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 October 19, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

MY: Tonight:

CO: Metal fatigue. Ontario steel billionaire Barry Zekeleman is tired of the Trump Administration's tariffs. And thinks they'd be gone if Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister wasn't so out of her league.

JD: Abandoning home, but not hope. With millions at risk of starvation in Yemen, a doctor describes the desperate plight of the families who've traveled through a brutal civil war, just so their children might survive.

CO: Speaking ill of the allegedly dead. Conservative media outlets are publicly sharing dark innuendo about Jamal Khashoggi. And a friend says it's a deliberate smear campaign.

JD: Lie of the beholder. A writer discovers a friend has been charged with voyeurism, and sets out to investigate how, and why, someone might secretly gather images of the people who trust them most.

CO: Web feat. It's been almost 20 years since the E. Coli crisis in Walkerton, Ontario, so the town has set out to make sure you see something other than "E. Coli crisis" when you search for "Walkerton" online.

JD: And...dung twister. A Maine artist works in an unusual medium, to critique the moral failures of Western capitalism — just kidding: she makes art out of moose poop because she thinks it's hilarious.

JD: "As It Happens", the Friday edition. Radio that worked hard to fit this story in the show — because we couldn't cut the moose turds.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Steel C.E.O, Khashoggi smears, moose poo crafts

Steel C.E.O

Guest: Barry Zekelman

JD: Barry Zekelman has some advice for Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Zekelman is the Windsor-based billionaire behind Zekelman Industries, which has plants in both the U.S. and Canada. This week, he testified before the House of Commons' committee on international trade. The questions were about the tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump continues to levy on Canada, despite the new deal on North American trade. Mr. Zekelman suggested that Chrystia Freeland had allowed ego to get in the way — and, quote, "blown this big time". We reached Barry Zekelman in Windsor.

CO: Mr. Zekelman, you told the committee that Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister was, quote, “way out of her league in negotiating with Robert Lighthizer,” the American negotiator. What did you mean by that?

BARRY ZEKELMAN: Well first, Carol, let me make something perfectly clear — because there's some misconception. I'm a Canadian. I was born and raised in Canada, and I still live in Canada, and I started my business here. So I'm not an American CEO coming over to Canada and trying to you know force my voice over here.

CO: But back to the issue at hand, which is the steel tariffs. That's what you were referring to, right?

BZ: Well, I'm referring to that and the negotiations surrounding that. And the negotiations surrounding the new USMCA deal. I believe that this deal — I know for a fact — this deal could have been done a long time ago. I know it could have been done with Canada having a bigger and better voice at the table. I was concerned from the beginning that Mexico would go behind Canada's back and negotiate a deal. And, of course, they did do that. And then Canada was forced at the 11th hour to move in and agree to terms that quite frankly that Mexico negotiated.

CO: Who is this bigger and better voice that you feel should have been at the table?

BZ: Well, I think there should have been a negotiator at the table who has had you know years of experience in trade law and in negotiations. Not someone who came into the job without that experience. That's plain and simple. It only makes sense that you'd put someone in with the most experience to do that job. Robert Lighthizer is well-versed at that job. He's been in trade law for 30-plus years. And we need someone on the other side of the table who's equally competent.

CO: But you have to admit that these negotiations were unorthodox, to say the least. Whatever Mr. Lighthizer was doing, we had Mr. Trump making statements in the background, telling press conferences that they had no intention of giving Canada what it wants. That they're not going to like what we conclude. So this was not the negotiations of NAFTA. This was something as Bob Woodward said was the absence of a reasonable logical process.

BZ: Carol, I appreciate what you're saying. But nevertheless, it is the conditions that we're dealing with. And just because it doesn't follow the protocol of how negotiations and things have been done you know for many years in the typical political environment. I think people need to realize that we're not in the typical political environment. And therein lies the problem. So you need someone who's able to adapt and negotiate in that same style. You know Mr. Trump has nothing against Canada, all right? Canada was not a security threat in terms of steel. They are trying to protect their steel industry. As, by the way, Canada should be trying to protect its steel industry — we've seen two Canadian mills go in and out of bankruptcy for decades here, only you know because of illegally traded and dumped imports into our country. Quite frankly, we should be taking the same stance that the U.S. has against other foreign imports. So you know this deal could have been done a long time ago, and taken the uncertainty out of this equation where many of the businesses — and if you go talk to any business leader, including myself, we've had massive amounts of uncertainty. We've not been able to understand what was going on from one day to the next when this deal could have been done a long time ago.

CO: So if I understand, you're saying this uncertainty was created by Canada?

BZ: No, no, no, I didn't say that. There's no question the U.S. started these negotiations the way they are and started what's going on. But nevertheless, that's where it is. But quite frankly, somebody had to do it. And I'm not saying against Canada. I'm saying against the world. I mean there's been Asian nations that have been taking advantage of us for years. There's been Eastern European nations that have been taking advantage of us for years. And it's going to come to roost. You know Canada's lost jobs. The U.S. has lost jobs. We're running deficits. It's not the way both these countries can survive. And it's about time that someone started the ball rolling. And it just so happened to be U.S. president Donald Trump.

CO: But he started it against Canada, Mr. Zekelman. This is what I don’t understand. Yes, OK, stand up to Asia, stand up to dumpings, stand up to what you're saying. But when he decided to do that, he stood up against Canada, and he said that steel was a security issue.

BZ: Part of the problem was an outdated NAFTA agreement that had to be renegotiated to take Mexico into account and Canada. Quite frankly, if you look at the new deal that's got negotiated, look at the content rules. It's going to create hundreds and thousands of Canadian jobs because of the content rules. It's a good deal for Canada. It took way too long is the point. This deal was on the table many moons ago and could have been done and taken the uncertainty out. That's the issue. I'm not saying Canada is the enemy. There were things that needed to be renegotiated, and it could have gotten done a long time ago.

CO: Mr. Lighthizer said at one point he issued this statement he said that Chrystia Freeland was a good friend who is doing an amazing job. So what have you heard from Mr. Lighthizer that contradicts that?

BZ: I haven't heard anything other than that. You know, so I'm sure that they are good friends.

CO: But he said she's doing an amazing job. He issued that statement.

BZ: And he did. And I'm speaking for myself, all right? I'm not speaking for Bob Lighthizer.

CO: But based on what?

BZ: I’m speaking for myself, and I don't think she's doing a good job.

CO: OK, but he thought she was. So what's your evidence that she's not doing a good job?

BZ: Because it took too long. And guess what? I'm not political, all right? I'm going to call it like I see it. I'm not trying to get elected, all right? I'm not trying to stay in office. I'm going to tell you, you may not like what I have to say, but I'm never going to lie. I'm going to tell you the truth. And that's the truth. I think this took way too long.

CO: You went further than this. You've suggested that Chrystia Freeland’s ego prevented her from cutting a deal.

BZ: Yeah, probably.

CO: But what do you mean by that?

BZ: I think her ego got the best of her. I'm going to stand up to the Americans, whether it was her or the ones above her ordering her to do that. I'm not going to be pushed around by the Americans. I'm not going to be bullied by the Americans. Listen, it's not a question of being bullied or not bullied or whatever. This is the state we're in — let's fix it. And it could have been fixed a long time ago.

CO: You have had contacts… you've met Donald Trump, you know Mr. Lighthizer, what were they telling you during all these months? That this could have been done many moons ago?

BZ: Yeah, absolutely.

CO: How? Mr. Scheer says he could’ve got a better deal too.

BZ: Because I'll tell you why. Exactly where we got to on this deal was on the table a long time ago. And in the meantime, three-four months down the road, here we've had to pay all these duties on steel. We can't ship our steel into the U.S. They can't ship their steel here. Consumers were getting hammered. People can't make investment decisions. And here we are, when really, this deal could have been done a long time ago.

CO: How long before the steel tariffs are lifted do you think?

BZ: I think there could be a deal done Monday. I think there could be a deal done over the weekend. It's a simple deal, but they just got to do it.

CO: All right, we’ll have to leave it there. Mr. Zekelman, thank you.

BZ: No problem. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

JD: Barry Zekelman is the Chairman and CEO of Zekelman Industries. We reached him in Windsor, Ontario. In a statement, Minister Chrystia Freeland's office said, quote, "As Minister Freeland has said, the unjust and illegal tariffs that the U.S. has imposed under Section 232 are separate and apart from the USMCA negotiations. We have taken strong responsive measures to defend our workers and our industry, including measured, dollar-for-dollar tariffs. The best outcome for both countries would be for the US to rescind their tariffs." Unquote. The tariffs have also hit Montreal where it really hurts: right in the black cherry soda. Schwartz's, the very, very, very famous smoked-meat deli, has run out of the drink that's often paired with its sandwiches. The restaurant's supplier says it's short on cans — because of the tariffs. Here's general manager Frank Silva, speaking about the situation with Mike Finnerty, host of CBC Montreal's "Daybreak".

SOUNDCLIP

FRANK SILVA: We have been for probably two weeks now.

MIKE FINNERTY: Right, and you don't have a secret stash somewhere?

FS: We carried this for two weeks, but we're out now. And it looks like it's going to be another two weeks before we get any in.

MF: Why?

FS: Well, I spoke to my supplier, Cott, and they're out of cans. It seems with the tariff from our neighbours Mr. Trump, they're having trouble getting some in. But, obviously, the price is going to be up. And so, hopefully, by the end of the month, we’ll have some black cherry in.

MF: When Donald Trump won the U.S. election, did you think he would put an end to supply?

FS: No, I didn't think that. I thought other things. But obviously nothing good has come out of it. I mean for myself, being here 37 years, this has never happened before. So no, you're not serious. You don't have black cherry? I say no, and then we explain, and all right, you know? Hopefully, you get it soon. And a few of them quite upset.

MF: What's the right, or the best I guess alternative?

FS: Basically, they’ll have a bottle water or a Coke. But that's not what they were looking forward to. But some won’t have anything at all. They'll just have the sandwich. But ‘it’s unfortunate.

JD: Frank Silva is the general manager of Schwartz's Deli. He was speaking with the host of CBC Montreal's "Daybreak", Mike Finnerty.

[Music: Ambient]

Khashoggi smears

Guest: Hussein Ibish

JD: It has been more than two weeks since Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance and apparent murder, and the story is still dominating US cable news. Now, however, some conservative media outlets are focusing on the dissident Saudi journalist himself — in order to discredit him. Fox News, right-wing radio hosts, and even some Republicans, have been painting Mr. Khashoggi as a terrorist conspirator. Meanwhile, there has been enormous pressure on the White House to examine its relationship with Riyadh. Hussein Ibish has known Jamal Khashoggi for more than 15 years. He's also a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, D.C. And that's where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Ibish, what did you think when he started to see these attacks emerge in the U.S. media this week against your friend Jamal Khashoggi?

HUSSEIN IBISH: Well, I wasn't surprised. I mean I'd heard similar charges begin to circulate second-hand. People telling me they'd heard them already on the grapevine. And I thought good grief. I mean why are people bringing this up now? I had a lot of things I agreed with him about. There were a lot of things we disagreed about. But it seems to me his opinions are utterly beside the point, and irrelevant to the fact that he was a journalist who was murdered.

CO: What are some of the things that you have heard that you that you found quite alarming that U.S. media commentators have been saying this week?

HI: Well, one of the things that's come up is the idea that he was an extremist — an Islamist. And at some point, people even say sympathetic to al-Qaida. And I think that was really a terrible exaggeration. He had some sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood. There's no question about that. That was something I disagreed with him about quite a lot. But the idea that he was an extremist, or that he was not a journalist but an activist, or even more than an activist, a conspiratorial person — a conspirator. It was all I think disturbing because I think a lot of it is quite inaccurate and very exaggerated.

CO: I just want to go back just briefly to the Muslim Brotherhood charge. Because there's varying degrees of radicalism within that organization.

HI: That’s right.

CO: Where was he on the spectrum?

HI: He was some version of a fellow traveler. In other words, he saw them as a legitimate part of the Arab political scene. And I think he was sympathetic to Muslim Brotherhood parties in the sense that I would think he was basically one of these people — and there are lots of them — who's basically a liberal, but who sees the Brotherhood as a core part of Arab democracy. It’s not my point of view, but it's not illegitimate, eccentric or extreme point of view. It's a legitimate perspective.

CO: One of the things that started to float around, and was re-tweeted by none other than Donald Trump Junior, was a photo of Mr. Khashoggi with Osama bin Laden tooling around Afghanistan. And the suggestion that he was somehow an al-Qaida sympathizer. What's the story behind that?

HI: Well, that is a really great example of how disgusting this has become. Because at no point in his life was Jamal an al-Qaida sympathizer, or a believer in violence or terrorism. He did begin his career, as many young journalists both Arabs and Americans at the time did, covering the war in Afghanistan. And as a young Saudi journalist, he was able to get in with this new breed of people who at the time we called Arab-Afghans, or you know sort Arab part of the Mujahedeen. And that eventually, some of them morphed into becoming al-Qaida. The fact that he was covering that hardly makes him a sympathizer. The great irony, of course, is that these people got going and they were in Afghanistan and doing what they were doing because the United States was encouraging them to do it. Any arms that they had came from the United States, and were essentially involved in an American covert war.

CO: So what's behind this? You raise the question why several times. Because there are people who know the background to this that just discredits it. So why are they doing it?

HI: I think that the whole point here, and it's really disgusting, is to try to mitigate the sense of outrage about what's happened to Jamal. And to kind of say in a very roundabout way that this isn't all that bad because he was either not a journalist but an activist or even a conspirator, and he was not a liberal, he was an Islamist or even an extremist and a terrorist. You know those are the kind of progressions of absurdity that you get. And anywhere you go in this direction I think is intended to make people feel less alarmed, less horrified, less angry and to recast this as less of an outrage. You know this is not the time and moment to have a debate about Jamal Khashoggi’s complex political opinions. And that would have been before he was killed or a long time after the case is resolved. Right now, the only thing that can be gained by this frankly is to try to imply that it's not that big a deal. And I find that horrible.

CO: I wonder who the target is because, at the same time, we have seen Donald Trump say that journalists are the enemy of the people. He praised a politician for having assaulted a journalist. So obviously there's no love lost there. So who was the intended target for this?

HI: I think the intended audience is people on the right of the American spectrum, or others who are primed to think very badly about the Muslim Brotherhood — maybe supporters of Israel, people on the Christian right, intense secularists, which you can put me in that last camp. But still, the point is that I think that there is an idea that Jamal Khashoggi is being misrepresented and being cast as a better person than he was, which is ridiculous. But I think that's the idea. And that people who really learned what he actually thought will think again about how bad this was. That is really infuriating. And they're not all lies. Like any good conspiratorial urban legend, there's a grain of truth in parts of it. But I think the only thing that can be gained right now by getting into it is to make people care less about the fact that he's gone missing and probably dead.

CO: Does this indicate though that how much they are worried about this story and about the impact? There's a lot of people worried about how big an impact this murder’s had.

HI: I would imagine that they don't want the United States to overreact. And certainly, there are pro-Israel voices who do not want the United States to become too estranged from Saudi Arabia. And want to keep the heat on Iran. And want to make sure that this doesn't mess that up. And I actually think that's a very important project. But I think that these are two different matters. You know nothing should justify people's sense of outrage about this heinous atrocity.

CO: We will leave it there. We will be following this story. Mr. Ibish, thank you.

HI: You are very welcome.

JD: Hussein Ibish has known Jamal Khashoggi for more than 15 years. He works at the Arab Gulf States Institute as a senior resident scholar. We reached Mr. Ibish in Washington, D.C.

[Music: Ambient]

Moose poo crafts

Guest: Mary Winchenbach

JD: In Somerville, Maine, there's a small family business that sells earrings, cuckoo clocks, and Christmas decorations. It's run by Mary Winchenbach. And lately, she and the business, which is called Tirdy Works, have been getting a lot of attention. So much attention that she was able to quit her day job and dedicate her time to her passion: making crafts out of moose poo. We reached Ms. Winchenback in Somerville. And due to the subject matter, listeners may find some of the language offensive.

CO: Mary, what are you doing with your moose poo today?

MARY WINCHENBACK: Well today, I'm assembling my turds because tonight, at 7:00 o'clock, I’ve got a stand-up comedy act. We've got wicked orders for the poo poo clocks, and so we've got people all over the place assembling turds for us, you know, and helping getting them ready. I'm talking to over 400 clocks.

CO: All right, so a lot of things I want to unpack here. What are poo poo clocks?

MW: Well, the poo poo clock, instead of a coo coo, it's a poo poo clock. And we put the turds in between the numbers. So it reads one-turdy, two-turdy, three-turdy. And we're working on incorporating a machine, so when it strikes that it goes [sound: a fart noise].

CO: All right, and that's a hot item right now? They’re just flying off the shelves?

MW: Absolutely, yeah.

CO: OK. What else have you got there?

MW: Well, we've got fecal people. And depending upon the shape of the middle turds right there, we can do them with big boobs, and guts, and butts, and long legs and short legs — because no two turds are alike. Yeah, we got that. And then another big item we have is the dingleberries. See we got dingleberries with bells, and we got them with balls. We got green balls, red balls and we got the blue balls. And those are good for putting on the Christmas tree because you can never have enough crap hanging off the tree. Or you put it on the rear-view mirror of vehicle, so you take a corner and you got that turd just a slinging all around the place. Not only is it a conversation piece, but I once got out of a fifty-dollar parking ticket with a five-dollar turd. I actually gave the cops some shit, and he let me go. And that's a true story.

CO: What did you give the cop?

MW: I give him a turd — a dingleberry with a blue ball. The cops love them blue balls.

CO: Okay, now where did you get the idea to turn poo into gold?

MW: Oh, I saw the turds one day you know walking in the woods. Of course, I've always seen them, but I get to thinking one day wouldn’t that be funny to add a set of eyeballs on it, you know? And you could call it like a little shithead thing. So we did that, and then the product line has just been expanding and expanding, and developing new products and stuff. And we'll sit around at night and drink a beer or something and start coming up with some stupid names for turds. And it's just funny, so we just keep going with it, you know?

CO: I understand you got your latest is forest dump?

MW: Yes, forest dump. And we're going to put a turd there with a shrimp — you know and a couple little fake trees.

CO: All right. And speaking of forests, this is where you collect your materials in the woods, right?

MW: Correct. We get them probably within a mile and a half two miles from the house. Usually, we'll get 100 to 150 pounds of turds every time we go out into the woods.

CO: How many moose do you have around your place?

MW: Well, I think there's about 12.

CO: And they're just producing like crazy for you.

MW: Well, they take a dump two or three times a day. And every time they take a crap, they’ll scrap out probably 300 to 400 turns every time. And you know we sell the turds for five dollars and up. So I guess like ching, ching. I get to jumping right up and down every time I find a pile of crap in the woods.

CO: Every time these geese these moose are out there, you're just looking at dollar signs?

MW: Absolutely. It's like we see the turds coming out of the butt, and it’s it's like five, 10, 15, 20, 25. Yeah.

CO: OK. Now, I need to scoop on moose poop here. I mean because I've seen moose poop in the woods, and it's like ploppy, soft, cow patty stuff, right? You’re not working with that are you?

MW: No, my turds look like little oval balls. We have dehydrators here at the house. So once we get that turd, we dry them all up wicked good. And then we put two different kinds of coatings on them because some people like a natural-looking turd, and some people like it when their turds glisten.

CO: And people put them on for jewelry? You said they're wearing them?

MW: Correct. Yeah, we have earrings. And we even we just get a request for some fecal people for a wedding cake topper. So we made them anatomically correct, you know? And we made the boy we used a deer turd for his dingdong, you know? And for the women's breasts and stuff like that, but we’re going to put a skirt on her and the boy will have a bow tie. And it’s going to hang over the wedding cake.

CO: Oh my gosh, this is too much! And you get these ideas just having a beer at night — you and your partner?

MW: Absolutely.

CO: Now you thought you would maybe get a few sales, but you've turned this in to a couple of full-time jobs now, right?

MW: Yeah, I mean it was just one craft fair that we did. I haven't done it for nine years because we adopted three kids and we've been busy with them. So we just did this one craft fair, and a couple people videotaped it and put it online or on YouTube or whatever. And it’s just gone nuts.

CO: How many orders are you getting?

MW: We have well over a thousand orders right now. I've been shipping out probably at least 200 packages every day, every other day. And we are still way behind. I mean right now I owe people that have ordered over 400 of the poo poo clocks. And so I have a woman right now that will have those completed hopefully by the end of this weekend, so we can ship those turds out on Monday.

CO: So instead of Santa’s Workshop, you have Santa’s Turdshop?

MW: Exactly, that's a good one.

CO: Now It’s yours. I'll give that one to you. But you're not going to run out of supply, right? Those moose are going to keep producing for you?

MW: Exactly. And another thing too is one day we went to the Gray Wild Animal Park here in Maine. The moose are in captivity, and course, are nervous. And all the turds come out looking like them chocolate kisses, so we call them pieces of feces. Instead of a popsicle, we get a popsicle, otherwise known as a high-fiber fudgesicle — that’s like crap. Oh, one of our newest products is we get these little wooden stools, and we put a turd on it so it’s a stool sample. Wouldn't that be good to take that to the doctor, right?

CO: Oh my gosh! Listen, so if people come up to you and they say cut the crap. What do you say?

MW: I don't know what to say?

CO: You should say never. You're never going to cut the crap. The crap is working for you.

MW: Everyone can relate to a turd because everybody does it, you know? And has had experiences you know with dingleberries or whatever. And so yeah, everyone can relate to it.

CO: Well Mary, congratulations with your business. And I’ll let you get back to your shop. Thanks for talking to us.

MW: Thank you. If you need anything, remember I ship shit everywhere. And my motto is everyone should give a shit for Christmas. Sorry.

CO: That’s okay. I love it. Take care, Marry. Bye.

MY: Okay. Bye bye.

JD: We reached Mary Winchenbach in Somerville, Maine. You can see some photographs of Ms. Winchenbach's creations on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Sound: A moose call]

[Music: Ambient]

Part two: Yemen doctor, Walkerton ‘Search Engine Optimization’

Yemen doctor

Guest: Sherin Varkey

JD: It seems hard to imagine. But Yemen's civil war is threatening to get even worse. The UN is now warning that 14 million people could soon be plunged into famine — this in a country where the infrastructure of simple survival has been destroyed by years of war — and when hunger strikes, the most vulnerable are always the youngest. Dr. Sherin Varkey is the Deputy Representative of UNICEF, the United Nations childrens' agency, in Yemen. We reached him in Sanaa.

CO: Dr. Varkey, we are seeing the staggering statistics about what the war in Yemen is doing to the population. What are you seeing on the ground though?

SHERIN VARKEY: The conflict in Yemen has now lasted for more than three years, and it has made Yemen a living hell for its population, but especially for its children. There are a staggering 11 million children — or about 80 per cent of the country's entire under 18 population — who are in need of acute humanitarian assistance.

CO: We’re seeing the pictures in the hospitals of such emaciated children, and those are the children who can actually get to a hospital. When you go out and about, what do you see? What are they faced with?

SV: Children in Yemen today are at a grave risk of severe and acute malnutrition, as well as illness. There are an estimated one-point-eight million children who are acutely malnourished, including nearly 400,000 who are severely and acutely malnourished children. And these are children who are fighting for their lives. More than half of the health facilities have closed down, and are no longer functional. So this really limits the access to healthcare for children. Also, in 2017, Yemen experienced one of the largest outbreaks of cholera with over one-point-one-million suspected cases. And this is a result of the collapsing health systems, as well as water and sanitation systems. A large proportion of the public sector workers, whether it is health workers or sanitation workers, have not received salaries since the last two years. Public sector workers like teachers have also not received salaries. And this is putting at risk the education of almost two-point-seven million children. So really, there is an urgent need to resolve all these issues so that children in Yemen can have a better life.

CO: When you say resolve all these issues, I know you don't want to go into the politics of this. But the crisis that you're facing in Yemen, which they're now saying could be the worst famine in a hundred years. This is not caused by drought or a natural disaster, is it? This is entirely the product of a war. So what do you think has to happen to stop this catastrophe?

SV: Indeed, the crisis in Yemen is largely manmade. And what we're appealing for is an immediate political solution to end the war in Yemen. It is important that parties to the conflict work to reach a negotiated political solution. And while doing this, it is important that they prioritize and uphold the rights of children. The longer this war continues, the more children are going to die on the world’s watch. We also call upon all parties to the conflict to put an absolute end to all grave violations against children. This means that they must immediately stop attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and water systems, which are so essential for the Yemeni population, as well as Yemeni children. Nothing really justifies killing innocent children and depriving them of their basic rights.

CO: There's a couple of things that people are saying that immediately have to happen, which number one has to be that the airstrikes by the Coalition have to end. There can't be any more airstrikes. Would you agree with that?

SV: We would like to really call on all parties to the conflict to make sure there is a situation where children can be safe at home or at school or in public places.

CO: You know we've been covering this story for more than three years — almost four years now. And each time we revisit the people like yourself, it's worse. And the world knows — the international conferences know that. The word is out. The pictures of these children are freely available. So what does it take to actually get the political will, the international political will to end this war? What would it take?

SV: Very right. I have spent more than two years in Yemen, and I've only seen the situation get worse with every passing day. And it is sad that there is so much suffering happening. And the world is turning a blind eye. The parties to the conflict must work to reach an immediate political solution. And all those who have influence on the parties to the conflict must do their best to make sure that the suffering of children in Yemen will stop soon.

CO: Why do you think the world doesn't move to end what is now the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world?

SV: It is really high-time that the global community pays attention to this crisis. It is important to also understand that the impacts of this crisis will go long into the future, as this will affect future generations. What is happening to children in Yemen today, as many of them lose their lives, as many of them are deprived of their basic rights. So it is high-time that the world notices this crisis and pays attention. And it shows that parties to the conflict reach a negotiated political solution.

CO: Dr. Varkey, I know you have lots of work there as a doctor, so I'm going to leave it. And I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

SV: Thank you so much.

CO: Bye.

SV: Bye bye.

JD: Dr. Sherin Varkey is the Deputy Representative of UNICEF in Yemen. We reached him in Sanaa.

[Music: Horns]

Veep campaign video

JD: In 2016, New Hampshire congressional candidate Jonah Ryan released the following campaign ad — in which he's wearing an outdoorsy get-up in a rustic setting, and swinging an axe.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: President Selina Meyer thinks she chop our prosperity, our dignity and our stature around the world. Well, someone is chopping back.

JONAH RYAN: I’m Jonah Ryan.

SPEAKER: Vote for Jonah Ryan. He’ll chop President Meyer down to size.

JR: My name is Jonah Ryan, and I approve this message.

JD: It's a powerful visual metaphor. Even if it seems like he's just chopping the same log over and over again — and even if one late edit shows Mr. Ryan missing the log entirely. It's so powerful, in fact, that now a different candidate has just made a strikingly similar ad. Here's Joe Donnelly, Democratic Senator for Indiana, explaining why his Republican opponent, Mike Braun, is bad — while wearing an outdoorsy get-up in a rustic setting, and swinging an axe.

SOUNDCLIP

JOE DONNELLY: For the most part, I'm an easygoing guy. But not when Mike Braun keeps lying about my record. I split with my own party to support funding for Trump’s border wall. The liberal left wants to chop defence spending — no way. I'm not into a fair fight. I'm about giving our troops the edge. I voted to extend the Bush tax cuts. And Mike Braun? He ships jobs to China. We've got to cut that out. I'm Joe Donnelly; I approve this message.

JD: So: two very similar political ads. The thing is, one of them isn't real: the first one. The one made two years ago, to promote the campaign of Jonah Ryan — a character on "Veep", the HBO sitcom that brutally and swearily satirizes the venality and vapidity of American politics. Jonah Ryan isn't real. He's a "Veep" character who's pretty much universally despised: he's been referred to as an "unstable piece of human scaffolding", a "useless waste of carbon", a "shaved Sasquatch", and a "sentient enema", among literally hundreds of other insults, none of which I can say on the radio. So put aside the fact that Senator Donnelly openly claims he's, quote, "not into a fair fight". And that all his axe jokes are really not as cutting as he seems to think. Because the fact is, by mimicking a parody, deliberately or otherwise, he risks becoming one. So in trying to establish he's a man of character, he's established instead that he's a man of caricature.

[Music: Electronica]

Abe Snidanko

JD: If he was still alive, Abe Snidanko probably wouldn't have approved of this week's marijuana legalization, or the skunky smell now permeating every street corner. Mr. Snidanko was a legendary Vancouver cop who made it his mission to banish cannabis from the city in the 1960s, and bust anyone caught with the stuff. Tommy Chong, a Vancouver native, certainly knew Officer Snidanko. He even based a character on him, when he was part of Cheech & Chong. And in August 2017, when Mr. Snidanko passed away, guest host Rosemary Barton spoke with Mr. Chong about that. Now that weed is legal, we thought we'd revisit that chat. Here's Tommy Chong, describing the guy he called a, qoute, "hippie nemesis."

SOUNDCLIP

TOMMY CHONG: Abe was one of those guys, back in the day, that thought marijuana was the evilest drug on the planet. And he was bowed to stamp it out any way he could.

ROSEMARY BARTON: Take us back to the 60s in Vancouver, when hippy culture was strong, when marijuana was on the scene, what was it like then?

TC: At one time, everybody was short hair and shaved and just the weirdoes had long hair. But overnight, marijuana and LSD got introduced. Everything changed, except the cops and the cops were still back in the 50s. And so Abe was the suit and tie, you know? The short hair and the narc, he was an arc. He made a point of busting hippies.

RB: He never got you though?

TC: He came close, but never got me. Well, before Cheech and I.

RB: Yes.

TC: I had two clubs going: we had the Elegant Parlor and we had the Shanghai Junk. Well, when we were putting the club together, a couple came up and they were dressed kind of like hippies. And they wanted to know if I needed some help. Well, apparently, they were undercover cops from right out of the Regina school of the narcs. And the way I caught them was that I asked them was I asked have you ever done LSD? And they said yeah. I said well, tell me about your first trip and I think it was the guy who said oh, I don't remember. You will remember your first acid trip. I did a little dance saying they’re narcs, they’re narcs! Snidanko was part of that whole set up, you know? He was always trying to bust us.

RB: He has now died and he has died just really about a year before the Canadian government plans to make marijuana legal in this country. What do you think he would have made of that?

TC: I imagine he would have said you know whatever. my entire life and Abe’s entire life, pot has always been illegal. I was on the one side, he was on the other side. And I really respected him because he was true to his craft. Abe was the narc of the narcs.

JD: Tommy Chong, Vancouver native of Cheech & Chong fame, speaking with guest host Rosemary Barton in August of 2017.

[Music: Percussive]

Walkerton ‘Search Engine Optimization’

Guest: Dave Inglis

JD: The internet it does not forget. And if what you're known for is bad, that bad thing will pop up when you're Googled. That's a problem for the town of Walkerton, Ontario, where seven people died from an E. Coli outbreak in 2000. Because the first thing that comes up when you search "Walkerton" is a Wikipedia article called "Walkerton E. Coli Outbreak". Now, town officials are looking to change their search results using "Search Engine Optimization." Dave Inglis is the mayor of Brockton, that is the municipality that encompasses Walkerton. That's where we reached him.

CO: Mayor Inglis, what comes up when you Google Walkerton, Ontario?

DAVE INGLIS: Well, right now, the Walkerton E. Coli water crisis comes up. So that's why we're doing this search engine optimization.

CO: We'll get to that in a moment, but we just did a search ourselves on Google, and Walkerton, Ontario. The first thing that came up is… well, it's a Wikipedia page about Walkerton. It's just information. The next one is a Wikipedia page about Walkerton E. coli outbreak, as you point out. The next page was exploring Bruce County and through Walkerton. The next one was TripAdvisor Best of Walkerton list. And then the next was “Inside Walkerton, Canada's Worst Ever E. Coli Contamination”, which was a CBC News story. So is that what you're talking about? Is that reflective of what people are reading about?

DI: Yes it is. But the last one that I Googled, which wasn't too long ago, the E. Coli crisis was right at the top. It's usually one, two, or three.

CO: What effect do you think these search results have on Walkerton?

DI: Well, we think if that's the prominent item that comes up on the search, it's going to discourage economic development at some point. And we've had some cases already where a business or a family have decided that they didn't know anything about Brockton, they didn't know anything about Walkerton, except they knew about the water crisis. And that's the first thing that came up. And it did discourage. I know one business. I don't know but any others, but it did discourage one business.

CO: Well, it was Canada's worst ever E.coli contamination, wasn't it?

DI: It was. It was. But we are past that, and I think our community is past that. We don't want to forget it, you know? It's something that we don't want to bury. It'll never go away that that aspect of what happened. And we recognize that. And we have done things on those anniversaries that do come up to commemorate and recognize that tragedy as something that no community wants to go through. But we're at the point where we need to move forward. And I think everyone would say that. Every community wants to move forward. And we think one of the ways for us to do that is to optimize the search engine to bring up the positive aspects of Walkerton in particular.

CO: And so you have applied for a grant to Ontario's Rural Economic Development Program, and what you're looking for is a search engine optimization project. It will cost you about 70,000 dollars. What will that do? What does a search engine optimization project do for you?

DI: Well, it brings those positive things to the top. And the item that's there now is not so prominent.

CO: But isn't that kind of jimmying the system here? I mean what is supposed to happen when you go to a search engine is the most important or the most relevant results are supposed to come up. First is not supposed to be what people want to be first. It's supposed to be what is the most significant thing about the subject that you're Googling.

DI: Well, I wouldn't I wouldn't say we're trying to jig the system or anything. We're just trying to be a positive community. I mean really this is 18 years ago that this happened. So we want to bring out the positive side of our community. And I would think that nearly 100 per cent of our community would be behind that, so why wouldn't we try it?

CO: Seven people died, hundreds became ill. And, as you know, it did had serious ramifications for Mike Harris's government — probably helped to defeat him. At the same time, the public inquiry and an inquest found that the cuts to inspection services, the privatization of water inspections had created a terrible situation where water quality was not being regulated, which is what led to your problem. That you were a victim of those changes to the monitoring of water quality, and those people died in suffered from them. Isn't that a cautionary tale, Mayor? Isn’t that something that we need the world to always remember, even if it has to associate with Walkerton? So those people who died their death will stand as a warning to others who would do the same?

DI: We certainly recognize that, and we're not going to forget that. But we also can promote that Walkerton is a centre of water excellence, and it has been since the water centre went in. So we're doing great things in providing Canada with the expertise of well-trained water operators — some of the best in the world are coming from the facility in Walkerton. We're not losing the water image one where the other. We're focusing on the positive side of it, and still recognising the tragedy. This is the aspect that we want to promote that Walkerton is a water centre. It's an environmental centre were where we promote the environment. So we're responsible. And this is one way we can we can do both. We can remember the past, but look forward to the future in the things that we are doing.

CO: All right. Mayor Inglis, we’ll leave it there. Thank you.

DI: Thank you very much.

JD: Dave Inglis is the mayor of Brockton, Ontario — the municipality that includes Walkerton.

[Music: Ambient]

Girl Guide cookies

JD: Elina Childs has a great future in sales ahead of her — because she already has a knack for tapping into lucrative demographics. Ms. Childs is a nine-year-old Girl Guide. In the past, she has sold her cookies the old-fashioned way — by knocking on her neighbours' doors. That, however, doesn't have a one-hundred per cent success rate. So this year, Elina's dad came up with a new idea to sell cookies: find customers in the line at a retail marijuana store in Edmonton on Legalization Day. Elina did very well. This morning, she and her dad, Seann Childs, spoke with the CBC about what happened. Here's how Mr. Childs responded when host Mark Connolly asked if he had explained to his daughter beforehand why people in line might have a craving for sweets.

SOUNDCLIP

SEANN CHILDS: We actually did; we useed this as a teaching moment. With marijuana being legalized in Canada, it was a good chance to teach her about what this is. It was a big deal in Canada — we’re the second country in the world to do this. And you know I think education on this is going to be key. And you know it's not a mystery in our house. We've explained what it is and what the laws are surrounding it. And so I think she has a pretty good understanding of what it is and why people were there. And she knows that she has to be 18 years old before she can try it.

MARK CONNOLLY: Yeah. So there's no Cannabis badge in Girl Guides I don’t believe.

SC: No, I don’t think there is.

ELINA CHILDS: No.

MC: No, I don't think so. Because it's illegal. Good job. So were the people nice to you? I mean what was your experience like doing your sales that day?

EC: Well, some people who did not buy cookies just said that it was smart. But some people actually bought the cookies.

MC: Yeah, I mean why wouldn't they? I thought everybody should have bought the cookies, really when you think about it. So you sold out pretty much? How much money did you make?

EC: One-hundred-and-twenty dollars.

MC: Wow!

EC: But we gave it to Girl Guides.

MC: Well, of course. Yes

EC: Or Brownies

MC: Or Brownies, right, because you're a Brownie, right? Now, how did you do compared to your friends? Did you compare with your friends how much they sold?

EC: I don’t know how much they sold at all.

MC: Not at all?

EC: Not a single clue!

JD: Nine-year-old Girl Guide, or Brownie, Elina Childs and her dad, Seann Childs, in conversation with Mark Connolly the host of CBC's “Edmonton AM”.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: Queen Street voyeur

Queen Street voyeur

Guest: Katherine Laidlaw

JD: It's a common refrain: "He seemed like such a nice guy." Pete Forde was a Toronto-based tech CEO. He owns a house downtown, where he'd rent rooms to friends for cheap. He was quick to lend a listening ear. He was trusted. And then, earlier this year, he was charged with seven counts of voyeurism. A enormous trove of images of women — women he knew — was saved on his computer. Some of those images had been found on social media. But others were darker — including, allegedly, a video of a roommate in the shower. None of these allegations have proven in court. Katherine Laidlaw has written a story about the case for Toronto Life's November issue, entitled "Inside the Mind of a Voyeur." She knew Mr. Forde: he was an acquaintance in the city. And the allegations left her with an uncomfortable question: did he have photos of her? Katherine Laidlaw joined us in the "As It Happens" studio.

CO: Katherine, welcome to “As it happens”.

KATHERINE LAIDLAW: Thank you.

CO: You knew this man. You knew Pete Ford even before you got the assignment. I mean what did you think when you first heard the details about this?

KL: That's right, yeah. I knew him a little. Not well, but thought very highly of him. And when I first learned of it, it was through a Toronto Sun article that had been posted to his Facebook page. And we’d been Facebook friends for a couple of years. And I thought damn! I was really taken aback. Pete has always positioned himself as a real progressive and a feminist since he was a teen. And it just really surprised me. I think I — along with a lot of other people in his very wide social circle — was predominantly confused.

CO: Did you think this is a misunderstanding, this is all going a cleared up, something isn't quite right here? It doesn't reconcile with the man that we know.

KL: Absolutely. I saw Facebook comments that sort of said like I just can't square this at all. Like what's going on? And so I think there was a sort of sense of disbelief the way there is when anyone you like is accused of a crime. Like I thought he was brilliant. And I think a lot of people thought he was brilliant.

CO: And so this great mind, but this great heart. It seemed that he had lots of friends. He was really, really kind.

KL: Really generous. That was a theme that came up a lot in meeting some of his closer friends over the years. Like just extremely generous with his time, his social network, his knowledge, money in some instances.

CO: And his living accommodations.

KL: Yes, exactly.

CO: Which leads us to what got discovered, so who was he living with at the time when the police raided his house?

KL: So he was living with two young women, who had become his I would say close friends. I think they would characterize it that way as well. Yeah. So there were these two young women, but they were sort of the latest in a series of women who lived there. He had had male roommates as well, but not as many.

CO: But the women felt very comfortable with him?

KL: Extremely. They characterized it as sort of like a big brother relationship.

CO: At the same time as all this is going on, and what you're describing, which could have gone on forever. Except that beneath the surface, there was another man, there's another Pete Ford, doing something dark and secret, allegedly, we know this is yet to be proven in court. But what was he doing?

KL: So a number of things. There was a file folder called “Pictures”. My understanding of how it started was that he would occasionally pull photos — you know sexy photos some of his friends had uploaded to Facebook or various social media — into this pictures folder. It got to the point where the folder contained you know a number of other pictures as well not just of women. So he organized it, and then labeled some of the folders by women's names. And the folders sort of grew and grew, to the point where he I guess was using some of this camera equipment to spy on predominantly women who were his roommates. Yeah, and so he was using, from what I have learned, he was allegedly using snake cams predominantly to sort of slide under the bathroom door at his townhouse — one of the bathrooms — to spy on his roommates in the shower. And then the contents of the folders also include crotch shots, upskirt shots and nudes. I think the police are still trying to determine how the nudes were acquired, or whether the nudes were acquired.

CO: But we're talking about 150 files of women — 150 names of women on these files. How did the police get hold of them?

KL: So, in his day job, Pete was running a startup called Itsme3D. The purpose of which was to create like perfect replicas of someone from a perfect composite photo. And he had employed a number of people over the course of this project. One coder in particular was sharing a backup program — a program called “Crash Plan” that takes a backup your computer in case anything goes awry.

CO: It's on cloud, right?

KL: It's a little like an iCloud program, yeah. But I think more techie. And this coder, whose name we can't say because of the publication ban on the case, came across a folder that was taking up an unusual amount of energy. He was monitoring I guess what was going on his desktop computer. And he’d shared this program with Pete. And Pete had said that their files would be kept separate. That they wouldn't be able to access each other's files. And that turned out not to be true, and this coder clicked on a folder called pictures that seemed like it was taking up an inordinate amount of space. And saw a folder labeled with the name of his own ex-girlfriend, which he thought was strange. And he clicked on it, and there were nude pictures of her in the folder. And so he started looking at the contents of the other folders. And then eventually found shower video of one of Pete’s current roommates who he also knew.

CO: And so this coder, what he saw didn't seem like this is something that the women themselves had shared with him, or that he had. This was some intimacy he was having with the women. This seemed like surreptitious shots, or shots that he had obtained from other sources?

KL: It was clear that a large part of the content that was graphic, the women in the content didn't know that it’s happening. And I mean some of the folders contain photos that aren't graphic content, but there are still photos of these women who very obviously don't know what these photos are being taken, but they're fully clothed or in various social settings. So like one of the women I interviewed went into the police station, and was told like there are obviously photos in your folder that you don't know — I'm assuming — you don't know are being taken. But there's nothing graphic in them, so she's not a complainant.

CO: But this coder called the police?

KL: Yeah, So he went to the co-founder of the company. And I think was just really wrestling with what to do because his livelihood was wrapped up in this. Like if Pete is charged, I don't know what that means for the future of the company? I mean this is what he's thinking. So presumably, he stands to lose his job. And so he went to the co-founder, and the co-founder was unequivocal. And they made a copy of the folder — the sort of root folder — and then took it to the police station.

CO: And the police raided the house.

KL: That’s right.

CO: And he wasn't there when they raided it, but the women — his roommates — were.

KL: One of them was; the other was at the police station at the time.

CO: And they saw at the police station the one woman, whose name you can't use. The police showed her a video of her having a shower?

KL: That's right. She described it to me it was sort of an increase in severity I guess, or a violation. And I think they are trying to confirm that these photos were taken without her consent — that this footage was taken without her consent. But yeah, I think the shower video was the last one that she saw. So she and his other roommate actually they don't know the full contents of their own folders.

CO: But you did speak with one woman who found out that there were crotch shots of her when she was having coffee with him?

KL: That's right.

CO: How do they allege he got those photos?

KL: IPhone — just an iPhone.

CO: He just went underneath the table, and took pictures of her crotch?

KL: That’s right. There's a button on the side of most models of iPhones that acts as a camera shutter button, and you can operate it with no sound. And that's how. So I mean in some of these instances, the technology is not complicated. It's technology we all have access to.

CO: If you’re just joining us, I'm speaking with Katherine Laidlaw, who's written a story for Tronto life magazine's November issue. It's called “Inside the Mind of a Voyeur”. And this is what you had to try and find out is that this crime that he has been charged with is voyeurism, right?

KL: That's right, yeah.

CO: What are the implications of this crime that Pete Ford’s been accused of?

KL: Yeah, I mean it's an unusual crime in a number of ways I guess on a number of levels. And I think for a long time the criminal code didn't really know what to do with it exactly. But it was introduced in 2005 — in part to keep up with how rapidly technology was changing. I think in terms of the implications, we've historically maybe thought of this crime as a sort of boys will be boys, or maybe not so serious. I've heard it referred to as a victimless crime. You know one thing that's been interesting I've seen it in lots of movies now after doing this research. Oh, in “Sex in The City”, Samantha engages in voyeurism. And it's a comic plotline, and in “The Good Place”. I don't think we take it seriously. And I think that in speaking with the women who have been affected by this that is an egregious societal error, nd that they struggling with the effects of trauma. It's still violating. It's a betrayal. It's caused trust issues to arise, of course, and there are sort of like health and lifestyle ramifications to this the way that there would be if it was a more physical assault. I think we know how to process that a little bit better — and that this is seen as more arms-length, so maybe less severe.

CO: But the woman you spoke with, they describe how it's changed their lives. I mean they may get past it, but they live in this state of awareness now of fear. And just knowing that this had happened to them it has changed them, right?

KL: Entirely, yeah and I mean for how long, of course, I don't know. And I hope that they're seeking help and getting the support that they need. But I mean one of them there’s a camera on the wall of the gym she used to go, and she won't go now. She's scared. They're walking around feeling scared, and like they're being watched. And they were being watched. So to me, that's an entirely rational response. Imagine walking around feeling like someone was watching you all the time.

CO: It’s really creepy. Of course, this whole story is creepy.

KL: It’s really scary, yeah.

CO: But you also found out because you wanted to know how this equipment works? Where do you get this stuff? And you found out how readily available all this equipment is.

KL: It was astounding to me when I started looking into that aspect of it how not only readily available, but how many instances there are people employing this type of equipment. You can get cameras the size of a fingernail for 20 dollars — like this isn’t technology that's prohibitively expensive, or difficult to use. And then you know I think it was a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month ago, there was a story about a couple who had found that there was a surreptitious camera in the digital clock in their Airbnb. And you know my friends reading the story say well, you've ruined Airbnbs for me forever.

CO: But even as you were speaking with one woman who is feeling that these were toys — this is for fun, and no sense that this is victimizing people.

KL: No, not at all. And, in fact, my conversation with that woman at the shop was alarming because everything I said she was sort of trying to infuse it with that feeling of well people do this all the time. And like you're protecting yourself in some ways. You know, I got the sense that if someone wanted to figure out if their spouse was having an affair, then that's a place they'd go to get this camera. You know it's your right. When, in fact, that's not true. I couldn't believe actually the cavalier attitude — that was one of the scariest aspects of it.

CO: And probably one of the most fascinating parts of your story, after that the story itself and how extraordinary it is and what happened to these women, but because you knew Pete Ford, he agreed to do an interview with you after he'd been charged. He's now living at his dad's. And you went to see him. What was that like?

KL: Yeah, I was surprised to hear that he was willing to meet. And I was nervous going. I didn't know what it would be like. I hadn't seen him in a while. And he had suggested meeting at his dad's house, and sort of sitting on the back deck. And I said wherever you feel comfortable I'm comfortable with that.

CO: But you ran a tape recorder — a visible tape recorder.

KL: Oh yeah.

CO: He knew this was an interview.

KL: Unequivocally, yeah.

CO: And what did he say? How did he explain this to you?

KL: Yeah, so we talked for about four hours. I had so many questions. At this point, I'd been living with this story for months, and had really sort of reported around with the assumption that I wasn't going to get the answers to some of my questions. And so how strange and nerve-wracking to be presented with a situation where I felt I could ask him to account for what he had done. And then not only that, but I felt a certain degree of responsibility because I knew so many of the women had so many questions, and I wanted to pose some of those questions to him as well because they were really brave in sharing their stories as well. Anyway, I sort of got to the question of why? And I didn't really ask him whether or not he had done the things that he was accused of. I just asked him why he did them? And I was expecting him to say you couldn't answer that question for legal reasons. And that's not what happened. He said that he doesn't have an answer that satisfies himself yet. But some of the things that he said to me demonstrated some understanding. He reiterated over and over that he knows his actions have harmed a large number of people. That he feels terrible for his family. He has a younger sister.

CO: Does he understand there are victims of these kinds of crimes?

KL: Certainly, yes. That said, will he ever fully feel what they are feeling? No, and I think part of the reason why I included at the end of the story some of the jokes he was making there was a particular line that really stands out that I know has really affected people because I've heard from them — the one where he says I still dream about us all hugging it out. Like, to me, that indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the effects. And I felt it would be remiss to portray it as a fully remorseful conversation because while he certainly expressed remorse there was this other layer going on — this sort of meta conversation going on at the same time. Where when I would say well voyeurism is a new crime. He would say well, I've always been a trailblazer, Katherine. And maintaining composure was a bit difficult because I was thinking…

CO: Of the women.

KL: Sure, and like how can you be so I guess darkly humorous about this? Like you have one… not one shot to meet with the journalist, but I'm presenting you with an opportunity to talk to these people. And, of course, over the course of four hours, you're not necessarily going to maintain your own composure. I'm sure it was difficult for him to sit down with me, but some of the things that he said I felt demonstrated that he didn't fully understand.

CO: The most important question you asked, which is as a journalist, but also as a woman, and as a friend. You asked him if you were one of the women — if he had a folder on you?

KL: Right. So during the course of the reporting, I didn't want to know as I was gathering the information because I was afraid that it would sort of emotionally derail my ability to report the story. And at this point, I was really committed to talking about this. But I knew by the end that there was a chance that I would be included in some way. And so in the conversation, I sort of said near the end I have to ask you an uncomfortable question now. And he said they're all uncomfortable questions. And I said that's fair. Do I have a folder? And that was a hard question for him. He was visibly stricken by that, and said no. And then said I don't think so. I don't, I don't. And then I said okay, that's what I thought. And then he continued unprompted, and he said there are a number of reasons for that. And I thought he was going to say you know I really respected your ex-partner, who is a long-time friend of his. Or I really respect you. And he said opportunities mechanism. And then he said I'm not a wizard.

CO: What does that mean?

KL: Well, I took it to mean that it was an opportunity thing — like if I'd been to the house or something. But I didn't press him on it because that was enough for me. That also signaled a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on.

CO: But he didn't have a file on you because he never had a chance to take pictures of you this way. And I'm not a wizard. I can't get through doors. I’m not Superman. That's what he's saying to you?

KL: Yes. That's what happened.

CO: How do you feel about that?

KL: I felt in the moment like I had to very deftly maintain my composure, which was rapidly slipping away. And I felt appalled — like I was disgusted. It was disgusting. I went home and sort of like sat with that for a few days. And just thought wow, societally, we have a lot of work to do because you were supposed to be one of the good ones. Was how I felt.

CO: He was supposed to be one of the good ones.

KL: Sure, I mean well he’d certainly projected that he was for many years.

CO: Who can you trust?

KL: Well, right? And that was the ultimate question, right? And I think is the ultimate question that a lot of these women who have been actually affected are asking. But, of course, I'm wondering that as well.

CO: You're a journalist; you've covered many stories, but this one personal on you.

KL: More than any other piece I've ever done, yeah.

CO: Has it changed you?

KL: It has been a heavy summer, and it has made me think a lot about the ethics of journalism in a more acute way than I did before maybe — there were just ethical dilemmas at every turn. Is it ethical to write a crime story about someone you know? You know how do you contend with the ever-changing landscapes of trauma when you're interviewing people over a long period of time who are going through something that societally we don't have a roadmap for yet?

CO: And how do you cover a story when it becomes about you?

KL: And how do I make sure that my presence in it isn't more than it should be or more than it deserves, but also that I’m sort of given that space to reflect on it? Because you weirdly are now at the forefront of what this feels like, you know? Bizarre — totally bizarre experience. Yeah, for sure, it's changed me. I worked harder on this story than any other that I've ever done because I know a lot of the people who are affected, and I care very deeply. This hit so much closer to home than anything else I've ever written. Yeah.

CO: Katherine, I admire your journalism. And I know how hard this was. But I tell you, you’re article you have found the right place, the right balance and I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

KL: Thank you.

JD: Katherine Laidlaw is the author of a piece in the November issue of Toronto Life called "Inside the Mind of a Voyeur." She joined us in the "As It Happens" studio. None of the allegations surrounding Pete Ford have been proven in court. For more on this story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 19, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode