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

The AIH Transcript for February 12, 2018

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 Douglass. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Peer pressure. After Gerald Stanley is acquitted of killing Colten Boushie, his family demands justice — and Ottawa reviews the rules that allowed a jury with no Indigenous members to deliberate.

JD: More stock taking, fewer stock phrases. A criminal defense lawyer says there are obvious changes needed to make the justice system more just for Indigenous people. So the government should stop talking change and start making it.

CO: The late prisoner's dilemma. After a renowned Canadian-Iranian academic dies in prison in Tehran, authorities say it was suicide — but his friends and family have serious doubts.

JD: Banded together. Kirk Bloodsworth spent time on death row for a crime he did not commit. Now, as a free man and a silversmith, he's making commemorative rings for others like him.

CO: The pretoast of the town. Chillicothe, Missouri is famous as the home of sliced bread. Now, it's anxiously waiting to see whether the state declares an official “Sliced Bread Day”, and the sooner the butter.

JD: And… seeking a good judge of character of judge. What can you say about the 18^th-century justice whose portrait hangs in the highest court in Massachusetts? Like, can you say his name? Because officials would really like to know it.

JD: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that guesses he's not the only one with his back against the wall.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Colten Boushie: Family, Colten Boushie: Lawyer, mystery portrait

Colten Boushie: Family

Guest: Sean Moore

JD: Colten Boushie's family were in Ottawa today to appeal for change. The young Indigenous man was shot and killed on Saskatchewan farm in the summer of 2016. On Friday, a jury acquitted the owner of that farm, Gerald Stanley, who insisted that he shot Mr. Boushie by mistake. But the jury contained no visibly Indigenous members, and the verdict prompted protests over the weekend. Colten Boushie's mother, Debbie Baptiste, went to Ottawa this morning to tell a group of ministers that she wants justice for her son. She was asked by reporters afterwards what justice would look like.

SOUNDCLIP

DEBBIE BAPTISTE: It would be change into to the justice system. It would also be a change that the government talks about racial issues. And that somehow Canada could come together, all its people could come together, and realize that we're all human beings.

JD: Jade Tootoosis was at that press conference as well. Ms. Tootoosis is Colten Boushie's cousin. We reached her in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Tootoosis, we heard from Colten Boushie’s mother, Debbie Baptiste, she says she wants justice for her son. How would you describe the justice system that you watched play out in that courtroom?

JADE TOOTOOSIS: I saw a justice system that does not treat Indigenous people as human beings. Actually, it treats Indigenous people like criminals. That's the justice system that I saw.

CO: Your sense was that Colten Boushie, the man who is dead, your cousin, is the one who is on trial, and not the accused?

JT: Absolutely, it was supposed to be you know the Crown versus Stanley, but for some reason, there was since the beginning, there was a lot of focus on my brother Colten and his friends and what they were doing as opposed to what Gerald Stanley did.

CO: What do you make of the jury? Because this is something that's been highly criticized — we've been hearing since the verdict on Friday and before that there would have been a difference if Indigenous people had been on the jury. What do you make of that?

JT: Well, I saw the jury selection for myself. I wanted to know exactly how you compile a jury of your peers. And as I sat there and saw every visible Indigenous person be challenged by the defense, it made me wonder you know there is this aspect that there was no race involved there. This isn't a racial issue. Yet, the defense felt threatened by every visible Indigenous person, and challenge them. So they were not selected for the jury.

CO: What you're referring to is what they called peremptory challenges, and the defense for Mr. Stanley had 14 of those. They could challenge 14 times jury members. And it's been suggested that they used those challenges — all 14— in order to prevent anyone who appeared Indigenous from sitting on that jury. Was that your sense?

JT: That was definitely my sense, yes.

CO: And what was it like? You watched that, describe the process and what your feelings and thoughts were as you watched all those people being eliminated?

JT: It was difficult to sit there and to see. It just it was disheartening to sit there and watch. And as hurtful as it was to me to see these individuals step in front of a room and be to be looked at, judged, and discriminated upon based on the colour of their skin, and then, therefore, challenged by the defense, I imagine it was just as uncomfortable for them. And I appreciate their courage and their bravery to stand up in that place knowing that they were going to be judged and challenged. It was disheartening to me, as I know it probably was for them.

CO: How do you think the trial might have been different had there been Indigenous members on the jury?

JT: Well, you know what? That's a question that I think we all should be asking. And the truth is we'll never know. We'll never know. I'll never know.

CO: But let's look at a few aspects of it. Do you think that the Indigenous people on the jury would have heard the evidence differently? Would have would have seen Colten Boushie and his friends and what they said and what they did and how they responded to police. That they would have understood those reactions in a different ways than a nonindigenous jury would?

JT: Absolutely. Absolutely, I agree with that wholeheartedly. They would have possibly understood the intergenerational effects of colonisation, and the distrust that Indigenous people have with the RCMP, with the judicial system, and understanding the trauma that these youth must have faced when they were arrested onsite, detained, and asked to give a statement. I think that definitely would have had implications upon an Indigenous jury member.

CO: What other aspects? What other occasions do see where Indigenous members and a jury might take a different look at evidence than non-Indigenous people?

JT: Well, they may have understood more upon the treaty aspects and the signing of treaty in terms of sharing the land and this notion of trespassing on property and seeing the implications on how those treaty promises were broken just by the action of an individual taking up arms and taking up life over this notion of property. I think that definitely would have also contributed to an Indigenous jury member.

CO: We have watched Colten Boushie’s mother, Debbie Baptiste, and seen how much pain she is in since this verdict and since the death of her son. I understand it’s been the same for all of you. What would you like to see come out of this? What could possibly help in the way of a change that would come out of this process and the trial that ended last week?

JT: Well, there are a number of changes that we're hoping to make with regard to this. My family has endured so much in this process. We've endured so much and we haven't been able to vocalize our experiences at all. And the injustices that we face have not been addressed. And so we're here and we're hopeful that our voices don't fall on deaf ears and the actions get taken that no other family — no other Indigenous family — endures the trauma, the racism, and discrimination that we have felt and went through this entire process. And that's what we're here to vocalize. No family should have to go through what we went through ever again.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Tootoosis, thank you.

JT: Yeah, thank you.

JD: Jade Tootoosis is Colten Boushie’s cousin. We reached her in Ottawa. Also in Ottawa, in Question Period today, NDP Member of Parliament Murray Rankin raised the issue of jury selection with Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

SOUNDCLIP

MURRAY RANKIN: For the system to be fair jury members need to reflect the community where the alleged crime occurs. But in far too many instances, Mr. Speaker, that's just not the case. And the use of peremptory challenges means lawyers can reject jurors for no reason at all. Maybe they don't like the way they look. Maybe it's the colour of their skin. As a first step to ensure real community representation, especially following the tragic death of Colten Boushie, will the Minister review and possibly revoke the use of peremptory challenges under the Criminal Code?

SPEAKER: The Minister of Justice.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, first off, we are undertaking a broad-based review of the criminal justice system. I look forward to bringing forward in the near future reforms. We have worked very diligently with members throughout this house and to the member’s specific question: we are looking at peremptory challenges. We are going to consider how we can utilize the expertise that exists in this room and across the country about how we can substantially improve the criminal justice system and the jury selection process. I know that said the member is an active participant on the committee and we will be engaging with the committee on this.

JD: That was Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, answering a question from NDP Member of Parliament Murray Rankin today in the House of Commons during Question Period.

Colten Boushie: Lawyer

Guest: Michael Spratt

JD: Michael Spratt is a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa. That's where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Spratt, Colten Boushie’s family was on Parliament Hill today, and we've heard the family saying they have little to no faith in the justice system. Is that message getting through to the federal government, do you think?

MICHAEL SPRATT: I certainly hope that it is. But one thing that everyone who has been involved with the justice system, and certainly the justice minister herself was a Crown knows, is that there are wide-ranging and systemic problems in the justice system that predate the Boushie case and need to be addressed urgently. So I certainly hope that the federal government is willing to finally take some action on that.

CO: And that's sort of what we heard in that clip we just played — reflection of something. And I want you to explain that to us because this deals mostly with the jury that was chosen for the case of Gerald Stanley, A Saskatchewan farmer, as everyone knows acquitted on Friday in the death of 22-year-old Colton Boushie. And the concern was is that this community, North Battleford, 25 five per cent Indigenous and yet, a jury that appeared to be all white. No Indigenous people on it. How did that happen?

MS: Well, it's not uncommon at all. And there's a number of ways that racialized and otherwise marginalized individuals are excluded from the jury process. The first is in the very pool of people who get called to the courtroom in the first place — those potential jurors. There's a vetting process to make sure that being on a jury wouldn't be an undue hardship for any of the potential jurors. If you are a single mom, you can't be on the jury because it's a time-consuming process. You can't be on the jury because you won't get paid, you'll lose your house, and you'll lose your means of supporting your family. Individuals who are you know working-class, who are struggling, who want to participate in the system but can't aren’t given the support to allow them to be on the jury. And then the last step refers to the clip that we heard where lawyers for the Crown and defense counsel both get an opportunity to, without any reason, without any explanation, excuse or reject jurors. In the Boushie case, we saw the defense gave a perception that they were excluding Indigenous people.

CO: And what we're referring to is peremptory challenges, and this is something that in jury selection, one side or the other can use this. They get so many of these; in this case, they had 14 peremptory challenges to reject potential jurors. And appeared to, according to the Boushie family, the defense used those challenges to ensure that no Indigenous people were on the jury. Is that your perception?

MS: It certainly appears that way. One of the things that's a bit unique to the Canadian system when we compare it to you know places like the United States is that we know very little about our jurors. We know their name, we know the area of town that they live and a general description of their occupation, and that's it. When you know that little about a juror, the only sort of reason you have to exclude them is based on what you see what you observe. It's really a mixture of sort of voodoo and prejudice half the time.

CO: And what difference would it have made? I mean we don't know because this is the jury that we had — the one that found Gerald Stanley not guilty. What possible difference might there have been had there been Indigenous people on that jury?

MS: Well practically speaking, we'll never know what difference it may have made. We have no mechanism to know what facts they found or why they came to the decision they came to. Or what actually was said in that room. But one thing that is always important is the perception of justice. And one of the reasons why we don't like to have politicians commenting on individual court cases is we don't like to have a perception of interference. And the perception of justice in some cases is just as important as justice itself.

CO: You mentioned that people in government should not be commenting on the trial, and that's certainly what happened on the weekend. The Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould tweeted that her thoughts are with the Colton Boushie family, I feel your pain, I hear your voices. As a country, we must do better. The Prime Minister said in a tweet I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight — sending love to them from the United States. What do you make of those responses we heard from government?

MS: Well, I certainly agree with the sentiment of those tweets. I think we can do better and must do better in the criminal justice system. But to have politicians express their feelings like that in that public way does I think indirectly call into question the propriety and the validity of that verdict. But I think that there's more to it than just that. The justice minister tweeted that you know we can, and we should do better. She is one of two people: her and the prime minister, who actually have the ability to change legislation. To introduce new laws to move us forward. And this has been promised for a long time: an overviewing and overarching examination of the justice system. But that's something that has not happened yet. If our politicians really want to do better, the way to do it is to tweet less and to legislate more.

CO: And what should they legislate? Because this is what, again going back to the clip we heard at the beginning of our interview, there seems to be some commitment to doing something about at least the jury selection. Are you not hearing anything concrete from the minister or from the Prime Minister's Office about what they intend to do?

MS: Well during the election, we heard that there was going to be justice reform and that was great news. At the beginning of 2017, in January, the justice minister said these changes were coming soon. And then they were promised in the spring. And then they were promised in the fall. And here we are a year later with no legislation. And the thing is this isn't novel. We've had decades of testimony at House of Commons committees of criminological evidence. And we know that especially when we look at Indigenous communities, they are overrepresented in our jails. Overrepresented when we look at charges. They are dealt with differently, and they are in the Boushie case specifically, they were dealt with in a manner that we don't see police deal with non-Indigenous people when they're victims of offences. What we need is legislation. And you and I can't introduce this legislation. It has to come from a government, and it's disappointing that it hasn't yet.

CO: Was it ever possible that this should have been a fair trial?

MS: I think that that was always going to be difficult. Our justice system sometimes doesn't produce fair or just results. And that's a reality. But I think what we owe to everyone who's touched by the justice system is always striving to make the justice system fairer and more just. And that takes action and not just tweets.

CO: We’ll leave it there. Mr. Spratt, Thank you.

MS: No problem; anytime.

JD: Michael spratt is a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa. And that is where we reached him.

Mystery portrait

Guest: Cliff Allen

JD: His portrait has hung in the highest court in Massachusetts for decades — his dignified visage inspiring visitors to ask, "Who's that historic gentleman?" Which, in turn, inspires court officials to answer, "No idea." Now the court is asking for the public's help identifying the mystery judge who served nearly 200 years ago. And the court will offer a few small rewards for any person who comes forward with reliable information. Cliff Allen is the director of education and public programs at Massachussetts' Supreme Judicial court. We reached him in Boston.

CO: Mr. Allen, why is it important to identify the person in this portrait?

CLIFF ALLEN: Well, I think it's important because of all the judges from very early on — our court was founded in 1692 — and the great majority of judges have been identified, and this judge was the only judge that doesn't have an identification. And his portrait sits right outside Chief Justice Gant's office. He sees it every day without any marking as to identification. And he thought it would be fun, and also beneficial to the court if we could identify this one lone portrait that has remained unidentified. We're guessing from somewhere between 1780 and 1820.

CO: So maybe to describe what it looks like? What does the person of the portrait look like?

CA: I can tell you why it has been difficult to identify him: just prior to our constitution being written in 1780, our court wore wigs. And right after 1780, they stopped wearing wigs. So this this individual could possibly have pictures that we do have of him could be wearing a wig. So that's one possibility. What has his given a few clues are the clothing that he's wearing. Judges began wearing ties and morning coats and robes much later on. And they often appeared in their portraits in one of those dresses. And in his case, he was wearing a wrap around his, neck white with some ruffles, and it was very common among the judges in that 40 year period of time.

CO: So if you've narrowed it down, you must have a list of what justices you had that time. Is there a name you're sort of circling as a possibility? Because this man is not that old, so presumably he sat on the bench for a while. Do you have any theories or clues?

CA: Well so far, since the public seems to be as baffled as we are, we've had I think up until this morning we had 14 or 15 different judges guessed. And if it was a judge early on who could have been wearing a wig — it's a completely different look afterwards — in addition to that, I think it's also a possibility that the picture was taken early on in the judge's career. And almost all of the portraits were painted at the end of the judge's career. So it's a big difference between someone may be he looks like he's probably in his 40s. And we had judges back then who could have retired in their 70s or even in their early 80s. And the look is completely different. We tried a couple facial recognition programs. I compared all the judges that I could find online from places like the Mass Historical Society, and compare them against the photograph we have a portrait. And there hasn't been a clear match, so that's one reason that the chief justice thought we should enlist some additional help, and also have a little fun doing it.

CO: So Chief Justice Ralph Gants it was his idea to seek the public's help. What are you offering people if they should be able to identify this man?

CA: We're offering them a ceremony with the chief justice as he places the identification on the frame around the portrait, and then a tour of our beautiful courthouse, which was totally restored between 2002 and 2005.

CO: And you've had some response, people have come forward with names. Obviously, people want that prize.

CA: Yes. And you know it's not so much the prize, but there are a number of professors, a number of people in historical societies, and number just from the general public that just enjoy history. And they enjoy the exercise of trying to identify this figure.

CO: And how confident are you that you will be able to identify this man in the painting?

CA: Well, we have had a number of people who have called in. And most of the e-mails contain multiple attachments. They've done a lot of research. And they're all fairly confident that who they have guessed is the unidentified justice. We're still getting guesses coming in. And since that is the case, we'll probably keep the contest open for a little while, especially stories about this come out every couple of days, and new people are joining the hunt.

CO: And you've had guesses from as far away as Maine and San Francisco?

CA: Yes. And the Midwest too — I think we've had guesses from Michigan and Indiana.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Sounds like fun. Mr. Allen, thank you.

CA: You're welcome.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Cliff Allen is the director of education and public programs at Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court. We reached him in Boston. And if you would like to take a shot at identifying this mystery judge, look at the portrait. It on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Dateline: Sliced Bread Day

JD: Dateline: Chillicothe, Missouri.

[Music: Dateline theme]

JD: Around about the turn of the 21st century, the news editor of the local Chillicothe newspaper was doing some research for a book , when she came upon an interesting story. A headline on the front page of the Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune from July 6th, 1928 of the read, quote, "Sliced Bread is Made Here. Chillicothe Baking Co., the First Bakers in the World to Sell This Product to the Public." Unquote. The story was, in 1928, Frank Bench's bakery was failing when a kid from Iowa showed up with his dad's invention: an enormous bread-slicing machine. Mr. Bench became the first baker to buy one. And by going for broke, he saved his bakery from going broke. Apparently, bread sales went up 2,000 per cent in two weeks. So a Chillicothe baker didn't invent sliced bread. But he was the first person to sell it. And this revelation has since captured the imagination of the community. Chillicothe has a website with the www.homeofslicedbread.com. Every June, the city holds the Sliced Bread Jam Bluegrass Festival. And in January, officials revealed the details of a planned Home of Sliced Bread Visitors Center, in the building that once housed Frank Bench's bakery. There will be a museum, a meeting space, and escape rooms, I guess for people with a gluten intolerance. Now, though, even bigger news may be on the way. A bill currently making its way through the state legislature proposes to make July 7th Missouri Sliced Bread Day. We'll keep you posted on that. In the meantime, congrats to Chillicothe, the Home of Sliced Bread. You've done a lot of hard work, and here’s hoping that you’ll see a return on your labour of loaf.

Back To Top »

Part two: Kavous Seyed-Emami death, exoneree rings

Kavous Seyed-Emami

Guest: Ahmad Sadri

JD: Kavous Seyed-Emami was a well-known Iranian-Canadian academic and environmentalist. In January, he was arrested by Iranian authorities on espionage charges. And on Friday, his family announced he had died. He was 63-years-old. Mr. Seyed-Emami was being held in Iran's Evin prison. Iranian authorities say he died by suicide. His family is skeptical of that claim. And they have called on the Canadian government to push for an independent investigation into his death. Ahmad Sadri is a professor of sociology at Lakeforest College. He was a friend of Kavous Seyed-Emami. We reached him in Lake Forest, Illinois.

CO: Professor Sadri, first of all, I'm sorry for your loss.

AHMAD SADRI: Thank you for your sympathy.

CO: What has been going through your mind since you heard of the death of your friend, Kavous Seyed-Emami?

AS: I continue to be shocked. It is unbelievable that somebody of his generosity of spirit, and his well-balanced attitude towards life, and especially somebody who you went out of his way not to be entangled with politics, would be arrested in the first place. And then ten days later, would be reported dead because of alleged suicide.

CO: The authorities in Iran say that he was a defendant in a spying case — espionage. And that he had made a confession. And that others had made confessions about him that incriminated him. And that he has, unfortunately, committed suicide in prison. What do you make of that statement?

AS: That is palpable nonsense. These confessions in Iran have no validity. Once a person is arrested, he or she can be kept incommunicado in solitary confinement indefinitely. And there are a lot of pressures brought to bear on that person, at the very least, psychological pressures of solitary confinement and threats and isolation. And so they will try to get these kinds of confessions from people, and they are worthless. There is no habeas corpus in Iran. There is no right to a lawyer during the investigation period.

CO: If you can tell us a bit about his work. We know he was a professor of sociology. He was also the head of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation. What kinds of activities was Professor Seyed-Emami involved in?

AS: He was passionate about the environment, and this was a non-governmental organization that he had created. And this is as apolitical as one can be. I read somewhere that there were some accusations that he had revealed the water tables of Iran to foreigners. And so this is a ridiculous claim as if this information is secret. Right there that kind of accusations shows that they really have nothing on him.

CO: All of this has led the head of the Reformist Islamic Union Party. He has actually tweeted to say that this is causing a wave of questions and concerns among the public in Iran. What have you heard about how people in Iran are taking this information about the death of this professor?

AS: Again, this is not an ordinary person. He's a very well-known professor, and he taught in a university that is associated with providing graduates who become high officials in the Islamic Republic — the Imam Sadiq University. And his son is also a famous musician. So you know doing away with the person like that is a huge scandal. So again, people are shocked at this. I, personally, am very shocked, and I don't think it's going to end well for them.

CO: For people in Canada, it's bringing back the memories of what happened to another Canadian-Iranian Zahra Kazemi, a journalist who was beaten to death in that very same prison where your friend we presume he died there, where he was taken to — Evin prison. And now, the family is trying to find out what they can about it. They’re wanting an independent autopsy to be performed. Do you think that will happen?

AS: I don't know whether it will happen. But the demand is there. And this is much harder for them to handle than the case of Zahra Kazemi. Zara Kazemi was not residing in Iran; she was just visiting. And that cost the authorities very dearly, to begin with. So basically, what we’re dealing with is a much, much larger scandal than Zahra Kazemi. One also should observe that because of the pressure that the Canadian government put on this, actually, things got better at Evin. And a lot of tortures and a lot of beatings stopped. And so this is another reason that there is such a shock about Dr. Seyed-Emami that he may have been beaten or he may have been tortured because these kinds of things after Zahra Kazemi very rarely happened.

CO: There are obviously large political considerations, but I wonder just on a personal note, how you will remember your friend, Mr. Seyed-Emami?

AS: Kavous was one of the most gentle and caring and humanist people I have ever met in my life. One would never imagine that he would meet a violent death in this manner. And so it has been a great shock. And he will be remembered as a defender of the environment against the encroachment of commercial and state expansion into the nature, and a warning against these disasters that are descending on Iran because of environmental situations that are developing.

CO: We will leave it there. Professor Sadri, I appreciate you telling us about your friend. Thank you.

AS: It was my pleasure. Thank you very much.

JD: Ahmad Sadri is a professor of sociology at Lakeforest College; he was a friend of Kavous Seyed-Emami. We reached Professor Sadri in Lake Forest, Illinois.

Quebec Olympic medalist

JD: Sometimes, silver can be better than gold. Just ask moguls skier Justine Dufour-Lapointe. Four years ago, she won gold at the Sochi Games. Her sister Chloe took the silver. Their sister Maxime also competed. This year, however, Maxime was sidelined by an injury, Chloe finished 17^th, and Justine came second in Women's Olympic Moguls. But she — Justine — says it's a big win for her family. This morning, CBC Montreal's Jessica Rusnak spoke with Justine Dufour-Lapointe in Pyeongchang, or reached her in Pyeongchang. She talked about winning that silver medal — and about the challenges that her family has faced over the past year. Here's part of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTINE DUFOUR-LAPOINTE: Oh my God, so many emotions. It's been a roller coaster of emotion I think. It's only been 24 hours right now. And I mean so much proudness about my performance. I think when I crossed that finish line I did three amazing runs. I knew that OK, now I did everything I could; I give my everything out there. I have no regrets. So right now, let's see what the Judges think. And after all, I was just so happy, and so proud of this medal because it means way more than just a medal. It means all the hard work I've done in the past year. I think it was probably the hardest year of my life getting through there. So it's even more rewarding.

JESSICA RUSNAK: Why would you say it was the hardest year of your life?

JDL: Well, I think it started last year when we were coming actually in Pyongyang for the test event. When we learned that our mother was having a cancer. That changed everything. It was a real hurricane in our lives. We never expected that to happen to us, and I think everyone who has cancer in their family can understand that. Nobody is ready for that. And so we struggled a lot, but we fought through it. We fought together as family. And so it was super hard, but in a way, when we learned that our mother was in remission and she was good, she won their battle, I think I felt like wow, OK! We passed a lot of challenges the past year, but also having Maxime getting surgery in her hips that was something that never happened to us. It was hard to see. And not having her around and qualifying for the Games that was also really hard for us. But we managed to understand it and accepted that OK, Maxime won’t be there as the athlete, but she will be there for sure at the bottom cheering for me. And she’ll be our support. And so a lot of challenges in the past years, so right now for me, it's not only a medal; it's a victory for my family. It's our victory tonight that we're celebrating.

JD: That was Justine Dufour-Lapointe, speaking with CBC Sports reporter Jessica Rusnak. Ms. Dufour-Lapointe just won a silver medal for Canada in women's moguls on Saturday. As of today, Canada has won 2 gold medals, 4 silver, and 1 bronze medal at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Games.

Exoneree rings

Guest: Kirk Bloodsworth

JD: He served nearly nine years in prison — two of them on Death Row — for a crime he did not commit. In 1985, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering a nine-year-old girl. In 1992, he persuaded prosecutors to use a new forensic tool on evidence found at the scene: DNA testing. The next year, he became the first American Death Row prisoner to be cleared through DNA. Now, Mr. Bloodsworth is a free man. He's also a silversmith. And he's making commemorative rings for exonerees like himself. We reached Kirk Bloodsworth in Ambler, Pennsylvania.

CO: Kirk, why did you want to give former prisoners who’ve been exonerated why did you want to give them rings?

KIRK BLOODSWORTH: Well, it's a gesture that you know they have endured many years of captivity for no fault of their own. And just being caught up in the criminal justice system, which is America. I find they needed somebody to say you know thanks for completing what you never even needed to do. I'm grateful that they came out to a side; some of them are completely intact, I don’t believe. But it's a gift for their struggle.

CO: What do the rings look like?

KB: Well, they’re a box-shaped type of ring; it's pretty chunky. It's about twenty-eight grams of silver. It resembles a Super Bowl ring with you know it has bars on the front and casket-shaped windows that just kind of exemplifies what they had went through, you know?

CO: Right, andiIt says very clearly on the rings — there's two versions that I can see in the photo, and we're going to post the photo on our website. But the one says “Exoneree”. And there's another one that says “Death Row Exoneree”.

KB: Right. There are two distinctions of individuals who have been on death row and exonerated. And the other is people who have been exonerated in general. I think Death Row exonerees, for myself, I think that's a distinction. So there's two placards on it; you can get either one. It's a jail cell door that's on the top of the ring.

CO: And we’ll remind people we told them in the introduction, but you were on Death Row until you were exonerated from the crimes with DNA testing. And just something else I want to ask you about there's tears. Can you tell us what they symbolize?

KB: Yeah. They symbolize the past, present, and future exonerees. And the blood lost. You know that's also a symbol of the victims that have been lost in these cases — the innocent men and women who have been behind bars you know for no fault of their own and have been accused of a crime someone else did. And that is you know it’s pretty much symbolic of everything that you endure as an exoneree.

CO: Now you mentioned that it looks like it has that kind of heft of a Super Bowl ring. And I think that it's not an accident, is it? You thought about that. That was a model for you. Why is that? What went into the thinking of your design?

KB: Well, actually, it comes from a dream I had about 30-some years ago when I was in prison myself. And I had this dream of the NFL football commissioner had a Super Bowl ring, but it looked like that. It looked similar to that anyway. And I never thought about it again for many years until I became a silversmith, and started doing the work. And I wanted to create something from a dream, and then there you go.

CO: There are an extraordinary number of people in the United States who have been exonerated for crimes they did not commit after they served time. There's something like 2,000 that's on the National Registry of Exonerations. How many rings have you made so far?

KB: Well, there's 35 more coming this week, so that would make it 72 that I have made. And I have enough funds to make another 100. So I'm going to make as many as I can, until you know time runs out for me. I hope I can make tons of them and give them to anybody that wants them. It’s a gift to you is an exoneree, and this is for men and women; we make the rings smaller to a woman's hand. And also, you know anybody can make it, or as I've been told, bling it out to be whatever you want.

CO: Who has bling’d it out?

KB: That would be Anthony; he’s an exoneree from California. My gosh, he’s put diamonds on his. And it's very beautiful, and he's really taking it into his own. He put a diamond or a sapphire I believe for every year he spent in. As I was telling you, there's a cell door on the top of the ring. And that cell is empty inside. And I wanted to leave enough real estate on the ring so you could put anything you wanted on it. You know the year you went in, the year you went out, sort of like a class ring. You know it's a pretty chunky piece of silver, and anybody can fashion it any way they want after they get it.

CO: Now, why would someone want to wear the ring? This would be a constant reminder, would it not? Isn't it a time that you want to forget — the injustice and the time you served. Isn't that something you wouldn't want to look at to hand and be reminded of that all the time?

KB: Well, you know for me, it shows the world what you've endured too. Of course, we would like to forget about some of these tragic things that have happened to us. But you cannot forget a war; you cannot forget you know you've been in battle. These things are engraved in your mind. So it's something that you know just stands the test of time that you also can pass down to your family members as well once life continues to go on. These rings will last for many, many, many years, and so we could pass down the knowledge of what a loved one has went through. I think it covers a lot of bases. And sometimes, you just can't forget. And I don't want society to forget.

CO: Kirk, it's a lovely gesture that you're doing for these men and women. And I appreciate that you’d speak with us. Thank you.

KB: Carol, it's my pleasure, thank you very much.

JD: We reached Kirk Bloodsworth in Ambler, Pennsylvania. To read more about Mr. Bloodsworth's story, and see photographs of his exoneree rings, go to our website.

Johann Johannson obit

JD: As one film critic wrote in Variety magazine, he, quote, "expanded our idea of what film music can be," and, quote, "invited audiences to think, instead of telling them how to feel." That critic was writing about Johann Johannsson. You may not know the Icelandic composer's name, but if you've seen movies like the Stephen Hawking biopic "The Theory of Everything," you've heard his music. He also worked with Canadian director Denis Villeneuve — writing the film scores for "Prisoners," "Sicario," and "Arrival." Johann Johannson has died at the age of 48. A cause of death has not been released. Over the course of his career, he received Oscar and Golden Globe nominations. He was also recognized for his solo career — and his ability to mix elements of classical and electronic music. As one writer in The Guardian put it, his music "made loss sublime."

Back To Top »

Part three: Oxfam resignation, Ethics Commissioner

Oxfam resignation

Guest: Bocchit Edmond

CO: It's interesting it follows on the heels of the revelations that U.N. peacekeepers brought a cholera epidemic to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake, and now, these allegations. How difficult will it be to restore Haiti's faith and trust in the international aid community?

BE: It is going to be a very difficult job. It's going be very difficult because they had a mission to come to serve to help. But instead of doing that, they did something else. When it comes to the cholera issue, I believe we are continuing to talk with the U.N., even though the U.N. has accepted more responsibility. But we know it was much more than that. But I believe the Haitian government continues to talk and to negotiate and to see if those families can be compensated for those lost. But rebuilding trust, I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it's going to be a difficult task because when they know those things were happening all the time and no example has been set. And I believe this Oxfam case right now today is a wakeup call. I think we need to set an example. Those guys or this guy has to be prosecuted because other countries are saying that those are crimes. And when it happened in Haiti, it is not a crime. No, it’s unacceptable. If we don't set that example, it's an open door for other workers to continue to do that with impunity.

CO: We’ll leave it there. Ambassador Edmond, thank you.

BE: I really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

JD: Bocchit Edmond is Haiti's ambassador to the U.K. And we reached him in London. We have more on this story on our website. And we did request an interview with a representative from Oxfam. We were told that the organization's executive director may be able to speak to us tomorrow.

West Virginia police settlements

CO: But what made you so sure that you were not in danger?

SM: He wasn't aggressive. He wasn't angry. He wasn't screaming, yelling, you know? He wasn't in an aggressive state. You know, to me, it seemed like he doesn't want to harm anybody he just wants to harm himself.

CO: So you were fired for this. The police department said you, this is a quote, “You failed to engage the suspect to end the threat of any further violence or potential loss of life, as the suspect presented a clear and present danger to all people in the immediate area.” What do you say to that?

SM: I say that I didn't fail to do anything. I think that I handled it the way that it should have been handled. You know if I were to go back to that exact moment I would do it the same way. I wouldn’t change anything about it. You know they basically said that I froze, you know? Rookie cop froze. And that's not what it was. It was you know rookie cop trying to deescalate a situation.

JD: That was Carol, in conversation with former West Virginia police officer Stephen Mader.Mr. Mader was fired for not firing his gun at an armed man during a call in 2016. Today, he accepted a settlement of 175-thousand dollars.

Quebec City rescue

JD: Recently, Gabriel Rondeau and some of his Adventure Tourism classmates were in the Parc de la Gaspesie. They wanted to practise some of the mountain rescue skills they were learning. They were quickly forced to put their lessons into very real practice when they heard screams, looked up, and watched an avalanche roll down the mountain, and sweep up another group of skiers. That's when their training kicked in. Gabriel Rondeau picks it up from there. Here he is, speaking with Saroja Coelho, host of Quebec City's “Breakaway”.

SOUNDCLIP

GABRIEL RONDEAU: I saw sort of a big slab of snow break and slide with the skiers in it. And at some point, we lost completely sight of them, and there was sort of like a cloud of snow. And that's when we knew it was a real avalanche. At first, we didn't really see them because they maybe slid down at speeds to 150 meters down. But they didn't have their skis on them. They had taken their skis off, so they were lucky because the skis would have maybe anchored them or put them down in the snow.

SAROJA COELHO: When it was all over, how did you feel?

GR: Yeah, well, we were relieved actually because it could have been a lot worse. They could have been buried, and since they didn't have any avalanche beacons, we wouldn't have found them. And they were very lucky we saw like big rocks — soccer-sized rocks — in the avalanche deposit that fell with the avalanche that could have hit them as well. So they are pretty lucky to have survived, yeah.

JD: That was Gabriel Rondeau, speaking to Saroja Coelho on CBC Radio in Quebec City about a practice rescue that became a real rescue. Luckily, aside from one broken bone and some bumps and bruises, everyone was okay.

Ethics Commissioner

Guest: Mario Dion

JD: Mario Dion promised he wouldn't pull his punches. Mr. Dion is Parliament's new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. When he was sworn in, he said that he wouldn't go easy on anyone who abused their power. And then, in an appearance before Parliament last week, Mr Dion made it clear that he'd like more power for himself. And he mentioned tougher sanctions for MPs who step out of line. But what got him in hot water was the suggestion that he be allowed to stop MPs and journalists from telling Canadians that an ethics investigation is underway. That had editorial writers across the country accusing Mr. Dion of threatening freedom of speech. We reached Commissioner Mario Dion in Ottawa.

CO: Commissioner Dion, you've done something quite unusual: you have the editorial positions of several newspapers all sharing the same view that you're out of line. What do you say to them?

MARIO DION: I guess, last week, when I appeared before the parliamentary committee, I was talking about confidential details and investigation in general. And I believe strongly in the role of the media. And, of course, I support transparency. I never recommended a media ban. My suggestion related to complainants and to those that the subject of the examination. As it stands, my office can never correct misinformation or misunderstandings because we have an obligation under the Act to keep everything confidential. So the media came up in a question from one of the members, and I was talking about possibilities that could be considered. It was more in the order of thinking out loud. I did not recommend or suggest that the committee consider media ban.

CO: When you were thinking out loud, what did you tell them you thought would help you?

MD: The ability to do it in the remote situation where it might be necessary to do so considering the stakes. Sometimes, an examination can be really quick. I was just concerned about respecting fairness. There's still a thing called the presumption of innocence, even in matters having to do with the Conflict of Interest Act.

CO: So if I understand, you do say that you would like to see ethics investigations conducted in private?

MD: Not always. It depends on the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the allegations, how many parties are involved, and so on. There's very few of factors that would have to be weighed each and every time, and it would be an exceptional measure.

CO: And who will decide that?

MD: Me.

CO: So you decide whether it's something that should be done privately?

MD: Just like a judge would when asked to do so in the course of a trial.

CO: You've said that the reason why you would like to have this, this is a quote, “It complicates our lives as investigators when people start to know something is under investigation.”

MD: Yes, I'm always concerned about people fabricating stories and colluding, or you know exchanging information as to how to answer certain questions for instance.

CO: But at the same time, yes, we know that police and prosecutors would find it much easier to investigate if they could do so without having to be doing so in the public eye. But then we wouldn't be living in a democracy, would we?

MD: Yeah, and we are living in a democracy.

CO: So the reaction you've had — the pushback — is that you're wrong about this. You can't conduct things in an environment where we don't the public doesn't know what you're doing.

MD: And you know until the Act is up for consideration for possible amendments, this whole issue is academic in any event.

CO: Well academic, but you've made these remarks. You say you are thinking out loud. Is this something that you're going to push for? Are you going beyond just thinking out loud here?

MD: No, I will not push for it. I said what I had to say on a number of things, and then we will see what the government does, and what parliamentarians wish to do. And I will not push for anything, including just thinking out loud the possibility that in selected circumstances, there could be an order made not to publish.

CO: So if I understand, you're walking back from your thinking out loud?

MD: No, no, I'm not. I'm just saying I said what I had to say last week, and unless and until it's under active consideration, it's over.

CO: Are you saying that because of the amount of reaction you had?

MD: No, no, it would have been the same thing. My approach last week was to share with them some possibilities, and we'll see what they do with them.

CO: But OK, so other interesting things seems to be a lot of people are agreeing that you're right about having tougher sanctions on Members of Parliament who are found to have been violating ethics and conflict of interest rules. What are you hoping to accomplish there?

MD: It's not to my advantage, but some people do disagree with that too. The possibility of having actual punishments or sanctions, some people disagree with that. So the proposal I put on the table was the possibility of being able to impose some fines. We're talking about the monetary penalty of some magnitude, so that it, in fact, has an impact on the person receiving the penalty in the form of a fine, as is the case in the majority of the Canadian jurisdictions already allow for the commissioner, my counterpart, as the power to recommend a monetary penalty of up to ten thousand-five thousand depending on the jurisdiction. That's already the case in many provinces. So that's what I was putting on the table for consideration last week.

CO: The big cases — recent cases — that have become quite interesting to the public, and quite a great concern to the public are for one, the vacation that the prime minister took with the Aga Khan. And also, with wanting to know more about the finance minister's financial interests in different legislation that he was working on. How will things be different under you? You said you want to have a different kind of ethics office — be a different kind of Ethics Commissioner. How would those cases or cases like them be treated differently?

MD: No, I don't think I said I would deal with them differently. I'll put some priority on making sure that we conduct our investigations with as much speed as possible, while respecting people's rights, of course. So that's one thing. Number two, I will do everything I can under the Act to be as transparent as possible. Once the we have the result of the investigation, we will not only make the report public, but we'll make also available a technical briefing for the media to explain the report the same that the report is being tabled in Parliament. And measures like that, in other words, the efficiency and transparency.

CO: And you want tougher sanctions as well.

MD: And I would like to have the power to impose sanctions, that's right. Because it's been an important criticism recently and as a citizen, I share that view before becoming the Commissioner as well that it seemed a bit innocuous seen from the citizen’s perspective.

CO: And as a citizen, and as Commissioner, do you think that Mr. Moreno should have paid more than 200 dollars in fines?

MD: I don't even know frankly. He should not have paid more than 200 dollars in fines because we can only do what the statute allows us to do. And there is no such power at this point in time.

CO: And if you got your way, would there be?

MD: Yes.

CO: Commissioner Dion thanks for speaking with us.

MD: Thank you very much.

JD: Mario Dion is Canada's new Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. We reached him in Ottawa.

Chris Stockwell obit

JD: Chris Stockwell wasn't afraid to speak his mind. That was a theme that came up again and again this weekend, as people remembered the Ontario politician. Mr. Stockwell has died at the age of 60, following a battle with cancer. He began his political career at the municipal level. And in 1990, he was elected as an Member of the Provincial Parliament in Ontario. He served as a critic for the Progressive Conservatives, and later become a cabinet minister. But it was his role as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that was perhaps most notable. The Toronto Star called him, quote, "one of the most effective Speakers in Queen's Park history." Mr. Stockwell was on this program back in December of 1997 while he was Speaker. At the time, he had sent a letter to former Toronto Mayor John Sewell with a warning — that if he disrupted a committee meeting, or the legislative assembly, again, he'd be banned. Here's part of that conversation, beginning with a question from guest host Mary Hynes.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY HYNES: Where do you draw the line though if someone…

CHRIST STOCKWELL: Where do you draw the line? It’s very clear where you draw the line. I mean the public meetings are set. Committee meetings are set. You phone to make deputations before those meetings. And that's the way the process works. In the Legislative Assembly, you can't speak. It's just that simple. I mean it's the Legislative Assembly. It's like the House of Commons. You have to be elected to speak. That's called democracy. It's a very clear line. Everyone understands it except John.

MH: Well, you're right in that it's called democracy. A lot of people are using that argument to say it's wrong to shut down dissent.

CS: This is what I don't understand: what is democracy? If their definition of democracy is that anyone can walk in off the street and shut down a committee meeting because they don't like the way the government is doing business that's their form of democracy. See, my form of democracy is 130 people get elected, they are elected from all parts of the region, some are government some are opposition, and they go about debating bills and so on in the legislature. They are sent to committees, they have orderly public meetings at committees, they hear from the public, etc. It's only we don't have an opposition — we do have an opposition. And they are heard on a regular basis. The fact is you just can't take 11 million people, stroll them through here, and let them speak endlessly on bills. It just wouldn't work. So if your definition democracy is 20 or 30 people or one person can come in and shut down an entire government. Well, that's not my definition of democracy.

MH: Is that what Mr Sewell's been doing in your view?

CS: well, that’s what he tends to do. He walks into the committee meetings he wants to stand in a public order. He wants the committee to stop meeting until they have more public input. And until they do that, he's unsatisfied. Well, you know what? That's too bad he's unsatisfied. And I understand he may be unsatisfied, and I appreciate the fact he's got concerns. But you know what? On any piece of legislation that goes through the house, you're bound to find 20 or 30 people that won't like it. And if that's the case, and we have to stop the proceedings, and allow these 20-30 people to go on endlessly and never get any bills passed I don't think we'd have much of a democracy here.

JD: From December of 1997, that was former Ontario Speaker Chris Stockwell, speaking with guest host Mary Hynes on As It Happens. Chris Stockwell has died at the age of 60. In a statement, Mr. Stockwell's children said, quote, "During his time on council and in the legislature, he was still simply our dad. He coached and showed up at every game, practice, recital and event." Unquote.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 12, 2018 Episode transcript

More Stories Like This