Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for August 06, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

MATT GALLOWAY: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

MG: Case sensitive. Canadian officials speak out after a woman's rights activist is arrested in Saudi Arabia. And that handful of critical tweets is met with a powerful slap by Saudi authorities.

JD: An arresting development. Why the case of Samar Badawi prompted public criticism from Canada’s foreign affairs minister, which in turn prompted the expulsion of Canada's ambassador from Riyadh.

MG: Tension in the air. Two drones filled with explosives were the weapons in an alleged assassination attempt on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. And our guest says she saw this kind of stealth airborne attack coming.

JD: Ark of Jones. He rose to prominence spreading lies and conspiracy theories. But now, things are looking down for Alex Jones, after his programs are dropped by Apple, YouTube, Spotify, and Facebook.

MG: He set his phasers on stunning. And that was just one of the many amazing sounds created by the final frontiersman who constructed the sonic environment of Star Trek, the late Douglas Grindstaff.

JD: And… maybe it was being told You can't touch this. In 1991, a riot after an M.C. Hammer concert in Penticton, British Columbia ended with a giant-peach shaped concession stand in the lake. Now, its new owners hope their friendly call for reconciliation bears fruit.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Monday edition. Radio that guesses it is once more on the peach, dear friends.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Saudi Arabia: Amnesty, Saudi Arabia: expert, Penticton peach

Saudi Arabia: Amnesty

Guest: Alex Neve

JD: Saudi Arabia hasn't just told Canada to mind its own business. It's also forced our ambassador in Riyadh to pack his bags — a diplomatic skirmish all because of a tweet. On Twitter, Canada's foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland, called for the immediate release of a prominent women's rights activist, Samar Badawi — sister of jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi — after which the Kingdom to froze any new trade with Canada. In a moment, we'll hear why Canada is being scolded now — and what effect it's bound to have. First, however, we've reached Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada. He was among the first to report Ms. Badawi's arrest last week. We reached Mr. Neve in Ottawa.

MG: Mr. Neve, the headlines as you know today are all about this emerging spat between Canada and Saudi Arabia. But this all started with Samar Badawi. Who is she?

ALEX NEVE: Samar Badawi has been a prominent human rights defender in Saudi Arabia going back close to a decade now. She has been courageous in tackling some of the most crucial issues around women's equality and human rights in the country — the ban on women voting, the ban on women driving, and she's experienced imprisonment and harassment over that time. She's also, very significantly, the sister of a prisoner of conscience in Saudi Arabia — Raif Badawi. His wife and three children live here in Canada. He's been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia since 2012; simply because through his blogging, he has spoken out about human rights and social issues.

MG: Why was she arrested last week?

AN: Well, we don't know specifically. Of course, there's never much clarity and transparency around such things in Saudi Arabia. But what we do know is that it comes at a time when even though on one hand, the Saudi government — Crown Prince Mohammed — has been talking a great talk internationally around this being a time of reform. On the ground, we've been seeing quite the opposite over the last few months. There's been a real crackdown against human rights defenders, and in particular women's rights activists. This really began to take place in the middle of May. And it's notable that last week when she was arrested, she was arrested alongside another very highly-respected women's human rights activist — Nassima al-Sada. So there certainly seems to be a pattern of the two who were targeted at the same time.

MG: Do we know whether she has been charged with anything?

AN: As far as we know, she hasn't been. And we'll be watching that very closely, and with considerable concern. With the other women's rights activists, there is very serious concern that they could even face — and this may seem absurd — charges under Saudi Arabia's very restrictive antiterrorism laws. And if that's the case for any of them, including for Samar, that gives rise to the prospect of the possibility of as much as 20 years in prison. So the stakes could be very high here.

MG: As you mentioned, Samar is the sister of Raif Badawi, Saudi blogger. He's been in prison for more than five years now, was sentenced to 1000 lashes, received 50 of them, and then public outcry stopped that process. But he still remains in prison. What is it about this family — the Badawi’s — that Saudi Arabia sees as such a threat?

AN: Well clearly, both Raif and Samar are outspoken and passionate human rights defenders and fearless in many respects. They both know the considerable price to pay in Saudi Arabia where repression is relentless. But nonetheless, going back a number of years now, have been willing to speak out. And not only about their own situations, but to speak out for change, to speak out for rights and justice for others in the country, and Saudi Arabia is a country that does not broach that kind of challenge to power and control.

MG: But it is also a country that's in the midst of what seems to be — or at least what they're projecting to be — transformation in which women are allowed to drive. There was this goodwill publicity tour by the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Solman, clearly trying to project some sort of image of change and transformation. How do you square that with the arrest of a prominent women's rights activist?

AN: I don't think you do square it. Especially when you broaden it out beyond Samar’s case and consider all of the women's rights activists and other human rights defenders who have been imprisoned, especially in the last few months. But it's completely inconsistent and incongruent. And the international community needs to call Saudi Arabia out on that front. And that’s where not only are we not seeing improvement and reform, I think in the last few months what we're seeing is that we're losing ground there. Other governments need to join Canada in pressing Saudi Arabia to end crackdown.

MG: I was going to say what do you make of what Canada has done? She's not a Canadian citizen. Raif Badawi’s wife and children are now Canadian citizens. Beyond that tweet — and subsequent comments — is there anything though that Canada can really do?

AN: I think this is the time now for diplomacy to bring other governments onboard. Clearly, there will be some governments that aren't interested. I don't imagine the United States is likely to join us in any very public at least diplomacy with respect to Saudi Arabia's human rights record. But there is a whole host of other countries, and not just within Europe, right around the world. So I think this is a time for Canadian ambassadors to be fanning out in capitals around the world to see who can be encouraged to join Canada at this time. I think the Saudi government has made it very clear that they are sensitive and they are very vulnerable on this front, and that's why we've seen such an aggressive response. So this absolutely has to be a time when we take advantage of that.

MG: Alex Neve, good to speak with you. Thank you.

AN: Thanks for your interest.

MG: Bye bye.

AN: Bye bye.

JD: Alex Neve is the Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada. We reached him in Ottawa.

Saudi Arabia: expert

Guest: Thomas Juneau

JD: After a conference today in Vancouver, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland addressed the issue, and mentioned Raif Badawi’s wife, Ensaf Haidar, who is a Canadian citizen.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: We stand absolutely by what we have said. We will always speak up for human rights. We will always speak up for women's rights around the world. And I do also want to say when it comes to the Badawi family, Ensaf Haidar is a Canadian citizen, and she and her family therefore merit special attention from the governments of Canada. And a lot of Canadian civil society has been speaking up for her. It's something that we do. We stand up for Canadians and their families around the world.

JD: Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, speaking in Vancouver earlier today. Thomas Juneau has been watching the diplomatic war-of-words unfold. He's an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Ottawa. We reached Mr. Juneau in Gatineau.

MG: Mr. Juneau, as you heard, Chrystia Freeland doesn't seem to be stepping back from her criticism of Saudi Arabia. That sort of criticism generally doesn't generate this sort of response. Why has Saudi Arabia acted the way it has now?

THOMAS JUNEAU: You're absolutely correct that that sort of criticism usually doesn't generate that sort of response because we have to be very clear that what Canada said late last week was perfectly normal. It's the kind of thing that this country — other Western countries — say about Saudi Arabia and other non-democratic countries literally every day. So why now? I would identify two main reasons. One of them is one that is specific to Saudi Arabia, since King Salman came on the throne in 2015 and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, emerged as really the main player in Saudi Arabia. The country's foreign policy has become much more aggressive, much more ambitious, much more assertive. Just look at the war in Yemen, the blockade of Qatar. So these actions against Canada since last night have to be seen as consistent with that trajectory of Saudi foreign policy. The other reason is more specific to Canada-Saudi relations. Canada-Saudi relations have often been portrayed in the media in the last two, three, four years as quite good because of the sale of LAVS — the light armored vehicles — for 15 billion dollars. In practice, in the last two years, relations had grown increasingly tense because Saudi Arabia viewed the LAV deal really as an investment, right? We're going to give you guys 15 billion dollars for these hundreds or maybe thousands of armored vehicles, which we don't really need from a strict military perspective. But it's investment for us to deepen relations with each other. But that didn't happen — mostly because the Liberals really didn't want to be seen as deepening cooperation with such a brutal dictatorship. And that really frustrated the Saudis a lot. And we just saw that boil over over the weekend.

MG: You wrote on Twitter: “No one likes being lectured by Westerners on human rights. But the Saudis are especially resentful.” And that is in part because of what you've just said? That those tensions have been simmering to that boiling point?

TJ: Absolutely. And you know that's a reality. To be blunt, no country in the world likes being lectured by the West on human rights, Right? China hates it, Russia hates it, Middle Eastern countries hate it. But most of these countries will just roll their eyes and accept that it's something they have to go through. And they'll say OK, get on with it, and then we can actually start talking about real things. Saudi Arabia is a bit different in the sense that the reaction when Western officials, Canadian officials — and I've seen it directly — criticize Saudi Arabian officials on human rights. The reaction is very aggressive, much more than with most other countries.

MG: It was referred to in the response from Saudi Arabia as Canada meddling in another nation's internal affairs. What is Saudi Arabia's ground for making a comment like that?

TJ: When a tweet criticizes, very mildly, the domestic situation in another country is that meddling? I mean yes, it is because you are saying something about the internal politics of another country. But, first of all, that is not illegal. That is not against any kind of normal convention. And in any case, Saudi Arabia is leading an extremely brutal war in its neighbor in Yemen, killing tens of thousands of people and completely ravaging the country. It literally kidnapped and took as a hostage the Lebanese prime minister late last year. If you want to talk about medaling, right? Saudi Arabia meddles far, far more than Canada ever has.

MG: If you take a look broadly, what do you think the effect of the actions of Saudi Arabia is going to have? I mean one is obviously telling the ambassador. But beyond that, what will this do?

TJ: One thing that is now pretty clear is that about 15,000 Saudi students who were studying in Canada in universities and colleges will have to go study elsewhere. So that is obviously costly for these students.

MG: What is that going to mean for their own lives?

TJ: For their own lives, this is going to be costly. Some of them may miss their fall semester; credits may not be recognized. This is also going to be costly for Canadian universities. We do rely on the tuition of these students. I mean we have to remember that Saudi Arabian students are the fourth largest contingent of foreign students in Canadian universities. Beyond that, you know economically, you know I still have to be convinced that the cost to Canada will have will be large. You know two-way trade between Canada and Saudi Arabia fluctuates between three and four billion Canadian dollars per year. That's not a lot. That's two days of Canada-U.S. trade. The one big question on the economic front is what is going to happen to the light armored vehicles? If you remember Canada and Saudi Arabia agreed to 15 billion dollars’ worth of light armored vehicles in 2014. As of right now, we don't know what the status of that deal is. It's not clear. If that is canceled, that is on the one side from a moral perspective good for Canada because we're not selling weapons to a very brutal dictatorship. Well, economically that's a cost because that's 15 billion dollars that will not go into the Canadian economy.

MG: Can you do both? Can you have a trade deal with a country that's worth 15 billion dollars, is going to create jobs here in Canada, but also criticize them on the human rights record?

TJ: Well, can you do both? So far you could, and Canada does it with other countries. It's morally it's a bit repugnant. And there are very good arguments not to do that. But in practice, Canada, European countries, the U.S. have been selling weapons to non-democracies for decades. So until now it was doable. There was a certain moral compromise to it, absolutely, but it was doable.

MG: As we just heard from a previous guest, it's unlikely — or it seems unlikely — at this point that the United States is going to follow Canada's lead, and call Saudi Arabia out for its human rights abuses. Does that give Saudi Arabia a bit more leeway here?

TJ: That's very hard to answer. And there's been a lot of debate on social media today to try to understand what role really has you know the nature of the relationship between Trump and Saudi Arabia. What role did that have in encouraging maybe the Saudi actions since yesterday? And to be honest, I don't know what the answer to that is. What it is revealing, and what is I think a good reason to be a bit anxious about this is next time that Canada has a dispute with another country — and one that matters more than Saudi Arabia — will the U.S. have our back? Will the U.S. be there to support us, as it would've been until 2016? When it matters more, that's where it could be more problematic.

MG: Thomas Juneau, We’ll leave it there. Thank you.

TJ: Thank you.

JD: Thomas Juneau is an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Ottawa. We reached him in Gatineau, Quebec. And for more on how a tweet sparked a Canada-Saudi crisis, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Jazz]

Lombok earthquake

JG: Just over a week ago, the first earthquake hit, and it was bad. But the one that struck Lombok, Indonesia last night was much, much worse. At least 98 people are dead after a 6.9 magnitude earthquake struck the island on Sunday evening. It destroyed buildings, and sent thousands of panicked people toward higher ground on the main island, and the nearby Gili Islands. Australian volunteer Jodie Epper is on Lombok with her husband and her young son. She spoke with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about the mayhem following the post-earthquake tsunami alert.

SOUNDCLIP

JODIE EPPER: The tsunami alert came through our phones. And there were warning systems in the village. People were riding around on motorbikes calling out, “tsunami, tsunami”. So lots of people tried to get on their motorbikes and right up the hill. But, of course, with all the walls falling down in the small alleyways, couldn't get out on the motorbike. You had to go by foot, so lots of scrambling over debris to run up to the top of the hill in the pitch dark. So there was lots of screaming, lots of confusion, and lots of chaos.

LEIGH SALES: And then in the light of day, what is the extent of the damage?

JE: We stayed in my son's school overnight, because it was a clear, flat ground. There's probably about 100 people sleeping there. And at about 4:30, when the call to prayer started, everyone started walking to the village, and there was a bit of dawn light. Many houses have walls fallen down. Many walls around the houses have fallen down. This is a small Hindu village in the middle of Lombok, which is a minority group. But all the temples have been crushed and fallen across the road, so lots of devastation. no one's been injured in our village, but lots of lots of devastation, and lots of very traumatised people.

JD: Jodie Epper is an Australian volunteer staying on Lombok, Indonesia talking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Leigh Sales.

[Music: Electronic]

Penticton peach

Guest: Diana Stirling

JD: His, his, his, his music hit them, so hard, made them say "oh my Lord". And then it made them push a giant concession stand shaped like an enormous fruit into a lake. In the summer of 1991, MC Hammer played in Penticton, BC. After which a riot erupted. There was looting, and smashing, and tear gas. And when it was over, "the Peach" — a local landmark — was in the lake. It was rebuilt. And last week, its new owners shared a picture of the original 1991 peach, on the night of its demise. With a caption asking, "Are you in this photo?" Diana Stirling is the owner of the Peach Ice Cream Shop. We reached her in Penticton.

MG: Ms. Sterling, for people who have not seen this image, describe it for us? What's going on when it comes to the giant peach?

DIANA STIRLING: So the photo that we found from the night of 1991 is our giant peach — our iconic peach — in Penticton being rolled during the riot. So what you see is three guys, one in the middle with an amazing six pack, as the peach is being rolled from its location right into Okanagan Lake.

MG: What do we know about what was going on there? If you read the news reports at the time, they're describing you know people out on the streets, and police with tear gas, cars being overturned, shops being looted. What was going on?

DS: Right, absolutely the darkest day in Penticton’s history sure. It was 1991, a warm summer night during our annual festival called Peach Fest. That year the anchor concert was MC Hammer, and he drew thousands of young people — amazing concert. But after it ended, something happened. I mean I don't know what caused the chain of events post-concert? But, unfortunately, a riot broke out, and our beloved, iconic peach was a follow up from that. And got pushed and pushed, and then rolled into the lake.

MG: Well, I'm looking at the photo. The peach doesn't look small. I mean it's big enough that these shirtless dudes can be standing on top of it. How big is the peach?

DS: So I'm not sure what the size was at the time. In 1992, we rebuilt the peach much larger. We think it's about 100 feet in diameter now. And it's definitely anchored down.

MG: You shared this online and on your Facebook page, and you wrote in the caption, in the voice of the peach, saying, “I've been seeing a therapist, Dr. P. Chandpit, and he and I both agree it's time. I need closure. I need to find the peach rollers. We need to talk.” Why do you want to track down the people who were in this photo?

DS: Well, you know the peach is an icon in Penticton — has been for over 60 years. We've turned it into an ice cream lover's destination. But when we came across this photo, we simply wanted to have fun with something that happened 27 years ago. And we're all about fun in Penticton. We’re all about creating memories. Sure, that was a dark day in Penticton’s history. But that also was a huge turning point for us. We as a community wanted to become the ultimate family fun destination for tourism. We've really worked hard at that over these years. And we are that now.

MG: Rob Gammel on Facebook followed up your post by saying, “It seems like you're asking people to impeach themselves here.” What happens if somebody comes forward? They’re not going to be prosecuted for rolling the peach down the road?

DS: No, I mean there's no trap here. There's absolutely no trap here. Honestly, we just wanted to have fun with it. And you know we're not condoning what happened, but we're definitely saying you know people are sharing their memories. People are even tagging their parent in the photo to say hey dad, was this you? Or were you there? Now, you know these people are now in their mid-40s, early 50s. So they're reminiscing about the great times that they have had in Penticton.

MG: So has anyone come forward to say that they are the ones who are in the photo?

DS: I'm absolutely shocked to say that the middle guy — the guy with the abs — has come forward.

MG: The six pack man has come forward?

DS: Six pack man has come forward. So enough people knew it was him, and tagged him. And he's ready for his “Crazy Shake” — he's ready to come down and meet over ice cream, which shocks me as well. But his account of what happened that night — even though I don't know all the details, and I guess we'll find out soon — is very, very different. He said that he came out of the washroom, and wasn't involved at all. And this girl — this very attractive girl — said to him, “Oh my goodness, you've got a great body, would you mind getting up on top of the peach so that I can take your photo?” And he said the rest is history. He said it was a very, very good learning experience for him. And he you know 27 years later has a family. He shared the photo with his grown children, and he wants to come down and see the peach again.

MG: A likely story that he had nothing to do with it. He just happened to end up on top of the peach with his shirt off.

DS: He did, and I'm not sure if he still has his six pack? If you know willing to pose again? I'm not sure what's going to happen?

MG: And that the current incarnation of the peach remains firmly fixed to the ground?

DS: It absolutely does. I say that with confidence.

MG: Ms. Stirling, good to talk to you. And let us know if the other two people in the photo… I don't know… turn up — turn themselves in. In the meantime, thank you very much.

DS: Thank you.

MG: Bye.

That

JD: That was the Penticton peach's Diana Stirling. We reached her in Penticton.

[Music: Ambient]

Mint theft gold

JD: Here's a legal question. An employee of the Royal Canadian Mint steals a lot of gold, using his butt. Before he's caught, he manages to sell 130,000 dollars' worth of it. He's convicted — and ordered to pay back 190,000 dollars within three years, or go to prison. Is that a fair penalty — or is it not? I see lot of hands up, and I know what you're going to ask: is the point of the fine to compensate the Mint, or to repay the "proceeds of crime"? Well, that's exactly… Oh, OK, that wasn't your question. Right, yes, you wanted to know about the part where he stole the gold in his butt. Fair enough. Well, let me jog your memory: in 2014 and 2015, former Mint employee Leston Lawrence managed to smuggle 22 pucks of solid gold out of his workplace in his rectum. And since security couldn't figure out why he was setting off the metal detector all the time, he got away with it — for a while. I see some more hands up, and the answer is: according to Carol's interview with Ottawa Citizen reporter Kelly Egan during the trial, they’re about the size of small muffins. Now, as I said, he was ordered to pay back 190,000 dollars, which was market value when Mr. Lawrence was sentenced in 2017. But recently, his lawyer argued that that was unfair. For one thing, when he stole it, it was only worth 165,000 dollars. For another, Mr. Lawrence had only managed to sell 130,000 bucks' worth. In their decision, three judges with the Ontario Court of Appeals decided to lower the fine. As they point out in the decision, quote, "The purpose of a fine in lieu of forfeiture is to deprive an offender of the proceeds of crime." Unquote. Meaning Leston Lawrence should only pay back what he made from his ill-gotten gold: 130,000 dollars. So there you have it. A little legal case study about how concealing a lot of gold in your rear end ends up affecting your bottom line.

[Music: Piano]

Part two: Venezuela drone attack, InfoWars dropped

Venezuela drone attack

Guest: Ulrike Franke

JD: The government of Venezuela claims it was an assassination attempt. On Saturday afternoon, President Nicolas Maduro was giving a speech when an explosion rang out. The President and others on the dais looked to the sky, and then, another bang. The government says the blasts were caused by two drones packed with explosives. Mr. Maduro blamed "far-right" extremists, and six suspects have been arrested. But opposition leaders dispute the government's version of events. If drones were used on Saturday, it confirms the fears of experts around the world: that commercial drones can — and will — be transformed into weapons for assassination. Ulrike Franke is one of those who has predicted this development. She's a Policy Fellow with European Council of Foreign Relations. We reached her in London, England.

MG: Ms. Franke, when you heard that the Venezuelan government was claiming that there had been an assassination attempt via drone. People may have seen the video, but what did you think when you heard this?

ULRIKE FRANKE: To be honest, I was just not surprised at all. I mean drone research community — everyone that works on drones — has very much been expecting that type of attack. I mean I can't really say whether what we've heard out of Venezuela really did happen as the government claims. But it's certainly very plausible, and it makes a lot of sense to use commercially available drones that way. And that's why a lot of people have warned that these kind of assassination attempts could happen, and so I'm really not surprised, to be honest.

MG: Explain to us. Why you thought that this would happen?

UF: So the thing is that over the last few years, drones have become widely available, right? And to anyone really — I mean anyone can buy a rather cheap drone off Amazon or something like that. And you can do many things with it. And a lot of people use hobbyist drones to take pictures, and film movies, and that kind of thing. But, of course, you know if you have a drone that can carry you know 13 pounds of photography equipment — such as the drone that allegedly was used in Venezuela — then you can also put another payload on it such as you know explosives. And so you know once something like that is possible, you immediately think that a terrorist group — a non-state actor — will try to use it that way.

MG: What do we know about the drone that was apparently used in this assassination attempt? Was a commercially available one?

UF: So I mean all the information that we have comes from the Venezuelan government or the Venezuelan Interior Ministry. But what they're telling us is that they think it was a DJI M600 drone. DJI is a Chinese manufacturer, and they actually pretty much own the hobbyist and the commercial drone market. And this particular model — the M600 — is a rather big system, and relatively pricey. So that goes at about 4,600 U.S. dollars, from what I see. It's kind of a professional or semi-professional drone that's a photographer would use. And, as I mentioned, it can carry about 13 pounds or six kilograms of equipment. And so you know if you exchanged photography equipment with explosives — TNT that apparently was used —you can get quite an explosion with that.

MG: And is that fairly straightforward? I mean normally you would see these with you know the GoPro on the bottom of it or something like that. Is it that straightforward to take the camera off and put the bomb on?

UF: Pretty much. I mean we've already seen non-state actors such as ISIS already do that over the last few years. They started using drones for propaganda purposes, and then they quickly put explosives on it, and then flew it into you know military installations. So what we've seen apparently in Venezuela is that they put explosives on the drone, and then exploded the drone with it. And to be honest, yeah, that is relatively straightforward. I mean once you have the explosives, you basically just need to strap them on the drone and then fly it. So that's why we have been expecting such attacks for a while.

MG: And so who would be operating this? I mean how far away could you be from the drone itself if you are flying it into, as we saw here apparently, a group of people who were standing up on a podium?

UF: Yeah, so it depends a bit on the drone. If it’s indeed the model that they mentioned, from what I hear it has a range of a few kilometres — up to five the manufacturer claims. Usually, it's a bit less, so the attacker could have been standing in the crowd, they could have been standing in a nearby building, they could have some standing somewhere you know reasonably close by, but far away enough to not be hit by the explosion themselves.

MG: And is that what makes a drone so attractive as a weapon? Not just the ease at which it takes to convert these things into something that could carry a bomb, but also the fact that you can be that far away or that close — essentially anonymous?

UF: Yes, that’s one of the attractions. The other, of course, is that you can fly it somewhere where you usually wouldn't be able to go yourself, right? I mean the reason why we're thinking about high-value target assassination is that you know usually — let's say a high level politician — they have secret services or you know security details with them. And so you know people may not be able to approach them close enough to attack them. But with a drone, because of airborne, you may be able to get closer to your target than you normally would. So that's one of the attractions. And because the drone can loiter, you can be quite precise if it’s really an assassination that you're planning.

MG: Given everything that you just said then, have we ever seen a commercial drone used like this before?

UF: Not really in a civilian context. So what we have seen over the last few years really is non-state groups in you know more military context using drones that way. I mentioned you know ISIS or Daesh before. We had a few other non-state actors in Syria, in Iraq, in Ukraine using drones that way.

MG: The Venezuelan government has been saying that this attack was foiled — it was not successful. Because the government or military operatives managed to jam the signal for the drones, how do you do that?

UF: Well, that's very interesting that they say this, to be honest. So jamming just means that you try to interfere with the signal between the operator, that is you know again a few hundred metres or a kilometre away, and the drone. So you just try to interfere with the signal so either the drone comes down or the operator cannot interfere with it anymore. And it's true that that works well. I was just surprised that the Venezuelan government said that because that implies that they were prepared for that kind of attack and had jammers with them. And to be honest, I just didn't think that you know the security detail of the Venezuelan government or the Venezuelan president was so well-prepared for drone attacks. So when it initially was said that the drone was shot down, that seemed more plausible to me. But yeah, jamming is one of the anti-drone technologies that are currently being developed.

MG: What are some of the others? What else are people doing to try and stop something like this from happening?

UF: So it’s actually an enormous growth area. It’s very interesting. So jamming is one. Shooting down drones with different kinds of projectiles is another. One system is actually using drones against drones. So we've seen this in Japan, where you have drones armed with nets to bring them down. And I think the funniest thing to bring down a rogue or attacking drone is with eagles — the actual animal.

MG: An eagle?

UF: Yes, an eagle. So the Dutch and the French have been training eagles to bring down smaller drones. There are amazing pictures and videos of these training sessions, where the eagle basically attacks the drone, takes it with it. But I mean these are somewhat smaller drones. But the thing is that the search for a good-working and cheap anti-drone technology really is one of the most important things currently in drone technology investment. And you know the company that comes up with something that works well they will be able to make quite a lot of money with it.

MG: This is fascinating. Ms. Franke, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much.

UF: My pleasure. Thank you.

MG: Bye bye.

JD: Ulrike Franke is a Policy Fellow with the European Council of Foreign Relations. We reached her in London, U.K. We have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Piano]

Douglas Grindstaff

JD: You may not know his name. But if you grew up, like so many of us did, watching "Star Trek" — the first generation, you know his sounds. Douglas Grindstaff was a sound editor and designer behind the other-worldly audiosphere of the original "Star Trek". Mr. Grindstaff died late last month. He was 87. For “Star Trek” to boldly go where no show had gone before, the distinctive futuristic sounds of the Enterprise had to explore new frontiers. And, thanks to Douglas Grindstaff, it did. Warp speed ahead:

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: the sound of the warp drive and many, many more iconic sounds… and childhood]

JD: The sounds of the original "Star Trek. In order: warp drive, open hailing frequency, red alert klaxon, cooing Tribbles, bridge doors, phasers firing, the hull being hit, and, finally, the food and drink synthesizer. Douglas Grindstaff was a sound editor and designer on original Starship Enterprise. He died late last month at 87.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: More iconic sounds]

JD: As Twitter user Kelly Key fondly wrote: "The background buzz on the bridge always reminded me of crickets and cicadas from a field on a summer night — full of life and activity."

InfoWars dropped

Guest: Charlie Warzel

JD: For one of the Internet's most famous phony-conspiracy theorists, things are getting very real. Today, Facebook, Spotify, and Youtube said they were removing content from Alex Jones' “InfoWars” from their platforms. They were following Apple, which took down “InfoWars” on Sunday. Each platform said the content violated policies concerning hate speech, and glorifying violence. Charlie Warzel is a senior technology writer with Buzzfeed. We reached him in Missoula, Montana.

MG: Charlie Warzel, why have these tech companies dropped “InfoWars” — essentially all at the same time?

CHARLIE WARZEL Well, this has really been a sort of month-long or three-week-long process here. That all kind of kicked off when a CNN reporter asked Facebook at a meeting full of journalists in New York City earlier in July, why if they were so committed to eradicating misinformation and fake news from their platform, they let conspiracy news say that you know peddles a lot of baseless claims up on their platform? And essentially, you know Facebook had a very few satisfying answers to that. And over the past three weeks or so, that's ignited a conversation that sort of ensnared all of the social networks. And sort of you know made them come out and prove a lot of their policies. As a result, many people — not just journalists, but just average users of these platforms — have reported a lot of videos on Facebook, on YouTube. They've gotten a lot of pressure, and they sort of turned to the smaller platforms like Spotify or the podcasting app Stitcher, and asks you know why do you guys allow “InfoWars” up on your platform? And really that pressure has mounted, and built, and it's all been sort of barreling towards this one conclusion that it might be impossible to uphold sort of hate speech and decency guidelines while keeping “InfoWars” up. And ultimately, last night, Apple made a pretty sweeping decision to sort of you know eradicate “InfoWars” whole log. And, as a result, it really seemed like it kicked the first domino, and then everything just kind of collapsed after that.

MG: What is it specifically that the companies would cite as a violation of their policies? I mean we know that that Alex Jones and “InfoWars” have been peddling conspiracy theories, for example, the shooting at Sandy Hook that massacred 20 kids and six adults that that never happened, for example. That's one of the conspiracy theories that they've been peddling. What is it within that that you think crossed that line for these companies?

CW: They have stated before that some of Jones's commentary about Muslims, transgender people, those have been in violation of some of the specific hate speech policies. That some of his calling out of individuals who may or may not be in the public sphere you know could amount to targeted harassment of some kind, which is expressly forbidden by almost every technology platform. But I think you know more so Apple had the most sweeping removal last night. But they didn't cite any specific videos. Instead, what they said is essentially that that “InfoWars” and Alex Jones’s content is really against the spirit of the platform. They did cite hate speech policies. But you know it wasn't down to one single thing. It was sort of the idea that you know this is a pattern of behaviour since really Jones has been around as a broadcaster. And that goes back well over 20 years.

MG: As is his want, Alex Jones responded forcefully, saying — among other things — that this is censorship. Is it?

CW: Well, I think that's tricky. I think that a lot of these companies really didn't enjoy doing this by any stretch. I think that it causes almost as many headaches for them as it does you know solving the problem. This is going to ignite a debate that's been sort of raging about the social platforms since their inception, which is you know what is their role in moderating content? They've been so hesitant to play that role in any way.

MG: Part of his response on Twitter, which he has not been banned from yet, was what conservative outlet will be next? Do you worry that this will turn him into a free speech martyr?

CW: I think he already is a free speech martyr. I think that you know this is, as I said earlier, a sort of narrative of the right, especially the pro-Trump media. Jones has been sort of in this saga with the tech platforms for about a month now. And you know people like Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Fox News host Tucker Carlson have already sort of come out and said that he is being censored and silenced. So I think that that's already happened. And I think that you know, at the end of the day, what these companies need to decide is you know is whether or not these baseless claims presented as news and fact whether or not you know those should be protected? And I think whether or not you know those things have certain real world implications. One of the things that's been going on alongside this is you know parents of victims of the Sandy Hook massacre are taking legal action against Alex Jones, saying that some of his you know his speech has actually endangered their lives, and made it difficult for them to visit the graves of their children. So when you see these things having these acts of speech having real ripple effects, and perhaps oppressing others in the real world, I think that that sort of adds a wrinkle there. And really sort of you know it complicates the scenario. I think beyond just the question of is someone being silenced or not?

MG: Charlie Warzel, I appreciate your time. It's great to talk to about this. Thank you.

CW: Thank you.

MG: Bye bye.

CW: Bye.

JD: Charlie Warzel is a senior technology writer with Buzzfeed News. We reached him in Missoula, Montana.

Weetabix

JD: Weetabix, or Weet-Bix. That pesky extra syllable — that one letter "A" — has caused big problems for New Zealand shop-owner Lisa Wilson. Problems that have landed her in the Christchurch High Court, as part of a civil suit launched by cereal giant Sanitarium. Hearings in the cereal spat began last week. Problems first arose last summer, when Ms. Wilson's imported shipment of the British Weet-A-Bix cereal was seized at the border. It was the result of a complaint from Sanitarium, which produces the similar, but different, Weet-Bix cereal. Last June, Ms. Wilson spoke with "As It Happens" guest host Laura Lynch, to explain why the other company had beef with her biscuits.

SOUNDCLIP

LW: Because they have a trademark on Weet-Bix, so they feel like Weetabix is a trademark infringement. Which I disagree with because you know for trademark infringement you've got to confuse, deceive, or pass it off. And you know we're not trying to confuse any customers that we Weetaxix is the same as Weet-Bix.

LL: But to be fair, Ms. Wilson, the cereals are pretty similar. They're both these biscuits made of wheat, and they have very similar names, so doesn’t Sanitarium have a point?

LW: Yeah, I just don't feel they do. One's obviously manufactured in the UK, and then Sanitarium’s in New Zealand or Australia. Yeah you know, we’ve just got completely different customers. And if you actually taste them, they do taste different. if a Kiwi came in and bought some Weetabix, or we went up to them on the street and said try this and had a bowl of Weetabix and Weet-Bix, I can guarantee they would be able which one the Weet-Bix was because it tastes different. It's what you're brought up on and what you're used to.

LL: You will go you will go to court to fight for your right to Weetabix?

LW: Yes.

JD: The case kicked off in Christchurch High Court just last week, Sanitarium is seeking to establish that Weetabix infringes on their copyright. Ms. Wilson isn't backing down. She feels Weetabix is worth fighting for, which, given its grain ingredient, makes her kind of a gluten for punishment.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

August 6, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode