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 AIH Transcript for June 5, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CO: Vigil and vigilance. The UK is in mourning and on high alert after Saturday's attack on London Bridge. From his face barricaded inside a restaurant, our guest was a captive audience to that horror.

JD: Qatar cut off. The tiny nation suddenly finds itself isolated after several of its neighbors and key trading partners in the Persian Gulf move to cut ties and block imports to the country.

CO: Recovering his injuries and recovering his stuff. A Winnipeg man, who was viciously beaten, awakens from a coma discovered that the province’s Public Guardian had donated his property to charity.

JD: Rolling blackouts. After winning an award, CBC reporter Dean Beeby speaks out about being kept in the dark in terms of access to information.

CO: If you thought you'd heard the last about it well no sludge luck. When it referred to a meat product as “pink slime” ABC News didn't ruin your dinner according to the company that makes this stuff. It ruined business.

JD: And… premeditated Mordor. If you are grateful for all the stories of Middle Earth, here's another Tolkien of your gratitude. Further Adventures in the fantasy author's fictional content published 100 years after he first conceived them. As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that's a sight for Sauron eyes… well eye.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: London witness, coma lawsuit, Tolkien book

London witness

Guest: Richard Angell

JD: Saturday night, for the third time in as many months, terror struck the United Kingdom. Three men in a white van barreled across the London Bridge, hitting pedestrians. And then they jumped out of the van wielding knives, they stabbed bystanders. The attackers were shot dead by police on scene. Today, Londoners came together at a vigil to mourn the loss of the seven victims. Here's part of what London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, said in Potters Field park on the banks of the Thames.

SOUNDCLIP

SADIQ KHAN: I want to send a clear message to the sick and evil extremists who commit these hideous crimes: we will defeat you. You will not win. And as a proud and patriotic British Muslim, I say this: you do not commit these disgusting acts in my name.

JD: That was London Mayor Sadiq Khan, speaking at a vigil in London today. Richard Angell was at the vigil as well. He was also witness to Saturday night's attack. We reached Mr. Angell in London.

CO: Richard, tell us what it was like to be at this vigil today.

RICHARD ANGELL: It was great to see London it its resilience, in its diversity, in its defiance of the hate that try to divide our city and how acts of hate won’t define this city. That seven beautiful lives were lost. Twenty-one people are still in hospital and family members are by their side and praying for them. And it was nice to see so many Londoners come behind those people who either witnessed or were somehow involved in what happened on Saturday night.

CO: And you were involved in what happened on Saturday night you were at a restaurant in the area where the attack happened. At what point did you realize that something was terribly wrong?

RA: Pretty quickly. We were at the table nearest the restaurant door, and it became obvious that somebody from the security was saying close and lock the door; duck and cover, get out of the way. And this young man and one of the waiters put his foot in the door and his body weight behind it to make sure nobody gets through that glass door, which I thought was pretty remarkable thing to do. The rest of the restaurant was obviously upset and panicked. They got under chairs, got to any point of safety that they felt could.

CO: Did you know what was happening? Did you have any sense who was attacking and why you were being attacked?

RA: No, I think everybody feared the worst of the gun, which in a restaurant of just glass windows could have been absolutely devastating for many, many, more. But people knew the gravity of what was happening. They knew this was no drill. And from where I was, I could look out the man outside throwing a table. I didn't understand what I was at the time, but it turned out to be this wonderfully heroic guy who witnessed these barbarous and cowardly people stabbing a young woman. And to try make them stop, he threw bottles at the men. Glasses at them and he tried to throw a bike at them. And he threw a table at them. He's one of the heroes from that night. I also saw a man walk out from the restaurant next to me and then a woman follow him. He was clutching his chest or his neck, covered in blood, and he meandered on through the market and I hope he found the medical attention that he needed and he wasn't one of those seven people that we mourn today.

CO: In this restaurant, they'd been able to close and lock the door. How long did you stay in there?

RA: We were there for about 40 minutes. We could see the police circle the area. Some gunshots went off. It was pretty scary. And then they did a second and a third time and more gunshots went off. And, eventually, we saw that the police were evacuating. And then really quickly, we left the building and were running through the streets. People had kicked off their shoes, dropped their wallet. Blood was about; victims, paramedics, and the great police officers that had secured our city.

CO: Going back to the restaurant for a moment. That time while you're waiting to be given the all clear and you can see what was going on in the street. What about the people in the restaurant? Was everyone OK?

RA: There were about 32 of us I believe, one of them was pregnant woman. She needed a chair and probably more calm and we could have provided. Lots of people were couples. People came from all around the world. Not everyone spoke English as a first language. But we got people upstairs and to safety. People were sitting on the steps, which stopped panicked people from opening the fire escape and going out into the unknown. We were safest inside. Nobody, thankfully, was hurt or injured. And we had to wait it out.

CO: And when you got out into the street, you describe this like there was people's stuff like their shoes they got rid of, I guess to run faster. What did the police instruct you to do?

RA: Run. We were actually being quite orderly because we were trying to keep people calm and get out without falling over all this stuff. The police basically encouraged us to run and run further. When we got to the cordoned off area you kind of check yourself, check all your friends are with you, and then they move the cordon. And that's when it started to hit me what had happened. And when we thought we were safe we actually weren’t yet, and we had to just keep walking.

CO: And so at what point did you feel that you were out of danger?

RA: Between moving from where we were to the new cordoned area. Some friends called, offered us a sofa, a cup of tea, a glass of wine, a place to charge phones, and watch the news and find out what on earth was happening. And, eventually, got a bus, got to our friend's house, and then started to hit.

CO: And, yeah, when you started to watch the news. When you actually were able to learn what you had been in the middle of that there was this white van that had charged people that the three men who got out and began to stab people. When you saw all of that how did you react?

RA: I don't know. You know there was a kind of post situation fear, but then a resolution that I’m not going to be scared in my own city. And other people will be and I totally, totally, understand that as a reaction. But I think we show these people they haven’t won as the people of Paris, Tel Aviv, Belgium, Sweden, various other places and cities do constantly and say we will overcome in some way.

CO: You went back to the restaurant the next day, why is that?

RA: Well, sadly it's not open yet. Although, we're hoping to meet the staff this evening, but we need to pay the bill. And if somebody's putting their foot and their body weight behind a glass door to stop a terrorist getting in doesn’t deserve the tip being doubled, I don’t know what does? I know what it’s like to live in London and live off you tips. And I don’t think those people should lose out because of these barbarous people.

CO: Much has been said around the world about the remarkable spirit and reaction of most Britons, not all, but most. But now, three attacks within less than three months. And that spirit you describe, can that prevail?

RA: I think so. I think Manchester showed us the blueprint of how to do it: how to show solidarity, how to look out for each other, how to bring people together, and say we will hold on to our humanity in this barbarism. We will not stoop to their level.

CO: Richard, thank you. Thank you for speaking with us.

RA: Thank you.

CO: Have a good evening.

RA: Thank you. Cheers

TD: Richard Angell was a witness to Saturday night's attack in London. And that's where we reached him.

London shelter

Guest: Kathy Christiansen

JD: As you have been hearing in the news, one of the people killed in this weekend's attack was Canadian Christine Archibald. She was with her fiancé on the London Bridge when she was struck by the van. Reportedly she died in her fiancé’s arms. While living in Canada, Ms. Archibald worked at the Alpha House society, a shelter in Calgary. And that is where we reached the organization's executive director, Kathy Christiansen.

CO: Kathy, how are people at Alpha House remembering Christina Archibald today?

KATHY CHRISTIANSEN: You know it's still early days in terms of the news. So people are affected with grief and surprise. And we worked really hard to try and let everyone know throughout the day yesterday. But I think how we're remembering her just started just falling into place. So I think people are talking about her. Talking about planning some gatherings and ceremony around her in the upcoming days, but I would say that is still a process that we're in the midst of.

CO: And how are you are remembering her?

KC: You know I just recall that she was a dedicated and talented social worker, who you know had an affinity for the work here at the center and a talent for you know responding to populations that are very marginalized, and so that was a real gift to us. You know she was valued by her colleagues. You know we have a fairly large staff complement, but that said they're a fairly tight group. So you know people still were friends and you know there were upcoming vacations planned. And she was still a part of our life even though she had left in February because she moved to Europe after she finished work here.

CO: There was a statement that the Archibald family put out. They said that she had room in her heart for everyone and believed strongly that every person was to be valued and respected. And the statement said she would have had no understanding of the callous cruelty that caused her death. Please honor her by making your community a better place. Volunteer your time in labor, or donate to a homeless shelter. Tell them Chrissie sent you.

KC: Yeah, yeah, it's a beautiful statement and I think it's you know is it true reflection if words were to escape me in terms of how to describe her. That statement is the essence of who she was. And I think Chrissie was very much about you know knowing that people can reclaim their potential through the work that she was able to do here. And I think the hashtag #Chrissiesentme, you know for looking for an outcome that's meaningful in this tragedy that would make her happy.

CO: Kathy, thank you very much for sharing your memories of Christine Archibald with us.

KC: Thank you. Take good care.

CO: Bye Bye.

KC: Bye.

JD: Kathy Christiansen is the executive director of the Alpha House Society in Calgary. That's where we reached her.

[Music: Piano]

Coma lawsuit

Guest: Marcel Blanchette

JD: He very nearly lost his life. And now, Marcel Blanchette is fighting to recover his possessions. In December of 2014, Mr. Blanchette was viciously attacked in Winnipeg. He subsequently fell into a coma and spent months in recovery in hospital. And during that period, Manitoba's Public Guardian and Trustee took control of his affairs. And once Mr. Blanchette regained consciousness, he learned that the provincial agency had given away his belongings to charity. Mr. Blanchette has now launched a lawsuit against the agency. We reached him in Winnipeg.

CO: Marcel, how difficult has it been getting back on your feet with all your belongings gone?

MARCEL BLANCHETTE: To tell you the truth to me it's been hell. I feel like I've been put through hell.

CO: Can you just tell some of the things that you lost when they took them away?

MB: The things that really matter to me that I cared about most. They were things like my pictures of the places I've lived in and traveled to over the years. And that’s overseas and in the U.S. I was in Saudi Arabia, I've worked in Saudi Arabia, and I went camping. I picked up a couple petrified seashells as a memento for having been there. It was everything, Carol; everything is gone.

CO: You know just to try and go back a bit to where all this began for you, which is when you ended up in the hospital back in 2014. What puts you in hospital?

MB: That part is more difficult to explain. When I went to sentencing for the person that assaulted me the explanation given to the judge was that they blacked out. So I still to this day do not know actually what occurred.

CO: We do know from the police report it was an unprovoked, vicious attack on you. And your skull was fractured, your nose and eye socket damaged, bleeding in your brain, and you are in a coma for a long time. It's during that time that you lost your possessions. Tell us what happened to them?

MB: My family came from Saskatchewan and what they did apparently was they gave control of my affairs to trustee. What the trustee did then was surrendered everything to the management company that was responsible for my apartment. At that point, I was wiped out. When I was in a coma, in intensive care, I didn't know what was going on. So it wasn't until March of 2015, about four months after the assault, that it started sinking in that I started understanding what had happened. I had no idea of what was going on. But then, when I came to, that was when I realized that everything was gone.

CO: And why did the public guardian feel that it was OK to get rid of all your stuff?

MB: Their reasoning was that there was not enough money to put things into storage. But there was enough money there. I had an RSP, so they told my family that there was no money. They just wiped it out.

CO: Was there an assumption on their part that you weren't going to come back out of that coma?

MB: From my understanding, from my surmising, what has occurred is that both my family and the trustee thought that I was done. My brain was done and I was going to be a vegetable for the rest of my life. So I think they just assumed they would be OK to do whatever. They basically removed any memory of me and even got rid of or lost things like my birth certificate and all of my identification.

CO: And what did they do with your things? They went into your apartment, gathered everything up, and how did they dispose of them?

The charity Big Brothers Big Sisters went in and cleaned it out. And I went to Big Brothers Big Sisters and asked them what had occurred? And they told me that they sold everything and they sold it by weight.

CO: Good heavens! And so I know there's an itemized what you've lost: all your furniture, your laptop, your ski boots, all your dishes, pots, pans, your TV, and these personal things as you mentioned. Your seashells from Saudi Arabia, a piece of the Berlin Wall that a friend gave, and things you can never replace. So now, whatever settlement they're offering you, which is in the thousands, you say it's much more in that. What are you suing them for?

MB: When they gave up my belongings part of what I got from Big Brothers Big Sisters was personal documentation. And in that was tax related information. So when they gave control them back to me, I was left with a $57,000 tax bill. They cashed in my RSP. They did my taxes and I was told that what they did is not even legal. They're supposed to by law be keeping documentation — tax related documentation — for seven years, but they just gave it up. They gave it to the charity.

CO: Marcel, how are you doing? I mean you were in such bad shape in the hospital. You're out now, you're on your own. How are you coping with everything?

MB: In Manitoba there's an organization called Society for Manitobans with Disabilities. I've started upgrading way information technology skills. So, actually, I just finished my first class last week, and I'm proud to say this but my grade on the final exam was 88 per cent. So I should end up with close to a 90 per cent mark on it. And hopefully, by this time next year, I will have upgraded my skills enough that I'll be able to go back to work in IT, which was my profession.

CO: Marcel, I wish you every success in getting back to work and getting back into your IT profession. And I'm sorry all this happened to you.

MB: Carol if I could say one thing, people should never lose hope or faith in humanity. What they did to me is that they lost hope and this is what happens when you lose hope.

CO: I hope everything is recovered for you, Marcel. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

MB: Thank you for taking the time.

CO: Take care. Bye Bye.

MB: You too. Bye.

JD: Marcel Blanchette has filed a lawsuit against the Manitoba Public Guardian and Trustee after his possessions were donated to charity while he was in hospital. We reached Mr. Blanchette in Winnipeg. And the Manitoba Public Guardian and Trustee declined a request from CBC for an interview. And they have denied Mr. Blanchette's claims and dispute his grounds for a lawsuit.

[Music: Folk]

Tolkien book

Guest: John Garth

JD: For some readers, opening a book to discover a map of a fantastical made-up land is an instant headache. I mean, real life geography is difficult enough; and now, you have to memorize a bunch of fictional places? And, yet, to others it is exciting, an opportunity to immerse oneself in a new world. And to those readers, J.R.R Tolkien is pure pleasure. A lot of Mr. Tolkien's, work including “The Hobbit” and “The Lord Of The Rings” trilogy is set in a world he called “Middle-earth”. And now, his fans will be able to revisit Middle-earth with the publication of a book the late author began a century ago. It is called “Beren and Luthien”. And John Garth is the author of “Tolkien and the Great War”. He is also writing a book called “Tolkien's Mirror”, about J.R.R. Tolkien and the twentieth century. We reached Mr. Garth in Basingstoke, England. And truly a very serious warning for devotees: this interview contains spoilers.

CO: John, first off, can you give us just a brief synopsis of what this book is about — this “Beren and Luthien”?

JOHN GARTH: Right, well there are two ways of looking at this. First of all, it's a story about a mortal man who meets an elf maiden them and they fall in love. But they have to overcome all kinds of terrible challenges in order to stay together. And in doing so, they bring hope to Middle-earth. The other way of looking at it is that it's the story of the writing of that story because Tolkien spent a lot of his life reworking it in different forms. He wrote it in full in 1917, and then tried it again in different forms for example as a long epic poem and didn't finish those. So what his son has done is to give us the first version and then you know really interesting segments of the later versions.

CO: This book — this “Beren and Luthien” — goes back much earlier than “Lord of the Rings” was published or written. Tell us a bit about what Mr. Tolkien was doing at that time and what might have inspired this story.

JG: So when the First World War broke out in 1914, Tolkien was a student Oxford. And he stuck around; he finished his degree even though else seemed to be joining up. And then he rushed into the army and trained for a year and went off to the Battle of the Somme. And just before he did so, he married Edith, his childhood sweetheart. And he said that separating from her as he went off to battle was like a death. Now, he spent four months on that battlefield and he became battalion signals officer. So he was in charge of communications for about seven hundred men. And he came back with trench fever, which may have saved his life. He lost two of his dearest friends there. And so when 1917 came around, that’s the year the story was written, he was as you can imagine a physical wreck. Probably emotionally very unhappy, but he and Edith went for a walk one day in Yorkshire. It was spring or May, the flowers were out, and in a green-wood she danced for him. And this seemed to Tolkien just a wonderful thing. A glimpse of the kind of joy that he thought he'd never see again. And that inspired the scene in the story where Beren meets Luthien. And it was so important to Tolkien that not only did he keep rewriting it, revisiting it, and looking at it in different ways. But when Edith died in 1971, Tolkien had Luthien put under her name on her gravestone. And now, the name Beren is added under his name on that same stone.

CO: Did Beren and Luthien stay in the fiction as characters because they turn up again don't they in “Lord Of The Rings”?

JG: They're mentioned in “Lord Of The Rings” and this of course is where most readers will have encountered them. So when Aragorn and the hobbits are sitting in the dark on the Hill of Weathertop waiting to be attacked by a Ring Wraiths. Aragorn lifts their spirits by singing a song about Beren and Luthien and telling their story. At one point later on, when Frodo and Sam are on the edges of Mordor. Sam says hey, we're in the same story as them.

CO: You've mentioned elsewhere that you regard this story of Beren and Luthien as a meditation on mortality. Can you tell us a bit more about what you're thinking?

JG: There are going to be spoilers here I’m afraid. One of these characters dies — Beren dies. He's mortal, he's going to die, but he dies of wounds. Luthien, who's immortal, goes to figure that we might call the God of the Underworld and she persuades him to let Beren come back to life on condition that she gave up her immortality and become mortal like him. So Tolkien's whole project seems to me was to look at our mortal condition and consider what's good about it and what's bad about it? And the bad side — the downside — is very, very, obvious. But in Tolkien's mind, as a devout Christian, he thought that well when we die we may go somewhere better. So death can be regarded as a gift.

CO: And son Christopher, who has worked on these texts for all these years and done so much work on his father's fiction. What did this story mean for him? He’s 92. What did it mean for him as he was pulling this together?

JG: It's very touching. His introduction first of all says it is in memoriam. So it's in memoriam to his father and to his mother. But it’s also the story that he first remembers ever being told. So his father would tell him stories of the cuff and he told him this one. And Christopher says there's a moment in the story that is very powerful where people are imprisoned in a dungeon and wolves come in night by night and kill them one by one. And his first memory of an element in any story whatsoever is of the wolves eyes appearing from the darkness.

CO: And his father was telling him this story.

JG: When he was about seven.

CO: Oh dear! That stays with you, I’m sure.

JG: I think it would.

CO: Do you know if he's going to do anymore? Are there any more works that Christopher will still be writing?

JG: He says this is presumptively his last book, so I don't know? I know there's more material there, which might feasibly be published. For example, the story that Tolkien wrote right between the Battle of the Somme and this one is a story of battle called “The Fall of Gondolin”, and like this one that's been published, but only in very scholarly editions that put off most readers. So it would be feasible to give that the same treatment as this. But we'll have to wait and see if he wants to do that.

CO: And lots of people will be waiting to see. So this is always good news. And John, it’s good to talk to you. Thank you.

JG: And you. Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: We reached John Garth in Basingstoke, England.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Qatar explainer, pink slime

Qatar explainer

Guest: Aya Batrawy

Qatar has found itself suddenly isolated today, after Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain all cut diplomatic ties with the tiny country. Qatar is a small peninsula in the Persian Gulf. It shares its only land border with Saudi Arabia. Now, that border is closed, blocking most of the country's food imports. Aya Batrawy covers the Arabian Peninsula for the Associated Press. We reached her in Dubai.

CO: Aya, I’m sure this is complex, but in a nutshell, why have Qatar’s neighbors cut off the country like this?

AYA BATRAWY: Qatar’s neighbors have cut off relations because they say that this brothering country is supporting terrorism. They accuse it of mostly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which the West is not deemed the terrorist group. But which Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE have been a terrorist group because they see its politics in the region as a threat to their stability and their governing systems. And so they're not happy with Qatar's outreach to the Brotherhood and its continued support of Brotherhood affiliates like Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They're not happy with the use of Al-Jazeera network and other Qatari-owned and other Qatari-affiliated media outlets who they say continue to incite this kind of a foreign policy an agenda that supports the Islamists in the region.

CO: I mean Saudi Arabia to accuse a Qatar of state-sponsored terrorism and isn't it on thin ice when it does that? Doesn't Saudi Arabia have many countries who accuse it of its own state-sponsored terror?

AB: I mean for sure. And you know, the Treasury Department has raised you know concerns about that. But Saudi Arabia and Qatar are also counterterrorism allies with the United States and are involved in that U.S.-led coalition to strike Islamic state groups in Iraq and Syria. And Qatar serves as the host to the forward U.S. Central Command base with thousands of U.S. troops there who have launched those airstrikes from Qatar. But still, for Saudi Arabia I think the concern isn't so much the Sunni rebel groups that are fighting to oust the Syrian government, which Saudi Arabia backs. I think for Saudi Arabia and the UAE the concern is with Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which pose a direct threat to their political stability. So it's more linked to that.

CO: OK, but this does bring another element in here and this is Iran. And it appears that the Emir of Qatar is supporting Iran and tweeted something that seemed to be in support of Iran's regime. Tell us the background of that and the fallout from that?

AB: Sure. I mean Qatar has long had you can say ties with Iran because they share their wealth. Qatar has a massive wealth. It is a country of only around 270,000 Qatari people and the rest are millions of migrant and foreign workers there. Their vast wealth comes from a natural underground gas reserve that it shares with Iran in the Persian Gulf waters. But beyond those economic ties, they have consistently called for you could say level heads and tempered heads when dealing with Iran. But under King Salman and Saudi Arabia and his very hawkish Deputy Crown Prince, who is his son. The kingdom has taken a very strong stance against Iran and even in Yemen they’ve gone to war with Iranian-allied rebels there. And so for Saudi Arabia this is a matter of sovereignty and security. Iran is Saudi Arabia's number one enemy. There's almost a national obsession in Saudi media with Iran and with targeting Iran and with vilifying Iran. And I think Saudi Arabia was extremely emboldened by U.S. President Donald Trump's visit recently to Saudi Arabia. In which he squarely aligned America behind these Sunni Arab countries that are against Iran.

CO: What are the consequences for Qatar? It is as you say the population is very small. It is extremely dependent on its neighbors. What happens to it now that these countries, Saudi Arabia leading. And that's the superpower in the region. What happens to its economy?

AB: I mean exactly. So for Qatar, it is this small nation at the end of the day. It's a peninsula nation jutting off the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia. It relies on not only its liquefied natural gas, but it has commercial business process. Like Qatar Air is one of the region’s largest and busiest airlines and it flies to Europe and to the U.S. and everywhere. They fly over Saudi airspace to do that. Saudi Arabia has not only severed diplomatic ties, but Saudi Arabia and Egypt have also banned any Qatari-bound flights or Qatari airlines from flying over their airspace, using their waterways for shipments, and by land-locking Qatar. And by barring any Saudi imports or exports to go in and out of Qatar essentially what they're doing is they're cutting Qatar off from the rest of the world. Not entirely, but in a very significant way. And so there was a rush in Qatar today at grocery stores and on food there. We've seen images online of people posting you know empty grocery store shelves and there's trucks lined up at the border, unable to deliver their goods to Qatar. It's not clear what's going to happen next though because you know the Qatar emir, he's only 37-years-old, he's under a lot of pressure now to either dig in his heels further and maybe realign himself with Iran and break away entirely from the Gulf block of nations. Or he may have to capitulate and concede to this very strong pressure on him.

CO: you mentioned that Saudi Arabia feels empowered by the visit of President Trump just recently and especially in its opposition to Iran. But at the same time, Qatar is home to a large U.S. air base and has American support. So does the Trump administration does it have the capacity to broker any kind of agreement or to bring these sides together? Or is it something that Mr. Trump probably is not capable of pulling off at this point?

AB: Well, I think you know for Gulfies, “Gulfies” being you know in terms of the nickname we give to the people in the Gulf, you know they believe that you know these internal issues should be dealt by people in the Gulf. They don't like to rely on you know outside help to deal with their internal issues and they see this as a very domestic Arab internal issue. However, you know, there's analysts out there that are saying that if anything you might see Washington backing Saudi Arabia's very bold measures against Qatar to get Qatar in line because it's also you know not always in Washington's interest to have such close alliances with a country that also has ties or potential ties or alleged ties with al Qaeda affiliates.

CO: All right. Aya, we're going to leave it there. I appreciate you giving us this background analysis today. Thank you.

AB: Thank you so much.

JD: Aya Batrawy covers the Arabian Peninsula for the Associated Press. We reached her in Dubai.

[Music: Spanish guitar]

Megyn Kelly with Putin

JD: The questions were pretty straightforward. They were about the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The answers, however, were more like a game of Russian roulette. On Friday, Megyn Kelly sat down with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, Russia for an interview that aired last night on NBC. And when Ms. Kelly pressed President Putin about the connection between Russian officials and U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign team, things got a bit of it. Here's part of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

VLADIMIR PUTIN: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: I will tell you something that you probably already know. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but the United States, everywhere all over the world, actively interferes with the electoral campaigns of other countries.

MEGYN KELLY: But with respect that sounds like a justification?

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: It doesn't sound like a justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go. And even the parties in power change. But the main political direction does not change. That's why, in the grand scheme of things, we don't care who's the head of the United States. We know, more or less, what is going to happen. And so in this regard, even if we wanted to, it wouldn't make sense for us to interfere.

MK: a special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government and the Trump campaign. You've said that your ambassador, kislyak, was just doing his job, right? So what exactly was discussed in those meetings?

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: There were no meetings. You understand? There were no meetings. When I saw this, my jaw dropped.

MK: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: I have no idea. I'm being completely honest. I don't know the routine job of an ambassador. Do you think that from all over the world or from the United States, the ambassador reports to me every day who he meets with what they discussed there? That's complete nonsense! Do you even understand what you asking or not?

MK: Well, you’re his boss.

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: Listen, his boss is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Do you think that I have time to talk to our ambassadors every day, all over the world? Complete nonsense?

MK: Have you gone back to speak with the ambassador about what was in those discussions he had with Jared Kushner, with anybody else from the Trump campaign?

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: No.

MK: Never?

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: No, I haven’t.

MK: Aren't you interested?

VP: [Speaking: Russian].

TRANSLATOR: No, because had there been anything significant, he would have reported to the minister. The minister would have reported it to me. There weren't even any reports. There's nothing to talk about. For me, this is just amazing. You created a sensation out of nothing. And out of this sensation, you turn it into a weapon of war against the current president. Well this is… you know… you people are so creative over there. Good job. Your lives must be boring.

JD: That was Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking to Megyn Kelly of NBC News through a translator on Friday. The interview aired last night on the debut episode of “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” on NBC.

[Music: Jazz]

Pink slime

Guest: Jonathan Ellis

JD: Back in 2012, a series of reports aired on ABC about something called “Lean Finally Textured Beef”: processed cow trimmings, essentially sometimes added to ground beef to lower its fat content. But if that doesn't ring a bell, perhaps the phrase “pink slime” does. Well, now, ABC is being sued for using that choice of words and for alleged errors and omissions in its reporting. The South Dakota-based meat processor, Beef Products Inc., says the unappetising name cost it big time. And it is asking for at least $1.9 billion in damages. The trial begins today. Jonathan Ellis is covering the case for the Argus Leader newspaper. We reached him in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

CO: Jonathan, what is this meat processing company, Beef Products Inc., trying to prove?

JONATHAN ELLIS: They are trying to prove that ABC falsely maligned their product causing nearly $2 billion in damages. With a series of reports that first started airing in March of 2012, and generated a huge amount of backlash from consumers across the country about what was in meat supplies and beef supplies not only in restaurants and stores, but also in school the school lunch program.

CO: And this product is called “Lean Finally Textured Beef”, that's the official name. What did ABC television say about it?

JE: Well, they used quite gratuitously a term that has been coined in 2002 by a USDA microbiologist who called it “pink slime”. That actually came out in an email that the New York Times had gotten in a Freedom of Information request and that was published in 2009. So it wasn’t a new term, certainly not to the public and not to the media. It had been reported before, but these reports from ABC, for whatever reason, just really caught fire with the public, certainly in social media. And it caused a huge amount of damage to the company. They ended up having to close three of their four plants and laying off more than half of its workforce.

CO: How many people did they lay off?

JE: The last estimate I heard was 750.

CO: But if they didn't originate this term “pink slime”, why is the company going after ABC for that?

JE: Well, they're going to have to prove that the ABC knowingly misled the public and knowingly tried to malign their product. And so it'll be interesting to see what the company managed to get in terms of discovery. Whether there were some memos, some emails, certainly at the hearing I was out on Friday, they discussed what kinds of emails would be in evidence that the jurors would see. So they're going to have to prove under the law that ABC committed malice and knowingly reported something that was wrong. That was incorrect about the product.

CO: And this is a very key test of a defamation suit in the United States, isn't it? That they have to have to demonstrate that it was a malicious act that they were intending to do. They reported something that wasn't true, is that right?

JE: That is correct. And South Dakota is unique… I don’t want to say unique. It is one of about 13 states in the country that have laws that protect agricultural food products from being disparaged. And disparagement means that the person who's making claims about a food product has to know that those claims are false and that they imply that an agricultural product is not safe. You know ABC’s reports always indicated that the United States Department of Agriculture had indicated that the products were safe. So ABC covered themselves by saying that. So it'll be interesting to know to see what Beef Products Incorporated, which goes by BPI. It'll be interesting to see what they've gotten in this discovery process.

CO: How big of a deal is this case in South Dakota?

JE: Well, I would say it's not just a big deal in South Dakota, but certainly in the in the Midwest and certainly in the cattle world. You know when this first happened these reports came out in 2012, you had governors from several states including: Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and lieutenant governors from South Dakota and they sort of had a had a PR event for the company. So there were there were politicians in Congress who were certainly supportive of the company. So people living in agriculture states, it's a big deal for them for sure.

CO: The suit is for nearly two billion dollars US, which makes it I guess one of the largest defamation suits in history in your country, is that right?

JE: I don't know in terms of putting it in place with other lawsuits where it would sit. I mean it's certainly huge. And then when you take under the law here in South Dakota anyone who disparages the product and is found liable for that, they're actually tripled damages. So we're getting to the point of approaching six billion dollars. That's a lot of money.

CO: That’s because it's food disparagement, is that right?

JE: That's correct.

CO: Has the company mentioned or is it possible that by having such an enormous lawsuit, which would probably get a lot of press, that they're sort of perpetuating the problem? That this will get more exposure and that “pink slime” will keep coming up is a term associated with their product?

JE: That's sort of a public relations risk that you run here. But they made the decision back in September of 2012 to go ahead and file this lawsuit. And I suppose that that's a decision you have to weigh because certainly when you're going to sue for that much money, you're going to sue at all, there are going to be press reports about it. And as you know as the trial started now all these years later, you're seeing, once again, “pink slime” in the news. I think from the company's point of view they may never recover where they were at that $1.1 billion in sales and I guess from their perspective they really have nothing to lose.

CO: We'll leave it there. We’ll be following. Jonathan, thank you.

JE: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye bye.

JE: Bye.

JD: Jonathan Ellis is a reporter with the Argus Leader. He's covering the “pink slime” defamation trial against ABC News, which began today. We reached Jonathan Ellis in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Dean Beeby, jaywalking reporter

Pat Stogran

JD: The NDP leadership race shrank by one candidate over the weekend. in a video posted online on Saturday, Pat Stogran announced he was dropping out. Mr. Stogran had painted himself as an outsider candidate. He had a 30-year career in the Canadian Armed Forces before entering politics, and he said he wanted to transform the NDP from the inside. Here's some of what he had to say in his video.

SOUNDCLIP

PAT STOGRAN: I'm Pat Stogran, and I made the decision to run for the leadership of Canada’s NDP because I love this country and all the people who live here. At this time in my life, however, as I enter my golden years, I came to the conclusion that my love for family far outweighs my love of politics, especially selfish, incompetent politics. It is with huge sadness that I resign from the leadership contest. The fight to take on politics incorporated while also trying to take on the insiders of a political party that has no desire to see me win has proven insurmountable. The inside workings of the NDP are fundamentally flawed and they’ve put major obstacles in place for candidates trying to grow the party's base from the grass roots. The NDP will never form a government until it is reformed entirely, and I no longer saw that as a possibility. To my campaign team, you know who you are, thank you from the bottom of my heart for answering the call when the bugles played. Not since I deployed to Afghanistan with a thousand loyal Canadians in 2002 to combat tyranny and extremism have I ever worked with people so dedicated to what Canada stands for. To my supporters and donors, the volunteers, the people you've put your faith in me to lead the NDP, you were all leaders in your own right. I have no words to describe the gratitude that I have for you. You are the reason that politics incorporated will be defeated. And I look forward to witnessing other leaders rising up to join you to carry on the good fight.

JD: Pat Stogran, announcing his departure from the NDP leadership race on Saturday. There are now five contenders left in the race. The leadership vote will take place in the fall.

[Music: Ambient]

Dean Beeby

Guest: Dean Beeby

JD: “Just another trouble maker, in an illustrious line of troublemakers.” That is how CBC reporter Dean Beeby described his job on Saturday night. He was on stage to except the Charles Lynch Award at the annual dinner of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. The award was in honor of Dean's success in using the Freedom of Information Act to extract awkward truths out of governments of every stripe. And when it came to offering an assessment of how well the Freedom of Information System is working, Mr. Beeby did not mince words.

SOUNDCLIP

DEAN BEEBY: I think we can safely say it's never been in worse shape ever. This thing is not working and it's working the worst it's ever worse in 33 years. So, in terms of troublemaking that's going to be my self-assigned task over the next few months and years to finally get this damn thing fixed. And I don't want to do it alone. I want you to join me in this once a generation task of giving Canadians a law that enforces transparency in their governments. And maybe tonight you can buttonhole the person next to you and say get the damn job done. Anyway, thanks and have a great evening and I very much appreciate the support.

JD: That was CBC reporter Dean Beeby accepting the Charles Lynch Award at the Parliamentary Press Gallery's annual dinner in Ottawa on Saturday. Dean did not have to buttonhole the high-and-mighty after giving his speech. As he stepped from the stage, he found that he himself was being buttonholed by Prime Minister Trudeau. We reached Dean Beeby in Ottawa.

CO: Dean, first of all, congratulations for your award.

DB: Oh, thank you. I appreciate that.

CO: And you wanted to buttonhole, but you got buttonholed. What did the prime minister want to tell you after he heard your speech?

DB: Well, I came down off the podium and somebody grabbed my shoulder and started shaking my hand and I happened to notice that was the prime minister, so I was kind of impressed by that. And he was he was just congratulating me for the award. And then he said something to the effect of we're going to fix this or we're going to get this job done. And we know you'll be watching us. And so I said yes, Prime Minister, I will be watching. And that was the extent of it. But you know it was nice to know that the words landed — my words landed — and I was heard. We'll just see whether it produces any action.

CO: Well, we've heard it before, haven't we? I mean this commitment to fixing our access to information laws has been something that they've been promising for some time. So any follow up? Any other indication that he actually meant it?

DB: Well, I mean the minister who is responsible for fixing it, who he's given the task to fix, it is Scott Brison. He's the Treasury Board President, so he talked to me shortly afterwards and he said you know something's coming very soon. And you know he talked about the problems in you know amending the legislation. And he crowed a lot about you know proactively putting data sets on the web. But you know again we've heard this so many times before. I mean we heard it back when the Conservatives came into power under Stephen Harper. They promise broad changes in access to information. Of course none of them ever appeared. And we're now 18 months into this government, which also promised broad changes to access information, and so far nothing. So it's very frustrating you know? There's a lot of talk and no action.

CO: You said in your speech that the law has never been in worse shape and it's the worst it's been in 33 years. Can you expand on that? Tell us what you mean?

DB: Well, I've used it for 33 years. I started using it in the early 80s, so I've been there all along. And so I can see the changes over the years. And today, responses to requests take longer than ever. So delays are very bad. And that's especially a problem in the world of journalism where you know you want to inform the public in a timely way on the issues of the day. Also the use of exemptions these are the parts of the act where they justify not giving you information. There is much greater use of them. So cabinet documents, which are supposed to be protected, the definition of a cabinet document gets wider and wider every year. So it covers ridiculous things. Another section on advice to the minister or the government is supposed to be protected, but then without a hard definition the data exemption is used more widely on things we used to get quite easily 20 years ago. So there's been you know real shenanigans. The bureaucracy knows where the loopholes are and they exploit them. And you know Canadians deserve better. I mean especially this government, which is spending a lot of money and going into deficits on infrastructure and other things. I mean we need to watch that spending to make sure it is you know deployed efficiently. And the Access to Information Act is one of our best tools or should be one of our best tools for keeping them honest about spending. And, yet, this tool has sort of lost its edge.

CO: People read and consume news every day. They think they're getting the story. They think they're informed and they know that it appears that way. Maybe you can explain to the people who don't know what it means to have these laws and how they get used? Maybe give an example or something so people can understand why they should care?

DB: Well, I just did a story last week on the government's efforts to consolidate information technology across all of its departments. So they want to you know a common email system, a common telephone cellular system, and they want to bring together all their data servers. This report, which was written or delivered in January, is just scathing about how they've wasted money. How very little has been accomplished over the last five years. You know it really gives Canadians an insight into the incompetence behind this project, which we wouldn't know if we just read the press releases from public works or Shared Services Canada. This report by the way, was delivered in January and I only got it last week through the Access to Information Act. So there's five months when we didn't actually know that they had been criticized so severely for this. But there are so many requests that I and others make that arrived just with blank pages or arrive you know 10 months later and are less and less relevant for that. So it's really a pillar of our democracy in Canada and it really is important to keep our government spending money well, making policy well, and that only happens in a climate of transparency. And the Access to Information Act is one of the best tools we can have to ensure transparency.

CO: Well, that seems to be what Justin Trudeau has said in the past, isn't it? I mean he campaigned on that promise. He said that under Stephen Harper, the government grew secretive, closed off from Canadians, and that he was going to do something better. A sweeping agenda for change premised on a simple idea he said transparent government is good government. So what prevents him from doing that? Why don't they move on that?

DB: Well, I have one word answer for that and it's: bureaucracy. I think the bureaucracy has captured this government. I mean they are reflexively secretive and I am certain they have come up with a raft of excuses for not improving this act because it might expose more of their work to the public. So you know it really takes leadership in a government to get over the objections of the bureaucracy and I just don't see that leadership. It's kind of ironic because we only have the Access to Information Act because of a leader back in the early 80s, who told the bureaucracy to take a chill pill and get this Act passed. And that leader was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. So there is a legacy there — A Trudeau legacy — that I think this prime minister should remember. And we need to get this damn thing fixed.

CO: As you said to the prime minister and Scott Brison, we'll be watching. Dean, Thank you.

DB: Thanks Carol.

JD: Dean Beeby is a journalist with the CBC's Parliamentary Bureau. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Hip-hop]

School fundraising

JD: Some schools were able to raise two-hundred thousand bucks. Others raised nothing at all. That is according to People for Education's annual report on publicly funded schools in Ontario. The organization surveyed more than 1,000 schools and looked at a number of topics, including fundraising. And this morning, the organization's executive director, Annie Kidder, spoke with CBC Toronto host Matt Galloway on “Metro Morning”. She said that, unsurprisingly perhaps, the schools that are raising more money are often located in more affluent neighborhoods. And then she explained how that fundraising gap could play out in schools.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNIE KIDDER: I think you would see it in the school library. You might see it in the gym or the auditorium. You might see it in the playing fields, all of which you know families are raising money for. You might see it because, either in the library or in every classroom, there are more computers. There are more laptops and you can see it even in supplies in you know the science room or in the art room that there are better and more supplies for kids.

MATT GALLOWAY: I've heard that even in what would appear to be basic things like blinds on the windows. Schools that are doing fundraising may have blinds on all the windows so that the sun doesn't stream in and make your classroom boiling hot and some schools don't, is that the case?

AK: That is absolutely true. Again, one of the problems is that you know where do we draw the line in terms of what's kind of an acceptable thing to fundraise for? And it is allowable. There are a lot of gray areas in the guidelines, so it's allowable to raise money for things like blinds on the windows or even you know repairs to the inside of the school. As long as it doesn't sort of increase the operating cost of the school.

MG: If you are not raising that kind of money what happens? Do you just not have blinds on your windows? You don't have laptops in the library or computers in classrooms?

AK: Yes. I mean one of the things that we were really struck by this year is principals talking about trying to raise money in lower income schools for things like breakfast programs or winter clothes for their kids. So that they're you know they're trying to provide things that kids really, really, need in order to be able to do well at school. But they can't raise money for that because they're in less well-off neighborhoods.

MG: You could imagine that the parents at schools that are raising a lot of money are saying well what's wrong with this? We are able to better our child's experience at school. We have the means to do this. What do you want us to do? What would your response be to those who are raising that kind of money and feel that this is a good thing for their school?

AK: Well, and that's the hard part, because I'm a parent too. So it's really hard to resist you know the desire to make everything as perfect as humanly possible for your own child. So I don't think it's necessarily wrong of parents to be doing this. I think we think it is important though that the guidelines be clearer and that there be sort of clear restrictions on what you can and can't fundraise for, so that we don't have these sort of big gaps between schools.

JD: Annie Kidder is the executive director of People for Education. She was in conversation with the host of CBC Toronto's “Metro Morning”, that being Matt Galloway. People for Education released its annual report today.

[Music: Folk]

Jaywalking reporter

Guest: Dugan Arnett

JD: It is illegal to jaywalk in Boston. But you wouldn't know it. talk to locals and they'll tell you they've never heard of anyone getting a ticket for jaywalking. But is it impossible? The Boston Globe's reporter Dugan Arnett decided to find out.

CO: Dugan, just how elusive are jaywalking tickets in the city of Boston?

DUGAN ARNETT: They're so elusive as to be nonexistent I would say. There are very, very, few people that I've found that have actually gotten one. And a couple that did reach out to they have gotten one at some point. We're talking about times back in the 60s I believe. So these things aren't handed out. They just aren't.

CO: Now, are Bostonians enthusiastic jaywalkers for the most part?

DA: Oh, very much so. I'm still a bit new to Boston, but from everything I understand Bostonians are kind of known for their jaywalking. And not only that, but seem to take some pride in it. So no matter what neighborhood, no matter what area of town, no matter what time of day, you're going to see big groups of people you know walking through the streets without much regard for what else is going on.

CO: It's actually illegal though in Boston to jaywalk, is it not?

DA: Yes, it's technically illegal. But the problem is the fine is $1 for the first three offenses and $2 for any ensuing offense.

CO: Ouch!

DA: So it's just at a point where the police just don't have any incentive to hand them out. And as one officer said to me you know they're not worth the paper that it would take to write on.

CO: Ok, with that in mind you decided test this, didn't you? This is a law and you wanted to know if they're enforcing this law? And you set out into the streets of Boston to see if you could get a ticket for jaywalking, is that right?

DA: Yeah, so the editor had this idea to go out and see kind of what it took to get one. And so I went out thinking that you know I wouldn't have too much of a problem. You know maybe I'd have to do it you know pretty blatantly, but even doing it blatantly you know multiple times in front of police officers showed there's just no interest in it. It's such a normal thing that I'm not sure if the officers who I walked past noticed. It's just so ingrained I guess kind of Boston street pedestrian culture that just no one notices or cares.

CO Give us a brief history of your tour and all the efforts you made in order get this ticket. How bold were you in your Jaywalking?

DA: Well, I would try to go to the busiest parts of the city. So various sections of neighborhoods of downtown, areas where there was construction going on so that there would be police officers around. You know found a couple and would do it right in front of them. One was parked in a car and I just kind of went back and forth in front of him a couple of times, or four times actually, and just nothing.

CO: And you had a few arrogant moments too when you actually boldly walked out in front of cars, made eye contact with the driver defiant, and still they stopped because I guess they know in Boston you rule as a jaywalker. You walked through red lights, you crossed the middle of the street, and you came back and forth, everything, right?

DA: I tried to jaywalk in every form and fashion imaginable. And I think it probably came pretty close. It`s funny though as blatantly as I did it and I guess brazenly as I was doing it, I didn't get honked at once. It almost kind of just expected and part of the agreements between pedestrians and drivers.

CO: Well, I have to tell you I have a pathological fear of jaywalking and so I'm getting nervous just hearing you describe this. So I have to ask y did you have any close calls with cars?

DA: No, no, I mean the one thing I tried to do is not get myself hit by a car.

CO: Good idea!

DA: I mean I was I was a little more aggressive probably than my mom would have appreciated. But there were no real close cars, and I honestly didn't want to put any drivers in danger.

CO: from a driver's point of view, this sounds really annoying.

DA: Yeah, I mean there are times when drivers have to just sit at a green light while a chunk of people kind of take their time and walk right through a do not walk sign. I don't know. I don't drive much in the city, so you know I haven’t kind of experienced that side of it. But I can imagine it would be, like you said, incredibly annoying.

CO: So now is your finale because you are determined to see that there was not a public mockery made out of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 9o Section 18 A. You turned yourself in?

DA: That's right. I went to the downtown police precinct and told them about my sins and asked them if there was somebody there who could write me a ticket? And they were so unmoved that multiple people told me absolutely not. It wouldn’t be worth their time.

CO: Even when you went to the police station and told them please give me a ticket they said get out. Go away.

DA: That's right. They were friendly and jovial, but no dice. At that point, I wanted to come back with a ticket. I wanted to get it. It was kind of a challenge at that point, but no go.

CO: All right. Well sounds like jaywalkers rule in Boston?

DA: I'd say.

CO: Dugan, it is great to talk to you. Thanks.

DA: you too. Thanks a lot.

JD: Dugan Arnett is a reporter for The Boston Globe. We reached him in Boston. And if you have your own Jaywalking tale to tell, tweet us: @cbcasithappens. Drop us a line at: aih@cbc.ca. Or give us a call at 416.205.5687.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 5, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This