever thought when you saw him in the field and what you were facing there that you would one day be able to testify against him in a court of law?

BB: No, I really never thought that that day would ever come. He was a cocky, arrogant, very much an in charge guy. And once the killing had started, he was just... it was just a plan unfolding. And he became more and more difficult for General Dallaire to deal with. He knew the international community was going to do nothing to stop him. And I don't believe that he ever thought he would be held accountable for what he was doing. So we went ahead and he did it. And then in that day in 94 here, when they brought him into the courtroom that morning, they brought him in shackled. He had handcuffs and leg shackles on. They took the shackles off. He looked like a scared, cowardly little, little man sitting in the corner of the room. So, for me, it was certainly a great sense of satisfaction to see him reduced to that level. The system has worked. International justice has... has triumphed. We have got the guy here who planned it, who organized it, who executed it, that murdered 800,000 innocent men, women and children. The victims, I think, they have received justice today. And for the survivors, those hundreds of thousands of survivors who have to live with the memories and the results of the Rwandan genocide, the deaths of their families, this is now a historical truth. It has set the standard for the reality of what happened in Rwanda in 1994. And Rwandans will be able to use this as a benchmark in their history in the future. So for the victims and the survivors and for the people of Rwanda, I think it's a great day of justice.

CH: That was Major Brent Beardsley speaking with Carol in 2008, after the conviction of Theoneste Bagosora for his role in the Rwandan genocide. The former colonel has died at the age of eighty. Listen tomorrow, when we'll hear more on this story from General Romeo Dallaire.

[music: uke!!!]

SOD: Charlie Watts Tribute

CH: The Rolling Stones are back on the road. And for the first time ever, it's without their drummer Charlie Watts -- who died last month, at the age of 80. Last night the Stones kicked off the latest leg of their "No Filter' tour in St. Louis. The show opened with a video tribute to the late drummer before the band launched into their 1968 hit "Street Fighting Man".

SOUNDCLIP

[music: “Street Fighting Man” by The Rolling Stones]

ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen! The Rolling Stones.

[cheering]

CH: And after the song, the remaining members took a moment onstage to remember their friend.

SOUNDCLIP

MICK JAGGER: I just want to say to you lot it’s been quite emotional seeing those... seeing those pictures of Charlie.

[cheering]

MJ: This is our… this is our first tour without Charlie there. So I think all the stuff in reaction and the reaction from you guys, all the things you said, has been really touching. And I want to thank you very much for all your messages. We all miss Charlie on the stage and off the stage. And we’d love to dedicate this to him. Here’s to you, Charlie.

CH: That was Mick Jagger paying tribute to his late friend and bandmate of 58 years, Charlie Watts -- who died last month at the age of 80. That's our sound of the day.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 27, 2021 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This