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 2016

The Current Transcript for November 11, 2016

Host: Kelly Crowe

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

GROUP 1: We say fight back.

GROUP 2: Get back.

GROUP 1: Fight back.

GROUP 2: Get back.

GROUP 1: Fight back.

GROUP 2: Get back.

GROUP 1: Fight back.

KELLY CROWE: After the shock, the pain, the anger and despair, for many Americans, the time has come to fight, to protect the gains they believe were made during the Obama years. From immigration to abortion, to the environment and Obamacare, with the clock ticking towards inauguration day—they're already organizing. That’s where we start today. Also, what happens to the environment and climate change when the soon-to-be US president doesn't believe the science?

SOUNDCLIP

It’ll get cooler, it’ll get warmer. It’s called weather. But I don’t believe that what they say—I think it’s a big scam for a lot of people to make a lot of money.

KC: How to combat climate change and manage the economy when the world's second biggest emitter, and Canada's next door neighbour, seems bent on walking away from the Paris Accord, and ramping up the fossil fuel industry. And on to a very different election, one half a world away—Saudi Arabia, 2015 and the first time women like Loujain were allowed to run for office.

SOUNDCLIP

I see it as a great opportunity to give women a chance to stand next to men for once. You can’t believe how hard it can be sometimes in this country.

KC: In half an hour, I'll speak with the director of a new documentary about three remarkable women running for office in Saudi Arabia. I'm Kelly Crowe and this is the Friday edition of The Current. But before we go any further, before we delve into the other big news in the world, let’s take a moment to remember Leonard Cohen—the Canadian icon and legend. A visionary poet, artist and songwriter, he died at 82. Born in Montreal in 1934, he attended McGill University in the 1950s where he won his first literary award for original poetry, published his first collection of poetry and set out on a career as a writer. In the late sixties, he released his first album, Songs of Leonard Cohen. His baritone voice was once described as the musical equivalent of rotgut whiskey. Through the decades he was dubbed many things, from the godfather of gloom to the grocer of despair, but he was hailed for his intelligence, humility, curiosity and generosity. Some say the release of his last album, You Want It Darker, was a sign he knew his final days were upon him, telling the New Yorker last month he wanted to finish the songs, take care of business, and that would be about it for him. Leonard Cohen—dead at 82.

[Music: “Take This Waltz” – Leonard Cohen]

KC: That was “Take This Waltz” by Leonard Cohen. The Canadian poet and songwriter died yesterday. He was 82.

[Music: Bridge]

American groups mobilize against Trump's new vision for America

Guests: Ibrahim Hooper, Maria McFarland

KC: You’re listening to the Friday edition of The Current on CBC Radio One. I’m Kelly Crowe.

SOUNDCLIP

CROWD: Not my president. Not my president. Not my president.

VOICE 1: I’m here because also I’m afraid for the people who might get deported. Having our doors kicked down by ICE teams and being sent back across to countries that are falling apart.

KC: That's the voice of a protester in New York City worried for the fate of undocumented immigrants during Donald Trump's upcoming US presidency. There have been two days of protest against Mr. Trump's election across the US. While his supporters celebrate, many Americans are worried that much of what President Obama accomplished in office will soon be dismantled by Mr. Trump. Take immigration: Mr. Trump says he will quickly cancel a program which protects undocumented immigrants. With the stroke of a pen, almost one million undocumented immigrants will become vulnerable to deportation. Ending Obamacare will need Congressional approval. Despite questions about how much they can actually do to stop him, Democrats and groups who oppose Donald Trump's policies are mobilizing to do what they can to fight. The filmmaker and outspoken anti-Trump critic Michael Moore struck a nerve this week with a Facebook post that went viral. He called on politicians to fight, resist and obstruct Mr. Trump in stopping what he called “the meanness and madness that’s about to begin.” We have two guests standing by now who will be watching the presidency of Donald Trump very closely. Ibrahim Hooper is the national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He’s in Washington. And Maria McFarland is the co-director for the US program for Human Rights Watch. She is in New York. Hello to both of you.

MARIA MCFARLAND: Hi, Kelly.

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Thanks for having me.

KC: Ibrahim Hooper, your organization called on Mr. Trump yesterday to repudiate attacks on Muslim women. What kind of incidents have you been hearing about?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Well, we’ve seen a spike in anti-Muslim incidents around the country. I mean even we had a video on Facebook yesterday of a pickup truck with Trump flags flying in the back, with the windshield emblazoned with “Kill all Muslims.” We had an attack on a Muslim woman in San Diego. We had Trump graffiti on a Muslim prayer space on a New York university. So we’re seeing a spike in these kinds of things and there’s tremendous anxiety in the American-Muslim community about their future. I mean what does four to potentially eight years under a Trump administration mean when he may have individuals like Newt Gingrich in his administration. And Newt Gingrich has called for the deportation of American-Muslims. One of his top security advisors is General Flynn. General Flynn is a board member of America’s largest anti-Muslim hate group. So there’s great concern in the American-Muslim community about what’s going to happen in the future.

KC: What do you think? I mean how much of this is just rhetoric and how much is a real sign of things to come?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Well, the best case scenario is that Donald Trump’s entire campaign was a big act, a con job on the people he wanted to gain votes from and that he’ll become a normal president in January.

KC: Is that what you think?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Well, that’s—as we say, inshallah—God willing—the worst case scenario is he actually tries to implement his bigoted and Islamophobic and anti-immigrant and anti-disabled, and you name it, anti-policies. And then we’re going to— [sighs] I don’t know where we’re going as a nation if that’s the case.

KC: Maria McFarland, what are Mr. Trump’s promises that you find most concerning?

MARIA MCFARLAND: Quite a few. The Trump campaign was marked by racism, by misogyny, by xenophobia. And that way of speaking about this country needs to end. But beyond that, he did make a number of concrete proposals that are completely antithetical to core human rights values. He floated the idea of bringing back torture and waterboarding and in his words, “a hell of a lot worse.” He talked about not only keeping the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay open, but loading it up with more people. He talked about, as Ibrahim noted, deporting Muslims, banning Muslims from entering the country. He talked about rounding up immigrants generally, people who have families and strong ties to the US and deporting them. He bragged about sexually assaulting women. And he talked about getting rid of or reforming existing libel laws to make it easier to sue the press. So this is a long list. One statement that he made the day after the election that hinted at a different direction was he wanted to be a president for all Americans. Well, we’re going to hold him to that. We’re going to be watching very closely and if he begins to implement any of these proposals, obviously we’re going to use all the tools at our disposal to try to stop him.

KC: Well, what kind of checks are there against some of these actions? Checks in the political and legal system.

MARIA MCFARLAND: Well, we do have courts that are not under the president’s control entirely. He will get a chance to appoint one Supreme Court justice and a number of justices in federal courts because there’s so many vacancies that the previous Congress refused to fill. But there are many independent judges out there. And we do have a federal system which means that a lot of issues are not up to the president or the federal government at all, they belong in the states. That includes policing, that includes criminal justice policy. And Congress, even though it’s in Republican hands, often has its own views on issues. You have many congressmen who did not agree with some of these proposals, so we’re going to be expecting them to also respect human rights and object to anything that would violate them.

KC: Ibrahim Hooper, what can you do and what will you do to try to stop Mr. Trump if he attempts to pass legislation that concerns you?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Well, as was mentioned, all we can do really is rely on the courts. And the problem is that Donald Trump has shown great resistance to any kind of reasonableness in terms of past American traditions of tolerance and mutual understanding and respect for diversity and all of these kinds of things. He just kind of dismisses them as political correctness. And when you have a president who doesn’t care about these longstanding American traditions, you get into unknown territory. And I don’t even know if the courts will be sufficient to keep him in check and to keep him in line with the constitution. You know I don’t want to go there but you know it has a kind of 1933 feeling to it right now.

KC: Now he promised during the campaign—I shouldn’t say promised—but you know said during the campaign that he would stop Muslims, at least from certain countries, from entering the US. Do you think he’ll follow through on that?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: I think he and his extremist anti-Muslim advisors will attempt to do something like that. Whether they’ll be able to do it, we’ll have to wait and see depending on what they try and do. Obviously I don’t think even Donald Trump could do a religious test at the border where everybody entering the country will be asked their faith and if you say you’re Muslim, you can’t enter. I mean I hope that that couldn’t be done legally. But you know they’ll probably try some other form of technique for keeping Muslims out of the country.

KC: Maria McFarland, what could a Human Rights Watch do to try to prevent some of these changes?

MARIA MCFARLAND: Well, I guess that we're going to have to be very creative. We’re obviously going to be documenting any abuses very carefully. Our key role is often to investigate, do more in-depth investigations than sometimes the media is able to do because we can spend time on them and really show the public and show the world what is happening. We will use all the levers available to us, that includes any allies we find in Congress and the international community. We're going to have to explore alternative ways of working with a new reality if a President Trump move forward with these proposals. Again, we are holding him to his promise that he will be a president for all Americans. We will have to see if he carries through. I will point out that there is one immediate test of that promise which is on the issue of hate crimes because as Ibrahim noted, we are seeing a lot of reports of hateful speech, in some cases attacks. But lots of graffiti, ugly images on social media against many groups—Muslims, black people, Latino immigrants, women—and many of these posts and comments seem to be coming from people who identify as Trump supporters. So it is now on President-elect Trump to make very clear that he does not support these actions. If he wants to be president for all Americans, he cannot allow some Americans to use his name to attack other Americans.

KC: Maria, is there anything in his policies that you find encouraging?

MARIA MCFARLAND: Well, you know he hasn't given a lot of detail on a lot of issues. So for example, there's the issue of mass incarceration which is a very serious problem we've been working on in the US for years. And it's an issue in which a number of Republican politicians have actually come around to the view that we need to reduce sentences and reduce the number of people who go to prison in the US. And there have been some reform initiatives underway in Congress. Trump has not stated a position on that issue. So that's an area where we'll explore, whether he's willing to take a positive stance.

KC: Ibrahim Hooper, we know some Muslims actually voted for Trump. Is there anything in his policies that you see as positive?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Well, our research and our polling showed that somewhere over 80 per cent of Muslims voted for Hillary Clinton and a much smaller percentage voted for Donald Trump. The ones who have supported him have generally supported him on all the issues that he's put forward on trade, on you know maybe social issues, abortion, that kind of thing. But you know it's hard to make a case for American-Muslims to support someone who has called for the exclusion of their faith from America.

KC: Now are you telling your members to do anything in particular? Are you keeping track of the incidents, that sort of thing?

IBRAHIM HOOPER: Well, last night we issued a community alert offering talking points for prayer leaders at congregational prayers. You know Muslims hold Friday congregational prayers and we suggested some spiritual guidance in terms of patience in adversity and you know that good can come from what you perceive to be bad at the moment. So we're trying to offer some kind of spiritual advice to a community that's in a very extreme state of apprehension.

KC: Okay. Well, thank you both very much. Ibrahim Hooper is the communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He's in Washington. And Maria McFarland is the co-director of the US program for Human Rights Watch. She's in New York City. The CBC News is next, then coverage of a very different election. The documentary, Ladies First, chronicles the first time women were allowed to vote and run for office in Saudi Arabia. I'm Kelly Crowe and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Sting]

Documentary chronicles women running for office in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia

Guests: Mona El-Naggar

KC: Hello. I'm Kelly Crowe and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

KC: Still to come, the election of Donald Trump as the next US president changes a lot of things and one of the biggest may be climate policy. What is Canada to do now that a climate change skeptic is on his way to the White House? Stay the course with carbon tax or ease up to avoid an economic disadvantage? That story in half an hour. But first, putting cracks in a glass ceiling in another part of the world.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crosstalk]

REPORTER 1: History is being made today in Saudi Arabia. For the first time—

REPORTER 2: Hundreds of women are running for election in Saudi Arabia.

REPORTER 3: There are more than 900 female candidates in the kingdom's first nationwide election in which women are able—

NARRATOR: I grew up in Egypt and I've been reporting on the Middle East for the past decade. Over and over, I've seen promises of reform that never led to any real change. It's left me wondering if change is possible here or if progress is just so slow that it's hard to see.

REPORTER 4: In 2011, the late King Abdullah granted women the right to play a part in Saudi politics. But activists say any changes are minor at best.

REPORTER 5: Women, they are still barred from driving and have to have a male guardian's approval to work, travel and open a bank account.

KC: That's from the documentary called Ladies First. It follows three Saudi Arabian women on a remarkable first as they campaigned for seats in the 2015 municipal elections. Women in Saudi Arabia today are not allowed to drive, work get healthcare, open a bank account or do much else outside the home without the permission of a so-called male guardian such as a father, a husband, a brother or even a son. But last year for the first time, Saudi women were allowed to take part in the political process, both as candidates and voters. Mona El-Naggar is a director of Ladies First. She's a reporter and video journalist with the New York Times and we’ve reached her in New York City. Hello.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Hello.

KC: Mona, first of all, just set the scene for us. I mean where are we in place and time?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Well, in the documentary we are in Riyadh. It was in November, December. The election took place in December. The campaigning started in November. I was there for about a month following the path and journey of three women as they campaigned and yeah, followed the journey.

KC: Okay. So what sense did you get of how significant this moment was to the Saudi women?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: You know it was a mixed bag. Some people were disillusioned in general by the political climate. And in that way they were not really interested in the election. Among women, you heard some say that this at least offered them an opportunity to basically stand next to men and exercise a right and they wanted to seize every opportunity that they had. And then other women felt that it was actually sort of really disconnected from their day to day lives. It did not necessarily mean that they would have more space to do or sort of exercise control over their own decisions and rights. In many ways they still felt that the main issue that they were up against was the fact that men control their lives in every single way. There's a male guardianship system there. And some felt that this was sort of a more of a priority, that there is no way for them to really feel like they're being treated as equal citizens if they continue to be subjected to a system that gave men control over their lives.

KC: Your film follows three very different candidates including one named Loujain Al Hathloul. Here's a clip of her from your film.

SOUNDCLIP

I see it as a great opportunity to give women a chance to stand next to men for once. You can't believe how hard it can be sometimes in this country.

KC: So tell me more about her. What's motivating her to run?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Well, Loujain is an activist. She's very outspoken. She became famous in Saudi Arabia for her outspoken tweets and social media engagement. And actually the first thing that she did to sort of the rebel in a sense against the norms in her society was to show her face in her tweets and videos. And for many women that is very rebellious because women in Saudi Arabia are often encouraged to keep their identity secret or anonymous. And they're often referred to not even by their name but sort of as the mothers of so and so or the daughter of so and so, like they're referred to with the male affiliate in their lives. So Loujain is—

[Crosstalk]

KC: And when you first introduce her—sorry, when you first introduce her, you say that she’s just fresh out of jail.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Yes. Well, one of the things that she—she's a part of this nationwide campaign that's encouraging women to defy the bar on them driving and to basically just get behind the wheel and drive their cars and film themselves as they do it. And she tried to do that. She tried to actually cross the border from the UAE into Saudi Arabia and she was caught and detained by the police and she was in jail for about two and a half months.

KC: And how representative is she of the larger Saudi society?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: I mean in terms of what she is fighting for, I think it resonates in many ways. But in terms of how outspoken and sort of rebellious she tends to be, I think she's not very representative. You know there's a really, really high social price to sort of openly defying the norms in society, you know there's a lot of pressure to conform. And many women you know face just a stricter world and far—you know husbands or fathers who are less understanding and less support than Loujain’s.

KC: Now she has a lot of support from her family. You interview her father who sort of shrugs off her independence and says you know it was no big deal. That's the impression I got from watching that.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Right. And that's kind of one of the striking things is you know when you first sort of watch and you see the differences between the three women I feature, profile and follow in the documentary, you know you might quickly kind of draw the conclusion that Loujain seems to be the most like overtly outspoken and kind of willing to put himself out there. But in a sense she also has the support of her father and husband and so that helps and in a sense that also defines her space.

KC: Right.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: So she still is kind of defined by the men in her life just as much as other women are also defined by men who might be less supportive, I guess.

KC: And so now let's talk about Fadia Al-Khadrah. How does she compare to Loujain?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Well, she's older. She's divorced. She's very ambitious, optimistic. But she's a woman who's trying to work from within the system. She's trying to basically seize on every opportunity and use it to sort of advance herself and advance the lot for the majority of women as well as she can. But she's not overtly trying to sort of defy the norms or—I mean not the norms—but essentially kind of go up against the system. She's trying to work from within. And for the longest time you know she's done everything that she could for herself. I mean she's educated, went and did her PhD. She's climbed the sort of career ladder in the education ministry, eventually sort of quit and became a consultant and she's an author and she's focused on entrepreneurship issues for young people. So you know Fadia is using every space, all the space she has to advance.

KC: And then there's Reem. So tell us about Reem.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Reem is very interesting because she's from a much more conservative and traditional background. And there's almost like two sides to her that are equally strong and almost in conflict. On the one hand, she is obviously excited by this opportunity and she registers as a candidate and yet she sort of doesn't really want to put herself out there and she is very cautious in every move and every word because you know in her world it's very hard for women to kind of be out there. So she's the candidate who has her name on the list but doesn't want her neighbours to find out that she's running for office. And she's sincere in her desire to both sort of break with some of the usual norms and yet also in her desire to just fulfill and be an obedient wife and a good mother and kind of not rock her own ship.

KC: Now there's one sort of telling scene where she's at a party with some of the other women candidates and she's clearly very isolated and she doesn't fit in. Describe that scene for us.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: This is also like in many societies the differentiator isn’t always like how liberal or conservative or where you fall on the political spectrum. Oftentimes it's class essentially and your socioeconomic background. And in some ways Reem comes from a different part of Riyadh, a less affluent part of Riyadh and just her world is different from the majority of the women that she was with at that party. And I think following just after that scene, Reem even comments and says something like you know these women don't really represent the majority of women in Saudi Arabia. They're sort of the elite. You know my—she's referring to her Saudi Arabia—her Saudi Arabia's more conservative and more traditional. You know and women can do things just as long as they never ever sort of defy the norms.

KC: Now she disappears from your radar for a while as you're making the film. What did you find out about where she went?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Well, nowhere really. I mean she was home but she was—you know she had to take permission from her husband if we were to interview her, if we were to meet with her, if she was to go anywhere. And so she was working within the space that he allowed her and so she met with us and we spoke to her and at some point that was sort of—we had—that was it. You know she just had to kind of keep us out. She didn't want to be exposed. She didn't want to sort of be loud. She didn't want people to see you know journalists coming in and out of her house. All of that was very uncomfortable and just novel to her and very, very different from what she's used to and from what she's allowed.

KC: As I was watching the film, in the beginning it looks like oh okay, so it's fairly normal here, women registering, they're obviously running. But quickly it starts to become very interior. You suddenly realize that these women aren't out and about campaigning. It’s very much inside. Give us a sense of that.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Yes. I mean and that's kind of the big question is like how do you run this election and get women to go out and be candidates? I mean in any country more or less when you hear of someone running for office, I mean you expect that person to kind of put themselves out there you know, present themselves to people. Yet in Saudi Arabia, I mean there's so many restrictions and so how can you do that as a woman, speak to voters and reach them when you're confronting a society that's very private, when you're not allowed to talk to me—which is the majority of voters—directly? I mean when you're essentially sort of being restricted from speaking to journalists, from accessing you know public areas like the mall. Like all of these restrictions that you're trying to somehow overcome.

KC: Well, they couldn't go door to door.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Right. And part of that is of course like it's the culture of the place, it’s a very private place but then it's also you know if you're a woman, it's even that much harder because I mean how can a woman go knock on some door and like maybe you know who's going to open the door? It's a man. You know I mean so there's so many, so many, so many hurdles that make it almost impossible—

KC: They couldn't even be outside. Right?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Right. Exactly.

KC: You have that wonderful scene with the school where you don't understand at first why there's a man at the door with a microphone and you realize later. Well, tell me. What happened?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: So I mean this was when we essentially—when Reem sort of stopped returning my calls. We went to her neighbourhood and we just wanted to sort of explore her world even a little more. And there was one school which was about a block away from her house. It was an all-girls school. And when I first arrived there I saw this man with a microphone. It was the end of the school day and he was saying something and it took me a while to really kind of understand what was going on. But essentially he was calling each girl out by her name when her ride arrived, when a car with a male chaperone whether it's a driver or father or brother arrived to pick the girl up. And so the girls didn’t just come out. I mean the door’s locked and when the school day ends, they're called out by name essentially and picked up with a car.

KC: So without the ability to be even outside, how do these women conduct their campaign?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: It comes down to a social media campaign. I mean you know Saudi Arabia is a place where people are very much—they’re online, they use you know all forms of all platforms. You know you see Fadia’s constantly on Snapchat. She's on Twitter, Facebook. I mean she tries everything she can do to kind of communicate her message, to put her name out there. She, at one point, basically her campaign is summarized in her sitting behind her computer screen and she's in a virtual chat room. But of course the virtual chat room is practically empty. There's only two people there which comes to show how hard it is for her to reach people and yet also how defiant and persistent she is despite all of that. And just on another note, I mean there are places—I mean essentially one place where you do see women which is the mall. But even in a place where basically you can kind of see people walking around, it’s taboo to approach people. So even when they're there, it's just very hard to kind of go up to people and just kind of strike up a conversation and definitely you know it's frowned upon to you know stop women randomly and talk to them for example.

KC: And what campaign methods did the men have? It sounds like it was a fairly limited campaign all around.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Men are relatively—have more freedom to move, you know? I mean women in Saudi Arabia can't even drive which is a huge—which is a big problem because essentially it restricts what they can do in every single way. I mean to go from one place to another, you need to be escorted. You need to sort of plan your ride. You need to have someone. You need to hire someone. You need to spend money or you need to kind of find a relative who's willing to—a male relative obviously—who's willing to take you. And so it just becomes that much harder to move and in a sense to get anything done. So you know men have that freedom compared to women and they can do a lot more and they can interact with other men, they’re freer to kind of be in public. They own the public space. I mean that's the scene sort of in Saudi Arabia.

KC: Now there's another clip I'd like to play from your film. You went to a school to try to get some women teachers to talk about the significance of the election and you had a hard time convincing them. One woman does agree to speak and let's listen to what she said.

SOUNDCLIP

I am divorced. I have no husband [alternate language] was going to say no to me. [Alternate language] Maybe he will say no, I don’t know, but till now, I’m free. [laughs] And something precious to be free, [alternate language].

KC: So she's essentially saying she can talk to you because she's divorced and she has no husband to get permission to do the interview.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: I mean it was such a remarkable moment because I mean I really was—I spent quite a bit of time inside the school talking to the teachers and really trying hard to convince them to just kind of speak to me on camera. I mean and you know I told them look, we can disguise your voice if you're uncomfortable. You're obviously going to be in your full you know attire. You can cover your face as you would normally and you know it would be really hard to identify you essentially. And it was just so hard. And the main reason was that they had to take permission from their husbands and that they did not think that their husbands would agree. And it was like a long, long negotiation. And then at the very end you know they kind of recommended and suggested I speak to this one teacher and she was on a school field trip and she was on her way back. I called her. I waited for her. And then the very first question I had to ask her was hey, look, I just spoke to all these women and they said there's no way for them to like do this. How come you agreed? And that's what came out of her mouth. She just said because I'm divorced.

KC: So tell us now how they all did in the end.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Reem essentially never ran a campaign. You know I mean I think she never really expected to win. She never really—for her it was the symbolic act of really putting her name on a ballot was her act, her own personal act of rebellion, right? Loujain, the activist, gets disqualified. The government offers no clear reason for her disqualification. Basically she just goes on Twitter and announces that she was disqualified as a candidate. And then Fadia, who is in it to win it and she's really, really like trying to do her best to run a campaign. She sadly ends up losing and she finds out, I mean she sits in front of her television for hours probably just waiting for the results to be announced. And she learns at the end of the results from a text message and she's disappointed, very, very much so.

KC: And how many women ended up being elected in that election?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Twenty-one women, I believe, which is about one per cent of the seats went to women.

KC: And they can't actually attend the council meeting though, you said.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: Right. Shortly after the elections were over, it was announced that women would only be able to participate by teleconference.

KC: Now I just have one more clip I'd like to play from the documentary. This is Loujain again.

SOUNDCLIP

LOUJAIN AL HATHLOUL: You've seen two faces of Saudi: one that is trying to push forward and the other trying to just restrict any change. They succeeded in eliminating the identity of the women by covering her up, hiding her name, doing whatever it takes to just forget her.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: And you don't want to be forgotten.

LOUJAIN AL HATHLOUL: Who wants to be forgotten?

KC: What did you think of that comment when you talked to her about that?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: I think it's basically the heart. It kind of gets to the heart of the issue. You know we followed these three women who are very different and face different circumstances and present a different portrait of what life is like for different women in Saudi. And that was the idea. But despite their differences, there is this very interesting and commonality between all of them, which is essentially that they're fighting to show that they exist, that they matter, that they're somebody, you know? What Loujain says speaks to that.

KC: And what's the reaction from other Saudi women who've seen your documentary?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: When it screened the very first time, you know several—here in New York—several women came to me and they shook my hand and said thank you. Thank you for showing what it's like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia. And thank you for also—I think some of them said for making sort of an effort to also show different faces of what it's like to be a Saudi woman and not try to offer you know one uniform sort of stereotypical image of the Saudi woman. But then also, I encountered sort of a more defensive reaction, a reaction that said well, why—they saw the film as being critical of the social values and fabric that is important to many Saudi people. Because of that, following the film, I wanted to hear from more women in Saudi and we basically put out a call out on social media asking women to talk to us about their lives. And we received 6,000 responses. More than 6,000 responses. It was remarkable. And we read through the responses and published like a selection. In the process of doing this, there was that hashtag, sort of a reaction to our call out that was like people who were discouraging Saudi women from responding and they put out the hashtag “Don’t tell the New York Times.” But there was a backlash to the hashtag and women used it as an opportunity to sort of actually vent in a way and tell the New York Times what life was like for them.

KC: Now one thing as the documentary unfolds, you get the sense that this is more of a public relations exercise for the West than it is an actual change. What do you think about that?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: I mean it raises the question of you know what's the purpose of this election? Is it really to allow women a greater opportunity to participate politically? Is it really to allow citizens in general a greater opportunity to participate? Is it you know a step towards democracy and if it's not, then what is it?

KC: So just finally: looking back, what was the experience like for you? How would you sum up what you went through as you were making this?

MONA EL-NAGGAR: It's a journey for me as well. I mean you know I follow the journey of the three women who are profiled in the documentary and it's a journey for me as well. It's a journey where I learn about them and I learn about Saudi Arabia through their experience, through their eyes. While I was there, we spent time with men as well. And I remember being with a group of men who were young guys essentially, a lot of them studied abroad. They were camped out in the desert outside on the outskirts of Riyadh and we were talking about change and we had this moment where I basically asked them well, how do you feel if—you know would you support granting women the right to drive? I think almost maybe one person raised his hand out of maybe a group of these 20 young guys. And I was surprised. You know these were guys who introduced themselves as being more on the sort of liberal side in Saudi Arabia. And I was like really? So one of them explained to me, he's like look, here's how it works: if they do allow women to drive, then most of these guys will be okay with it. The thing is nobody here wants to be the first one to do it. And so a lot of people accept change as long as it kind of comes from somewhere else, as long as they're not the ones who are pushing for it and as long as they're not the first you know to break with the norms.

KC: Okay. Well, thank you very much for talking with us about this.

MONA EL-NAGGAR: You're welcome. Thank you.

KC: Mona El-Naggar is a New York Times reporter and video journalist and the director of the documentary, Ladies First. She was in New York City. I'm Kelly Crowe and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Sting]

What Trump's climate change denial means for Canada

Guests: John Bennett, Joe Oliver, Anna-Liisa Aunio, Christopher Sands

KC: Hello. I'm Kelly Crowe and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Do you believe in global warming and climate change? Do you think the world’s going to change for the worse because it's getting warmer?

VOICE 2: I think that they'll be a little change here. It will go up, it'll get a little cooler, it’ll get a little warmer like it always has for millions of years. It will get cooler, it'll get warmer. It’s called weather. I do believe in—and I would say a lot of people don't know this—I’ve received many environmental awards, many, many environmental awards for the work I do. And I believe strongly in clean water and clean air. But I don't believe that what they say—I think it's a big scam for a lot of people to make a lot of money.

KC: That was Donald Trump last December when the Paris climate summit was underway. We haven't found any of those “many, many environmental awards” by the way, just one received for his golf course in New Jersey in 2007. But nonetheless, Donald Trump is now president-elect of the United States, the world's biggest carbon emitter after China. And as the world gathers in Morocco for another climate summit focused on implementing the Paris Agreement, America's commitment is in doubt. Mr. Trump campaigned on a promise to pull the US out of the Paris agreement. He also called climate change a Chinese hoax vowed to revitalize the American coal industry and even called for the Environmental Protection Agency to be eliminated. So for Canada, factoring US plans into climate policies here, it's safe to say the equation has changed. Yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked if his planned carbon tax would still go ahead even if it put Canada at an economic disadvantage.

SOUNDCLIP

One of the things that people in Canada and indeed around the world understand, is that there is tremendous economic disadvantage from not acting in the fight against climate change, for not pushing towards cleaner jobs and reducing emissions, towards not showing leadership at a time where the world is looking for leadership.

KC: To discuss what a Trump administration's climate policies would mean for Canada, I'm joined first today by John Bennett. He's a senior policy adviser with Friends of the Earth Canada and he's in Ottawa. Hello.

JOHN BENNETT: Morning, Kelly.

JOHN BENNETT: So from a climate change perspective, what were you thinking when you found out that Donald Trump had been elected?

JOHN BENNETT: Well, the 25 years of work is probably going to go for naught. That we're faced with dealing with another step, a huge step backwards and that it's going to have huge implications for not only Canadians but for people around the world. He's probably going to kill far more people by not acting on climate change than he will in no matter what military operations he launches in the next four years.

KC: So thinking about all this, how will Donald Trump's attitude to climate change affect the Trudeau government's approach?

JOHN BENNETT: Well, it's going to really change the tone of what the oil industry says in Canada. It’s been willing to participate in moves by the Notley government in Alberta and by the federal government on the understanding that the United States was moving on climate change as well. They have—since I've been working on this issue, 25 years—always argue that they can't do anything if US aren't doing anything. So we're going to have tremendous pushback from the industry trying to avoid having to pay taxes or pay carbon fees if the United States isn't doing it. It's going to be a real difficult thing to impose in Canada.

KC: And if a carbon tax is imposed, how effective would it be with Donald Trump as president?

JOHN BENNETT: Well, it would be effective in Canada but it's certainly—you know in Canada's contribution to climate change is small. It's important for us to do what we can to reduce everything we can to reduce emissions. But if Donald Trump is dismantling all the things that President Obama did, which were very minor, then we're not going to see any significant change or reduction in emissions around the world. You know it's really time to stand up to the Americans and tell them that you know they have to participate in this, that there's no option.

KC: Do you think Justin Trudeau can have an influence on Donald Trump when it comes to climate change?

JOHN BENNETT: Well, I think that we should put climate change first and he is going to have to say if you want cooperation on anything else, you have to cooperate on climate change because it's too important.

KC: Now talking about the Paris Agreement, how will the agreement be affected if the U.S. pulls out?

JOHN BENNETT: Well, a lot of that agreement is about providing funding to developing countries so that they can adapt to climate change and also mitigate their emissions. That funding was really—a large part of that funding was going to come from the United States. It's pretty clear that it won't now and will the European Union and Canada and other countries be able to step in and make the difference or will they do it if the Americans aren't doing it as well? So it could actually unravel the entire agreement.

KC: Now talking about the Keystone XL pipeline, Justin Trudeau spoke in support of it while in opposition. Any idea how he feels about Mr. Trump's promise to approve it?

JOHN BENNETT: Well, it might help get him off the hook in terms of Kinder Morgan and Energy East. There's a lot less reason to build those two pipelines if Keystone goes forward. You know the Canadian government is also very supportive of taking action to support the oil industry. So I think that the government is going to get off the hook maybe in terms of making a tough decision on a pipeline. But the pressure to return to the massive expansion of the tar sands is going to be tremendous now.

KC: So this could help the Trudeau government politically when it comes to pipeline decisions in your view.

JOHN BENNETT: Well, yes but it really depends on whether or not they actually stand up to the Americans on the issue overall and we don't go down hat in hand trying to pick up the crumbs from a Trump administration. We have to make clear—he has to stand up clear and Canadians have to see him trying to pressure the United States to get back in line on climate change because that's the most important international issue we have.

KC: So I can hear discouragement in your voice as you talk about this.

JOHN BENNETT: Well, you know I had my first briefing on climate change before the Berlin Wall fell. And I've been working on it for a quarter of a century now or more and we've been through this twice. You know we've been through this with George Bush. We've been through this with Stephen Harper. We are dealing with a corrupt fossil fuel industry that's more concerned with his profits right now than it is about the future of the planet. That is willing to let people suffer and die in order to secure those profits, willing to support politicians who will do the kinds of things that Stephen Harper did, that George Bush did and now Mr. Trump is going to do. We’ve had enough of this, you know? We've tried every kind of political approach as environmental activists over the last two decades: talking directly, confronting, being in the streets, sitting in the rooms, in the boardrooms, designing programs and things that will make them look politically attractive. But it comes right down to is that our political leaders have a moral responsibility to do to protect our future generations. And if they're not willing to do it, those future generations are at great, great risk. And as I said, Donald Trump is going to kill more people by not acting on climate change than by any military action he can contemplate. And that has to be—he has to be brought to account for that.

KC: Okay. John, I have to wrap up there. John, thank you very much for talking with me.

JOHN BENNETT: You're welcome.

KC: John Bennett is a senior policy adviser with Friends of the Earth Canada and he was in our Ottawa studio. Well, the day after Donald Trump's election, when Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall weighed in, he said it made no sense for Canada to push ahead with a carbon tax now that it seems America, our biggest trading partner and competitor, would not be going in that direction. Joe Oliver is the former Conservative minister of natural resources who's currently seeking nomination for the PC Party of Ontario. He's in Toronto. Hello.

JOE OLIVER: Hi. Good morning.

KC: To what degree do you think Canada might need to rethink climate change policies once Mr. Trump is president?

JOE OLIVER: Well, I think to a significant degree. I felt before that the carbon tax, which the prime minister was proposing, would exact a very significant burden on the Canadian economy. It’s estimated to cost an average of over $500 per household in the next couple of years and that amount will go up to over $2,500 per household in about seven years. So when you are incurring costs like that on an economy, on consumers, on taxpayers, you have to have a policy justification for it. Well, presumably that justification is that it will reduce global temperatures or prevent temperatures from rising as much. Unfortunately, Canada has a very limited, almost minuscule impact in that regard. [clears throat] Excuse me. At 1.6 per cent of the total contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, we don't make much difference. So then the question is well, even if we don't make much difference, should we go along and be good corporate citizens, good participants in the global order along with other countries to combine with the other countries actually, to make a difference? But there again there's a significant problem because every single country complied with its COP 21, the Paris Agreement, and of course that will not happen. Now we know it's not going to happen in the United States. It won’t happen in other countries as well because all the agreements are voluntary. Even if it did happen, it would only have an impact in about half a degree Centigrade by the year 2100. So we're talking about a huge and devastating impact on the economy which will not achieve any climate objective. So I think we have to fundamentally rethink the approach. Now we've got a wakeup call as a result of the election of Donald Trump as the new president of the United States, someone who is very clear, as we just heard, about his views on this. And so there is no longer any cover to do things which would disadvantage in a terrible way the Canadian economy without achieving any environmental objective.

KC: What do you say to—you heard the discouragement in John Bennett's voice just now. What do you say to environmentalists who are despondent about this and fear that this is a chance to stop climate change or slow it down is potentially going to be missed?

JOE OLIVER: Well, you know we have to deal with reality. I don't think they’re going to be listening to what their tactics should be. But I do think they ought to rethink their strategy and tactics, not exaggerate what the problem is or not to listen to other people's voices. They should be focusing on things that cost the least and achieve the most. And I would suggest that litigation and investment in science and technology are the best routes in that regard. In other words, don't throw money into inefficient alternative energy like the government of Ontario is doing. Rather, put money into science and technology to make the alternative energy sources more efficient and effective. Then you have the possibility of achieving something not only for the environment but for the economy as well.

KC: Okay. Joe Oliver, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

JOE OLIVER: You're most welcome.

KC: Joe Oliver is the former minister of natural resources who is currently seeking nomination for the PC Party of Ontario. He was in Toronto. Well, Donald Trump is poised to be America's top official for the next four years. My next two guests have some thoughts on what impact that will have on climate in the years to come and where Canada fits in. Anna-Liisa Aunio is an environmentalist and sociology professor at Dawson College and she is in Montreal. And Christopher Sands is a senior research professor and director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He's in Silver Springs, Maryland. Hello to both of you.

ANNA-LIISA AUNIO: Hello.

CHRISTOPHER SANDS: Good morning.

KC: Anna-Liisa Aunio, how will Prime Minister Trudeau's climate change strategy be affected by Donald Trump in your view?

ANNA-LIISA AUNIO: Well, Canada has always gone lockstep with the United States on any climate policy or environmental policies in general, largely because our economies are so closely tied. And you know the last time that this happened, there was a commitment on the part of Canada to actually sign on to Kyoto and to ratify Kyoto and immediately in terms of actually the political landscape, it changed under Harper significantly. And Canada did try and actually take a step up and host the negotiations here in Montreal in 2005 and made a big push to actually stand up to the United States and show its commitment. And you know quickly ended with Harper's election to being prime minister. So we have to think about not just the short term but the long term consequences I think of this kind of [unintelligible] and what the relationship should be. And I think Justin Trudeau is going to have to think long and hard about not just whether or not it's going to significantly impact their carbon tax now but for the years to come. And in that regard Trump, more than anything, I think was a warning shot. Many working class and poor Americans were deeply affected by loss of manufacturing jobs, have been hardest hit by changes in the energy sector, have seen their gas prices rise, have seen their heating costs rise and distrust generally people who have said to them again and again that they're going to see the economic benefit of long term climate policies. So it's interesting in terms of actually thinking about what's happening in Alberta right now and the fact that there was you know protests just last week against the carbon tax at the provincial level and there's already some resistance because people are not just worried about or not committed to environmental values, it's because they're seeing their pocketbooks affected. It's because they're worried about their futures and their immediate future and the current carbon tax as it is currently structured doesn't seem to speak to those needs in terms of actually being able to pay for your bills when you're living paycheck to paycheck.

KC: Christopher Sands, how serious of an impact you think Donald Trump will have on climate action for people who want to see this action go forward?

CHRISTOPHER SANDS: Well, can I say that I actually agree with my co-panelist on this and I think it's the key to making progress during the Donald Trump years. You know I live inside the Beltway and I've been a Washington establishment guy I guess for a while and I think most of us in the establishment have heard the message of this election loud and clear, the US, which is that there's a feeling that the establishment has been very indifferent to a lot of people in the country. And as we have pursued goals that I think are good for the country, whether it's trade liberalization or climate change action, we've often not paid attention to who's paying proportionally the biggest burden of those things. And it's absolutely true that when you go from a 50 cent light bulb to a better five-dollar light bulb that's a CFC or an LED, people's energy demand is inelastic especially in the short term. And the idea that you can buy a better refrigerator or go buy a Prius to deal with the gas tax issue is just not realistic for the working poor. Donald Trump I think has given voice to a lot of the frustration from people who feel not that the goals are wrong but that they are paying really heavy prices. And you know and it's not fair and that the middle class and even the upper middle class and the wealthy are able to bear those burdens more lightly. So I think that's where the skepticism that Donald Trump has, his express comes from. I’m giving him a bit of credit. I think he's a bit of a lout. I don't think he's an intellectual guy but I think if we take his voters seriously and we can marry some of our social justice concern with our environmental justice concern, there is a way forward that is more compassionate but doesn't necessarily deviate from the larger goal. And if you can convince the Donald Trump voter as well as the millennial voter—many of whom unfortunately didn't show up in this last election but who have that same environmental aspiration—that there's a way to move forward together in some solidarity, I think we could get the Americans back in the tent. But we have to start recognizing this differential cost. And I think that's going to be—

KC: But what about influencing Donald Trump himself? I mean it sounds from what he said that the climate change action has been sort of put on hold at least.

CHRISTOPHER SANDS: Well, I think that the first thing is we're going to see are going to be sort of typical Donald Trump. We're going to see some shock and awe in the next couple of months. I think the US is going to withdraw the Clean Power Plan because it's something that Trump's been very critical of. It accelerates the move away from coal, pushing some states that aren’t in the best fiscal position to move quickly and maybe quicker than they wanted and a lot of those states have objected. They're suing the government over it. I think you'll see that withdrawn and retool. I think Donald Trump may well take the Paris Agreement and submit it to the Senate of the United States for approval. And much like Kyoto, remember that this was the way in which the Kyoto Agreement was handled, the Senate will say no, not Donald Trump and he’ll say well, what can I do? I sent it, they said no. And they're likely to say no and then the question will be how do we get back on track? How do we get back to the negotiating table? Are there ways that we can change the way we're approaching this that could get the US back into the fold? And I agree with John Bennett's earlier comments that if the US isn’t in the fold, this is really quite bad so we have to find a way to do that. So I think we're going to see some very negative steps and it's important not to panic. Keep in mind that if you could bring Donald Trump's voters—he's one of those people who's sort of a populist, he reflects the views of the public—and I don't think the public is against addressing climate change. They're just worried about who's paying. And if we can address that and make our environmental policies more sensitive to that, I think you can bring Donald Trump along. I don't think he's the intellectual leader here. I think he's the follower in many ways.

KC: Anna-Liisa Aunio, what do you think is going to happen with the Paris Agreement?

ANNA-LIISA AUNIO: In terms of Canada's commitment to it or overall?

KC: Well, can survive that without the US? And yeah, what about Canada?

ANNA-LIISA AUNIO: Well, we saw this actually with the Kyoto basically, where in the negotiations—I went to eight negotiating sessions—the post-Kyoto negotiating sessions were just overrun by the conflict over bringing back the United States back into the fold and the ways in which to do that. And there are two separate tracks with those negotiations and part of the reason that you know it was stalled so much and then failed ultimately in Copenhagen is you know largely because of US domestic policy at that point in time and the fact that they hadn't passed domestic legislation. But that the world was basically, the assumption was—and they're right about this—that the United States has to be brought into the fold and had to be brought into the fold for a post-Kyoto Agreement. So I do worry about the future of this particular agreement in the Paris Accord simply because first of all, it's far easier for Trump to try to back out of it completely. And in terms of actually what the commitment on the part of Obama was made at the domestic level, in terms of actually his ability to reverse his position on it. And I also worry more generally about the cast, the shadow this will cast over the entire negotiating session about the conversation turning to bringing back the United States back into the fold rather than moving forward internationally.

KC: Now Christopher Sands, what do you say to people like John Bennett and environmentalists who worry that the planet might be doomed now that Donald Trump is the future president of the United States?

CHRISTOPHER SANDS: Well, I don't know. I have a lot of respect for John and for a lot of people including Anna-Liisa, who have been active on this file. You know I'm more of a political scientist. I'm in a different world but I respect the commitment they've had. And it's been hard work and it's been a lot of years and so I'm not going to be critical of the fact that they're feeling a real loss. And I think that's accurate. At the same time I guess I'm overdosed on hyperbole after this election. Everything has been the worst ever. You know Donald Trump like George Bush before him, and Mitt Romney and even John McCain, going all the way back to George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, they're all the new Hitler and everything is going to be a disaster and we're all going to be in internment camps and the racism is unparalleled. I just feel like some of that gets overblown. It's very important to take people's—you know they were elected by people. We take Donald Trump's goodwill. We at least take him at face value. We have to see how we can work forward.

KC: I guess we will be seeing that, whether we like it or not, I guess. So I have to leave that there. Thank you both very much.

ANNA-LIISA AUNIO: Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER SANDS: Thank you. Have a good morning.

KC: Anna-Liisa Aunio is an environmentalist and sociology professor at Dawson College and she was in Montreal. And Christopher Sands is a senior research professor and the director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He was in Silver Springs, Maryland. That's our program for today.

'I want to write songs': Leonard Cohen gave up hosting CBC TV show to be songwriter

Guests: Andrew Simon

KC: Now as you've been hearing all morning long, Canadian icon Leonard Cohen died at the age of 82. Many people will be sharing stories about Leonard Cohen throughout the day. And coming up next on q, Tom Power hosts a full-show special tribute to one of this country's most influential artists. You'll hear from musicians, long-time friends, family and collaborators of Leonard Cohen, plus a whole lot of music. So stay with CBC Radio One. But we'll leave you with one personal story about Leonard Cohen. You may not know that the troubadour came very close to following a different path in 1966. Andrew Simon was responsible for that close call. He happens to be the father of one of The Current’s senior producers, Cathy Simon. Now retired, he was a long time CBC radio and television producer and manager. We'll leave you with a story from Andrew Simon and a song, “Leaving the Table” from Leonard Cohen's last album, You Want It Darker. I'm Kelly Crowe. Thanks for listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

I was a television producer with CBC Montreal and we were producing a local program called Seven on Six of current affairs. And we were looking desperately for a new host and we thought that Leonard Cohen—who had up to then been a poet—would be a very good host and he personified Montreal of course, and he was literate and articulate. So I approached him to be the host and we went to dinner two or three times in a little restaurant called Cafe des Artistes. And it never crossed his mind to do radio or television, but I tried to sell him on being the host of a daily show, that he would certainly have stardom. And he kind of liked the idea and he wanted to do different creative things. I worried about it a little bit because it wasn’t kind of orthodox current affairs stuff that he had in mind, but reading poetry and things like that. But anyway, we were still very enthusiastic and we were ready to prepare the contract for him to sign. And one evening about 11 p.m., he formed me at home and he said Andrew, I just went on a trip—he of course meant a marijuana trip—I went on a trip and realized that I can't do the show. I can't do the show because I decided I'm going to be a songwriter. I want to write songs. So at first I couldn't understand why a person would want to write songs instead of being a television star, but of course now I understand, he went on to much greater fame. And I, personally of course, have become like everybody else: a big, big fan of his many, many wonderful songs.

[Music: “Leaving the Table” – Leonard Cohen]

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 11, 2016 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode