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 June 28, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: Hello, I'm Robyn Bresnahan sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

RB: Mission accomplice. A British MP says his committee found evidence that the UK participated in the kidnapping of detainees who faced torture during the post 9/11 “war on terror”.

JD: Case for the prosecutions. Amnesty International says crimes against humanity were committed against Myanmar's Rohingya population. And the perpetrators included some of the country's most powerful people.

RB: Hold your liquor Ottawa's mayor says he will be skipping the U.S. ambassador's bourbon-sipping Fourth of July party. Because her president's attitude towards Canada makes it hard to get in the spirits of the thing.

JD: Alias Grease scientists conclude the Milky Way contains billions of trillions of trillions of tons of alphabetic carbon. A substance they are more helpfully referring to as “space grease”.

RB: Tooting with one horn. It was nice when enigmatic billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk took an interest in our guests cute image of a farting unicorn. But then he took it too far by just taking it.

JD: And… a mass ditch effort. Tired of their tiny Welsh village being a buffering zone, residents laid the groundwork for faster internet cables — by digging 24 kilometres worth of trenches all by themselves.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Thursday edition. Radio that knows sometimes you just say take this job and shovel it.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: UK 9/11 torture, Jim Watson, Elon Musk mug

UK 9/11 torture

Guest: David Hanson

JD: In the UK today, a parliamentary committee delivered a pair of damning reports on torture, and the responsibility of that country's spies. The Intelligence and Security Committee found that in the wake of 9/11, members of MI5 and MI6 helped kidnap detainees even though they knew some were being tortured as part of the United States extraordinary rendition program. David Hanson is a Labour member of the committee. He was also a member of the Tony Blair government, under which many of the abuses took place. We reached Mr. Hanson in London.

RB: Mr. Hanson, what have you learned about the role of the UK intelligence services, and the role that they played in torture and rendition following the September 11th attacks?

DAVID HANSON: Well, what we've learned is that there was no direct involvement of UK personnel from MI5 or MI6 — our secret service agencies. But we are aware that there were very determined cases where individual UK personnel witnessed firsthand a detainee being mistreated or tortured. And there were other incidents where British personnel had been told by detainees that they'd been abused or tortured and that was not passed on the line. So there's no direct involvement of the British secret services, but they did witness, and the standards fell short of what should have been expected.

RB: And who was doing the mistreatment and or torture?

DH: Well, this is all when individuals were in the interviews from post 9/11 by officers of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Guantanamo Bay. And this was again in the light of the sort of post 9/11 tragedy that the U.S. forces acted in a way that UK forces should have taken firmer action in informing superiors of what was happening in both Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo.

RB: So what went wrong?

DH: This is not an excuse, but in the culture of post 9/11, British forces — senior officials at MI5 and MI6 — were told how the Americans would respond. And that should have triggered alarm bells about what might have happened on the ground. When we've had UK forces secret agents working in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And we've seen them incidents which the US senators themselves have brought to light about mistreatment of prisoners and mistreatment of detainees. And where incidents have been where detainees have reported, that should have been the way up the line to the prime minister and to the UK government. And that should have been raised with the United States government — because it's not part of UK policy to condone or participate in torture or in the type of incidents that we've referred to in the report.

RB: So who made the mistakes?

DH: I'm not so sure that excuse it rather, and this is a culture in that there was no guidance given to officers. So what we've said today is that we can't change what's happened. What we can do is reaffirm our standards in the future and reaffirm our standards now.

RB: You say you can't change what has happened, but how disturbed are you that this happened while you were in government? You were under Tony Blair at that period.

DH: I was a minister for 12 years in government. And I was part of a government that recognized the issue in 2009. I was the Counter-Terrorism and Security Minister with the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who brought forward guidance to ensure that we didn't do this. The key points in our report says that ministers did not know — and were not told — of the actions that people had witnessed on the ground.

RB: When did you find out?

DH: I was informed myself, personally, around 2009 about some of the allegations.

RB: So you're looking ahead, but did you not feel that anybody needed to be reprimanded? That people needed to appear before committees? That the head of MI5 or MI6 should be dragged in?

DH: Let’s be very clear on this. I've been on this committee for two-and-a-half years, and what we've tried to do in this report today is to say that this was inexcusable, and it should not have happened. But what we're trying to do now is to put in place strong guidelines for officials and for people working in very stressful situations themselves to ensure that UK policy maintains the morals that we believed it had in 2011.

RB: The report says that your then-Foreign Minister Jack Straw was asked for and gave authorization for a plane used in at least one rendition. Was there really not high-level knowledge of what was going on?

DH: Well, Jack Straw has given evidence to the committee and has given evidence in relation to that. And that was a rendition that took place that he authorized. The fact that he's authorized that on the record is for public debate and for public knowledge now. The issues that we're focusing on mostly in this report were areas that were not ministerial authorized. They were actions that were not undertaken with the authority of ministers of the UK government.

RB: Do you anticipate any kind of prosecutions here?

DH: Well, the Metropolitan Police are currently investigating one case. And that's a matter for them. We have a system in the United Kingdom where the police are not interfered with by politicians, and by the House of Commons, and by UK government. The police have the evidence and they have our report as well. And they can if they so wish bring forward prosecutions where issues are deemed to be of a standard that demands a prosecution.

RB: How would you describe the cooperation that you have received from the heads of the intelligence agencies in your work trying to get to the bottom of this?

DH: Ultimately, as a statutory duty under British parliamentary law to have access by law to all information. And we have gone through this in a five year process. And there's information which we have looked at which we can't even publish today because the government do not want that out for national security reasons. We've had full cooperation. Part of the problem, Robyn, again is that this is activity that took place 16, 17, 18 years ago. And a lot of people who were involved at that time have moved on or have retired. The current staff of MI5 at a senior level are as concerned to ensure that their officers on the ground doing safety work to secure the future of the United Kingdom and other countries at the moment have clear and straight forward guidance as to what is legal, what is decent, what is honest, and what should be done.

RB: Right, you said some of these people are retired — they have moved on. But some ,of your colleagues including, Shami Chakrabarti, says what is needed is a full judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of the government's responsibility for torture and abuse, which would allow a judge to call on these people who are no longer in the intelligence services. Do you support that?

DH: No, I don't. And with respect to Shami Chakrabarti, she was commenting on the report at 7:30 UK time this morning, not having seen a report that we have worked on for five years. I think she could do with reading the report, looking at the detail of the report, looking at the recommendations and helping us to implement them. That would be a much more helpful suggestion.

RB: But why don't you support a full and a judicial inquiry?

DH: We have just spent five years — five years, Robyn, — of our time investigating this in detail. We've produced a report with recommendations, in which I don't think a judicial inquiry will add anything to that report.

RB: But you're looking forward, but it lets people off the hook for what was done in the past.

DH: It’s not for the Parliamentary Committee of the House of Commons to be judge and jury on these matters. We have a legal system that if wrongdoing was undertaken, prosecutions can be made.

RB: Just finally, do you think that this will shake people's faith in the British intelligence agencies?

DH: No, I think people understand that the British intelligence services are doing a good job trying to protect the United Kingdom and other countries from severe threats. I remember, Robyn, clearly in this report we've said there's no smoking gun, there is no activity undertaken of torture directly by British operatives. What there has been is information supplied to them about activity we wouldn't condone.

RB: Right, that they stood by while that happened.

DH: Or that they haven’t actually passed forward in the system. And that was wrong. They should have done this. And we've making recommendations accordingly.

RB: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.

DH: Thanks. Take care. Bye.

RB: OK. Bye.

JD: David Hanson is a Labour MP, and a member of the UK House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee. We reached him in London.

Jim Watson

Guest: Jim Watson

JD: It is a tradition in Ottawa: every Fourth of July, the U.S. ambassador to Canada has the local mucky-mucks over for a celebration of everything red, white, and blue. This year, the drink of choice is going to be bourbon from Kentucky — because it is Ambassador Kelly Knight Kraft’s home state. Jim Watson, however, will not be raising a glass. The Ottawa Mayor has decided to boycott the event because of President Trump's treatment of Canada. We reach Mayor Jim Watson in Ottawa.

RB: Mayor Watson, what message are you hoping to send by skipping this swanky shindig?

JIM WATSON: Well, I think a couple of things. One, that I — like a lot of other Canadians — are fed up with the constant poking by Donald Trump of everyone from our prime minister, to our dairy farmers, to carmakers. I wouldn't feel comfortable going and accepting American hospitality when we're having these you know nonstop barrage of insults thrown across the airwaves and across the border by Donald Trump.

RB: What particular U.S. policies are you upset about?

JW: Well, I think everything from the tariffs on the steel and aluminum that they've imposed. The threats that we hear about the auto industry, which has a tremendous impact not just in auto communities like Oakville and Windsor, but you know we have an autonomous vehicle operation here in Kanata in the west end of our city that is connected with Ford and QNX and BlackBerry. And if they start to put tariffs on cars going across the border, that has a ripple effect that will affect jobs in our community. And I think the other thing is that you know when you watch him in these rallies, these nonstop taunts against what should be their best neighbour, friendliest ally, and closest trading partner. I just don't think it makes sense for me to go and hobnob with the folks at the American embassy.

RB: But what will it actually achieve you not being there?

JW: Well, you know look it, I'm realistic. I'm a mayor of a Canadian city. You know I can't imagine anyone in Washington giving a hoot what I say or you know even the embassy staff. But I think it does send a bit of a symbolic message or gesture that you know we're tired of being taken for granted. We're tired of all of the taunts and the bully activity that we see coming from the White House — and the nonstop threats.

RB: Have you met the American ambassador yet?

JW: Well, ironically, I've met her twice in elevators. I haven't really had a sit down meeting. I did invite her to speak at my annual International Women's Day breakfast. We have four female ambassadors: the British high commissioner, and the French and German ambassadors, and the American ambassador for the first time ever are all women. She did accept that — that was a couple months ago. But because of travel arrangements I believe, had to cancel. So I haven't had a courtesy call as I normally would with other new ambassadors.

RB: Have you heard from her since declining the invitation?

JW: No, I haven't. And just to be clear, you know I was not going to make this a big fuss. I was asked in a scrum after City Council yesterday had I been invited to the reception because my understanding is they've cut back the number of people going substantially, and I said yes, I was. And the reporter from CBC — one of your colleagues, Joanne Chianello, — then asked are you going? And I said no. And she said why? And I said what I told you earlier in the interview that I just didn't feel comfortable.

RB: The American ambassador wrote a piece in The Globe and Mail this week. Not sure if you saw it? In which she said that she is listening; she understands that Canadians are concerned. And she ends it with the quote let's make sure we keep talking with and not past each other. Is this not an opportunity for soft diplomacy at a local level?

JW: Well, you know I think as you know, Robin, a lot of these receptions there's a long line up a receiving line. You have you know 30 seconds to say hello to the ambassador and her husband, and they take a picture, and then you move on. So you know if people think there's a lot of in-depth negotiations and diplomacy taking place at these receptions, I hate to burst the bubble, but it's mostly about the free booze, and the food, and the music, and the dancing. And I think you know there are opportunities. You know if I have an opportunity to sit down with the ambassador — as I would with any high commissioner or ambassador — and talk about issues, that's a more substantive forum to do it as opposed to a party.

RB: But the previous American ambassador under Barack Obama, Bruce Hayman, he was very active in the community. In fact, I bumped into you at those July Fourth parties when he was there. I'm wondering if that camaraderie, that informal relationship if it actually did result in any connections? For you for example, in the city of Ottawa, there is a newish bike lane in front of the American embassy, which is very well used. Is this not an opportunity to make those connections on an informal level?

JW: Well, I had a very good relationship with Bruce, and we still keep in touch. And, in fact, he was successful in I think securing about 750-thousand dollars for that bike lane. I said that's the first time the State Department has funded a municipal bike lane in the history of Canada. And his predecessor before that, David Jacobson, we had very good relations. And they were very good diplomats because they opened up their residence for charity work, and fundraisers, and I had a number of occasions to meet with both Bruce and David. And I think I've had the pleasure of knowing eight different ambassadors during my time as mayor. So you're quite right, there are opportunities to do some good in the community. I look forward to meeting the new ambassador above and beyond just being in an elevator. But I just didn't think it was appropriate. And I think would be pretty hypocritical of me to go when I do have some pretty strong views on the way that Donald Trump conducts himself and the way he treats allies to simply show up and accept the hospitality of the American government.

RB: So you won't be drinking the Kentucky bourbon that she's going to be serving on July 4^th, what are you going to be having instead?

JW: I really don't drink, so I'd be having a soft drink I suppose of anything else. But I think I'm I have dinner with a friend. I know that on July 4^th, but I'll be working in my office most of the day and doing community events throughout the day.

RB: You're not going to be having a Beaver Tail in protest?

JW: No, I'm trying to lose weight. I actually had a Beaver Tail yesterday. But, again, I think from a policy point of view, we have some real challenges. And you know the government of Canada is going to release tomorrow what the tariffs are going to be on American products. And then three or four days later, it's the Fourth of July. I'd feel very uncomfortable because I think our relations are not in a good place. I hope they improve, but a lot of that starts at the top. And it has to be Mr. Trump acting really more presidential, and to stop his nonsensical attacks on our country.

RB: Mayor Watson, thank you very much for your time today.

JW: Thank you for asking.

JD: Jim Watson is the mayor of Ottawa. We reached him in Ottawa.

Elon Musk mug

Guest: Tom Edwards

JD: This is a tale of skullduggery, negligence, and entitlement. And it begins, “Once upon a time, there was a picture of a farting unicorn.” That picture appears on a mug. And last year, tech billionaire Elon Musk tweeted out a photo of that mug, which was emblazoned with the flatulent unicorn, and the words, “Electric cars are good for the environment because electricity comes from magic.” At first, Tom Edwards — the artist who made the mug — was pleased. But then Mr. Musk’s enjoyment of his creation went too far. We reached Tom Edwards in Evergreen, Colorado.

RB: Mr. Edwards, did you ever think that your coffee cup with a farting unicorn on it would get you into a spat with a billionaire?

TOM EDWARDS: Well, I didn't really envision that. But after he took my artwork, I realized there was going to be some kind of conflict quite possibly.

RB: When you said you took your artwork, what do you mean by that?

TE: Well, it started in February 2017, when he tweeted a picture of my mug. And that was great. And then two months later, he posted a blatant copy of the artwork on that mug, and put it on the operating system of all of the Tesla automobiles. And he did this without my permission. So he got a lot of media attention out of it. And friends of mine kept sending me pictures of Tesla automobiles screens with my artwork on it. And I decided this year that I would take a stand for artists who get their work stolen by corporations.

RB: I think it would be handy for our listeners if you could describe your mug for us. What does it look like?

TE: OK. The words on the outside of the mug are, “Electric cars are good for the environment because electricity comes from magic.” And then the cartoon graphic it looks very whimsical childlike cartoon has a rainbow, a unicorn, the unicorn is passing gas into a tube. That too goes to an electric car. And there's happy faces on it also. And it's a very childlike a whimsical. And Elon Musk said it's probably his favourite mug ever when he posted the tweet in February 2017.

RB: What was it meant to symbolize?

TE: The joke is basically people just think electric cars are amazing because the electricity you know must come from magic. And who knows where it comes from a coal-fired plant or solar panels on your roof? People have an image that electric cars are amazing. And they are, but maybe not as amazing as they think they are.

RB: What did you feel when you saw that tweet from Elon Musk saying it was probably his favourite mug ever?

TE: Oh, it's great. I mean it was lovely because I'm really proud of that joke. And I feel like you know the right the right connected with the right person. And it was great. And I'm a really big fan of Elon Musk. I think he's an amazing visionary. So he was really a moment in my career. And then when he you know used my artwork in his car, I was flattered, but I was also surprised. It seemed like a daunting process to you know approach them and all that, so I let it slide for a year. But then my new year's resolution this year was to do something about it, and that's what I'm doing right now.

RB: And so how was he using your image in his cars, and his brochures, and that kind of thing?

TE: OK, it actually wasn't brochures, but it was part of their car. And what's interesting is that they did sort of use it in their branding. Like I went to look at the Tesla showroom and it was right there on the screen. And then a friend of mine who owns a Tesla got a Christmas card last year, and he sent me a screenshot of it. And that was kind of the thing that got me going on this project because I thought wait a minute, that's my artwork on their card. I'm going to see if I can find a way to ask them to pay me for it. And that's what I'm doing right now. That was my New Year’s resolution. I called lawyers, I pitched, and it was really interesting walking around to lawyers and they all just said this is clear-cut copyright violation — really good lawyers. So I got one of these really good lawyers who worked for me. So a month ago, my lawyer, Tim Atkinson, sent them a letter saying this isn’t a cease and desist; we're not trying to shake you down. We just want to open discussion on Tom Edwards getting compensated for his artwork because you're using it in your cars. And so they ignored us for a month. And so then I went to the media, and then fortunately the media has responded. And I guess what makes this a really interesting story is my daughter her stagename is Lisa Prank. She tweeted Elon Musk, and got the ball rolling on that. And he engaged her, and was somewhat defensive. And there's a whole series of tweets that he since has deleted.

RB: I actually have the text of what he said here. He said to your daughter he can sue for money if he wants, but that's kind of lame. If anything, this attention has increased his mug sales. Is that a fair point? Have your mug sales gone through the roof?

TE: No, they haven't gone through the roof. I think they're up to halfway up the steps from the basement up to the main floor. Like, OK, what if somebody took a John Lennon cartoon, and put it on the screen of a Nissan Sentra, and said well, we're giving John Lennon drawings all these publicity? That's ridiculous. It's a real simple thing that I think his attitude is exemplary of what corporate America thinks. They think they can just take artists art, use it, and not ask permission. Add It's basic copyright law. That's what gets me about this whole thing is it's such a simple law. You can't use artist’s artwork without permission. And to say oh, I gave you a bump in sales is silly. I still have to throw those mugs on the wheel, draw them, glaze them, fire them, ship them out. I work hard for those orders. He's using my intellectual property in his automobile. And even if you were to like take it down tomorrow, he's still benefited from it by the year-and-a-half that he had it in his car. And I think he should just stand up and do what's right. That's what I'm trying to argue.

RB: All of this over a farting unicorn.

TE: Well, it's my artwork. I mean I've spent the last 40 years making pottery, and you know I think people kind of dismiss it like oh, it's just a silly drawing. And it's like well yeah, John Lennon cartoons are silly drawings, or Picasso doodles can be silly drawings. But for some reason we put them in museums. So I don't know... It's my artwork.

RB: Mr. Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks so much.

TE: Thank you. Have a great day.

RB: You too. Bye.

JD: Tom Edwards is a ceramics artist. We reached him in Evergreen, Colorado. In a tweet earlier today, which appears to have been deleted, Elon Musk said, quote, “I offered to pay the guy who drew it twice already for something I don't even want.” Unquote. Mr Edwards says that is not true. Mr. Musk has never offered to pay him anything. For more on this story, and to see the farting unicorn in question, visit: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Space grease

JD: It's not edible, but there's enough of it to make up "40 trillion… trillion… trillion packs of butter." And according to Professor Tim Schmidt, quote, "This space grease is not the kind of thing you'd want to spread on a slice of toast." Unquote. Now, listen, I understand the value of explaining science in a way that us layfolk can understand. But I'm getting kind of a mixed message here. Space is full of grease, but it's not grease you'd spread on toast. But the best way to express its volume is in terms of packs of butter? Don't get me wrong: the study is a big deal. Professor Schmidt — a chemist at the University of South Wales, Sydney — is a co-author. He and his team did lab tests and were apparently able to get the most accurate measurements yet of how much, quote, "aliphatic hydrocarbon" — space grease, to us — is in the Milky Way. It's part of ongoing work on how much carbon is in our galaxy, which will help astronomers understand how this whole complicated business with the stars and planets and inedible space butter came together. There's a lot of grease out there. Expressed in non-butter terms, 10 billion trillion trillion tonnes of it. And this discovery is one more piece in the big puzzle of carbon, which is a big piece in the puzzle of everything. As Professor Schmidt told the Guardian, quote, "It's made in stars, goes through the interstellar medium and gets incorporated into new planetary systems and has ended up incorporated into life. It's part of the big story, the biggest story there is." Unquote. That's great, I guess. No, it is. It's just I don’t maybe next time, don't mention butter. Because, unlike space grease, that's the kind of confusing message that spreads easily.

Part two: Rohingya massacre report, Welsh Internet trench

Rohingya massacre report

Guest: Matt Wells

JD: Amnesty International has decided it is no longer enough to simply denounce what Myanmar's military has done to the country's Rohingya minority. Amnesty says it is time to prepare for prosecutions before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. And if world leaders are wondering where to begin, Amnesty's new report contains both a stack of evidence and a list of names — including those of top military leaders. The report is called “We Will Destroy Everything”. Matt Wells was one of the authors. We reached Mr. Wells in Washington, D.C.

RB: Mr. Wells, how have you determined which leaders are responsible for atrocities?

MATT WELLS: Our new report is the product of nearly nine months of research, and hundreds of interviews both in Bangladesh and Myanmar. As well as investigations through satellite imagery, through photo and video material that we've been able to obtain, and also through confidential documents on the Myanmar military — the way the command structure works. And what all of that together shows is that the horrific crimes that have been committed by the military against the Rohingya that have driven more than 700,000 across the border into Bangladesh were not the actions of rogue soldiers or units. But were, in fact, part of a highly orchestrated, systematic attack on the Rohingya. And this attack ultimately implicates each level of the military from those on the ground who directly carried out torture — at times massacres — to field commanders that oversaw those units on the ground. And ultimately to the highest levels of the Myanmar military, who oversaw these operations. And despite repeated reports about the crimes that were being committed on the ground, failed to take action to stop these crimes or to hold those responsible to account.

RB: But how can you be sure those responsible are actually specific commanders or military units? Do you have someone who has confirmed that for you?

MW: So to be able to identify the specific units — and at times individuals — it's been through first extensive testimony from people who were direct victims and witnesses. Several of the border guard police officers that we name in our report, for example, we interviewed ten individuals who were tortured by those individuals directly. And each of those people that we interviewed provided consistent accounts in which they named this specific individual, and identified them as having carried out or ordered the torture that they suffered in detention sites. For others we have been able to identify the specific unit that was on the ground that carried out, for example, a massacre or rape and other sexual violence in a particular village. And through contacts on both sides of the border and other information, we've been able to identify who was the commander on the ground for that specific unit at that time. And ultimately again the responsibility goes to the highest levels of the military. And these senior officials are well-known. They were at times on the ground in these areas as the operations were underway. They were posting almost every day on Facebook about the operations on the ground. And, at times, these Facebook posts were incredibly inflammatory against the Rohingya. As the military was sweeping through villages and opening fire at times on men women and children, the head of the Myanmar military was posting about how the Rohingya don't belong in Myanmar. He was referring to them as Bengalis, and saying that they are not native to Myanmar. And so rather than trying to ensure that his troops went after only those who carried out the attacks as opposed to the wider Rohingya population, he was, in fact, inflaming further the situation that was happening on the ground.

RB: Does it go even higher than that? What about Aung San Suu Kyi?

MW: What we know in Myanmar is that the military operates really without any civilian oversight. It controls its own judicial processes. It is in charge of its own operations, and doesn't have to report to the civilian leadership in any way about its operations. So in terms of the specific crimes that we have documented, which amounts to quite clearly crimes against humanity, it is clear that the responsibility rests with the military. Now for State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi herself, what we know is that even if she doesn't have control over the military in terms of its operations that she and her office more generally have failed to speak out about the atrocities. They have failed to denounce what's happened. And even more than that, at times, they too in their rhetoric and in speaking about the Rohingya have fanned the flames of what has been a rising nationalism, in which this entire group of people are treated as unwanted outsiders, and that helps lead to the situation that we see today, in which the vast majority of them have been pushed out into neighbouring Bangladesh.

RB: So you're calling for prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. What are the odds of that happening?

MW: I think we're starting to see a real move towards the need for accountability. We've seen this week, for example, with the European Union and Canada issuing targeted financial sanctions against senior military officials responsible for the atrocities. Six of the seven people that were sanctioned this week by the EU and Canada are among those that are named in our report as individuals that should face justice. And we know that countries like Canada have been pushing for justice and accountability — including through the special envoy Bob Rae, and his report that came out several months ago. So what we need to see now is a stronger push in particular from the U.N. Security Council, and a referral to the International Criminal Court so that it can investigate and prosecute those responsible. And we know the politics of the Security Council are difficult — especially with China. But we need to see countries speak out and take a hard stand demanding justice. And, in addition, what we need to see is the creation of an investigative body that can begin preserving evidence and building cases against individuals right now.

RB: Mr. Wells, thank you very much.

MW: Thank you for having me.

RB: Bye bye.

MW: Bye.

JD: Matt Wells is a Senior Crisis Advisor with Amnesty International. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

Quebec face coverings

JD: Quebec's religious accommodation rules are due to come into effect July 1^st. But a judge has already decided that one of those rules will not apply… at least not for now. It is the one that would have given authorities the power to refuse public services to women who cover their faces for religious reasons. Catherine Mackenzie is the lawyer representing a group of clients who are challenging the face covering ban. And she spoke to the CBC’s Cathy Senay after Judge Marc-Andre Blanchard granted a temporary suspension.

SOUNDCLIP

CATHERINE MACKENZIE: We're very happy with the decision. I've spoken to my clients, they are very happy as well. This law has an important impact on women who cover their faces for religious reasons. And if the stay expired and the law came into effect, women were going to be potentially cut off from you know very basic services.

CATHY SENAY: So the judge has written irreparable harm will be caused to Muslim woman as of July 1^st, 2018 if the stay is not granted. And it is urgent to act.

CM: Yes. Those are the criteria or some of the criteria that the court has to examine. And he agreed with us. He understood that this was going to be a large intrusion into the lives of a few number women. And that it met the exceptional circumstances that are outlined in the law about when you can stay a law pending it's adjudication.

CS: You know that the guidelines for general requests for accommodations on religious grounds are coming into effect on July 1st. What kind of impact will this decision will have on the guidelines application of the rest of the guidelines?

CM: Well, there's a lot of other types of religious accommodation out there. If somebody wants to take a holiday that's not a statutory holiday for religious reasons, if somebody wants a place to pray, if somebody has dietary restrictions. There are many, many other cases where religious accommodation comes up, and those are all supposed to now be treated under this guideline process. So there are lots of people who could actually be impacted by the guidelines in general. But for right now, the women who choose to cover their faces for religious reasons will not be impacted.

JD: Catherine Mackenzie is a lawyer representing a group of clients who are challenging the face covering ban in Quebec's new religious neutrality law. She was in conversation with Cathy Senay of CBC News in Quebec City.

Deepwater promo

JD: It was the largest and most expensive marine oil spill in history. Eleven workers were killed, and nearly five million barrels of crude oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, when the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig exploded in April of 2010. Now, more than eight years later, scientists have found that the oil spill is having long lasting effects on even the smallest of organisms in the Gulf of Mexico.

SOUNDCLIP

LEILA HAMDAN: We're studying microbes because we want to know how the basis of that ecosystem has changed. And what I can tell you is that for the shipwrecks that we studied in the area most impacted by the Deepwater Horizon spill, these invisible communities that form the foundation for life in the deep sea have changed. And that change is still evident even several years after the spill. And that likely will have some effects up the food chain.

JD: That was Leila Hamdan, lead author on a new study about the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. So tune in tomorrow on this program to hear her interview with Robyn.

Welsh Internet trench

Guest: Carina Dunk

JD: The people of one tiny Welsh village are out to improve their lousy Internet service. And everyone is jumping on the bandwidth wagon. Residents of Michaelston y Fedw are digging 15 miles of trenches to install faster internet cables. And they are doing that on their own. Carina Dunk helped organize the efforts to install the new cables. We reached Ms. Dunk in Michaelston y Fedw, Wales.

RB: Ms. Dunk how is the digging going on?

CARINA DUNK: Well, the mechanical diggers continue to trench. We are 50 per cent through the trenching process. If you bear in mind that the trenching is taking place around the farm fields around the village, so that we can get to the boundaries of properties. It’s progressing nicely.

RB: How many people in the community have come together to do this?

CD: Well, if you take into account the volunteers, the directors, the farmers the landowners, you’ve got to be looking at 50 people that have come together to be directly involved.

RB: Give us a sense of the problem before all of this started?

CD: The problem, OK. We personally have three-point-five-megabits-per-second. Now, we do know that there are people in the village who get less than one-megabit-per-second. And for us, we can't download a film, we can't watch BBC iPlayer, if we're sending emails or browsing the internet, then the connection will drop. So frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it.

RB: How has it impacted people's lives — that slow internet in your village?

CD: Well, I think it's very frustrating. I do know that for one particular person who is a student at university, she has to go into the university library to download her work and to download research material because she cannot do it at home. That's just one case, but yeah, it impacts on everybody. And we have we have about 50 businesses that are run from home in the village, and it impacts severely on them. Barry Dixon, for example, he's got a web design company, and he says when he is uploading information, he can go off and make a cup of coffee while it's uploading. But since he's been connected, he can't; he's drinking so much less coffee everything now is so much quicker.

RB: You know this is just by the sounds of all the slow internet, you would think that you're a village that is miles and miles away from anything. But you're actually only ten miles away from Cardiff City Centre, so how come the Internet is so slow?

CD: Actually, we're about seven miles seven miles from Cardiff City Centre, seven miles from Newport City Centre. But because we are rural, the commercial providers do not see it as being a cost-effective situation to give us fibre to the property.

RB: So where did this idea come from to take things into your own hands?

CD: David Schofield is what we call the kingpin. His brother-in-law worked for an organisation up in Lancashire who basically started out doing exactly the same thing that we are doing now. He then described it to a group of five friends, who then said well, okay, yeah, can we do it? One of them was a farmer. He said I want it, so yes, of course, you can trench across my fields; I don't mind if I'm going to get a gigabit upload and download. From that point, they did a lot of door knocking — a lot of walking throughout the village to assess the interest that there was. Because clearly there had to be enough interest to make it a viable project.

RB: Sorry to interrupt, can I ask you, Ms. Dunk, what did you know about laying down lines for high-speed internet before all this started?

CD: I knew absolutely nothing.

RB: You have a nickname now, what's that?

CD: Oh gosh, I have a nickname! Yes, I've been affectionately nicknamed “the splice queen”.

RB: And what does that refer to?

CD: That refers to the fact that I just happened to excel the fusion and splicing training. I'm available, I'm retired, and therefore, I have taken quite willingly on board all of the spliced connections — spliced fibre joints that are in this network. And given that there is one in the router for every house where it's installed, one in a splice bullet for the chamber at which those fibres come back to before coming back to the hub, and one in the hub, which connects the patch lead into the router. So that's three per household, and we're looking at 175 properties at the moment to be connected. So I'll leave you to do the calculations.

RB: You were mentioning that you are retired. Do you feel like this has given you a new purpose?

CD: Well, I love anything practical. I'm very hands-on on practical things. I love this sort of thing. The only thing I can say is my golf is suffering because I'm now not playing three times a week.

RB: I understand that your husband has lived in the community for a long time, and he has also seen a benefit in this community project. Tell us about that?

CD: He has. Although he's had his house for 41 years, he has in all fairness worked abroad for a lot of that time, but retired back to the house in 2007. And up until just what nine months ago, we only knew the very few people that were immediately around us. But having got involved in this project, we have got to know… well, he will get to know everybody in the village because he’s installing the routers in everybody's houses. And he said it's just so amazing. It's just it is wonderful to see the community come together. There is really quite an excitement when you go into somebody's house to you know to install the router or to connect it up to the Internet.

RB: What is the first thing you are going to do on the internet when you get connected?

CD: Do a speed test check.

RB: But do you have a favorite show you're going to watch or anything like that?

CD: Well, funnily enough, we have difficulties downloading anything off the internet. But I mean you know one of our favourites is homeland, NCIS, we watch lots of Amazon Prime stuff. So it'll be nice to be able to watch it without having to buffer.

RB: It sounds like an extraordinary project. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us today.

CD: You're very welcome.

RB: Bye bye.

CD: Thank you for your time.

JD: Carina Dunk helped organize the efforts to create faster broadband services in her village. We reached Ms. Dunk in Michaelston y Fedw, Whales, which would lie at the end of a one-hundred-forty-seven-point-one kilometre long Internet cable trench hand-dug westward out of Redding.

Vegetable planter theft

JD: Dude! Where's my kale. Green-thumbed auto while resident Katie Brown recently woke up to find she'd lost touch with her roots. By which I mean a planter was missing from her porch. Now, Ms. Brown is warning her neighbours, and taking precautions to secure her precious produce.

SOUNDCLIP

KATE BROWN: And it's not something that you can carry down the sidewalk. And at least a-metre-and-a-half tall with the tomato plant, so it's not even something you can put in the back seat of a car. You needed a pick-up truck or a van. My sister-in-law mentioned that just two weeks ago, somebody in The Glebe had a big planter carried out from their front porch. They went on the Internet and purchased GPS locators, and plugged them into the dirt. My husband and I were researching that. It seems a little excessive and potentially expensive for a plant, but what I did do was go out Sunday. And for a measly 20 dollars, purchased a cable and crimping mechanisms and blocks. And I’ve drilled and all my planters, and connected them all with a cable, and attached them to the porch. So if somebody tries to steal my planters again, they’re going to be in for a surprise. They're going to drag all of them across the porch, probably make a huge gigantic mess, and hopefully a ruckus, so that. I can come outside and catch them in the act. And if I ever did catch somebody, I’m happy to teach you how to grow your own vegetables.

JD: A sadder but wiser Katie Brown, the victim of a vegetable planter theft. She was describing her new veggie security system to CBC Ottawa, and offering the thieves a rehabilitation program.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 28th, 2018 transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode