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 April 20, 2018

Hosts: Susan Bonner and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

SUSAN BONNER: Hello, I’m Susan Bonner, sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

SB: Three-piece suit. The U.S. Democratic National Committee takes a bold step and sues the Trump campaign, Russia, and Wikileaks — for colluding to swing the 2016 election.

JD: They put him on a pedestal. Now, a statue of a 19th-century doctor known as the "father of gynecology" has been removed from Central Park — because he treated some of his patients with astonishing cruelty.

SB: Inviting criticism. A Calgary MP who's been accused of sexual harassment is among those invited to a Liberal Party workshop on sexual harassment — and the organizer explains why she'll welcome him.

JD: Extremely local customs. Your house can look like the inside of an airport — if you can get to the big sale of retro-cool items from Heathrow Airport's now-defunct Terminal One.

SB: Total apocalypse of the heart. If you were looking forward to the end of the world on Monday, catastrophic news: the guy blamed for that prediction says reports of our imminent death have been greatly exaggerated.

JD: And...the audio man out. The BBC's Head of Archives tells us about the Corporation's giant archive of sound effects, which has the standard stuff, like floors creaking and doors slamming, and non-standard stuff, like a guillotine.

JD: As It Happens, the Friday edition. Radio that hopes he'll show off his chops.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Democratic Party lawsuit, harassment lawsuit, Heathrow auction

Democratic Party lawsuit

Guest: Xochitl Hinojosa

JD: The U.S. Democratic Party is taking matters into their own hands — by suing Russia, Wikileaks, and the U.S. president's campaign. The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit today alleging a, quote, "conspiracy" to elect President Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign — by hacking, and then releasing, DNC emails. Xochitl Hinojosa is the communications director for the DNC. We reached her in Washington.

SB: Ms. Hinojosa, why is the DNC launching this lawsuit?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. Russia perpetrates a brazen attack on our democracy. And what we know is that they not only attacked the DNC, but they worked with WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign to do that. What we've learned in the last year is that Russia found a willing partner in the Trump campaign in order to help Donald Trump and hurt the Democratic nominee and the Democratic Party.

SB: Now in the suit, you've named the Trump campaign officials, WikiLeaks, the Russian government, members of Trump's family, but not the president himself. Why not?

XH: Well, Donald Trump is the head of the Trump campaign. I think that we all know — and as Donald Trump likes to tout — is that he is the person who makes all the decisions for his Trump organization. And what we've seen is evidence that we lay out in the complaint is that Donald Trump had lieutenants carrying out his work. And carrying out that work and coordinating with the Russians in order to help Donald Trump and to hurt the Democratic Party. And that was made clear not only through court filings that we've seen over the last year but through senior advisers on the Trump campaign.

SB: What new evidence do you have that there was a conspiracy beyond what we've been hearing in all of these other investigations, the meetings, WikiLeaks, etc. Do you have any new evidence?

XH: I think that what this complaint lays out is a series of events that occurred around the DNC hack. Every step of the way over the last few years, we've seen that when Russia does something to the DNC — releases e-mails or tries to just hurt the Democratic Party in any way — there is always a correlation with the Trump campaign or attempting to help the Trump campaign.

SB: But do you have any evidence?

XH: Well, that is what we're laying out in the complaint. I think this is the first time that it has been laid out in this way to show that the DNC is not only the victim, but there was a clear willingness to collude between Russia and the Trump campaign.

SB: Special Counsel Robert Mueller is in the middle of an investigation into these very questions. What does this lawsuit accomplish when you have a special investigator with all of his powers?

XH: Well, this lawsuit is a civil lawsuit, and Robert Mueller’s investigation is a criminal investigation. And we believe that Robert Mueller's investigation should continue. We believe that he should get to the bottom of what happened. At the same time, given that the DNC is the victim, it is our responsibility to make sure that we are standing up to make sure this doesn't happen again. And it is our right to do that. And we've seen that the man in the White House won't step up and protect our democracy and therefore Democrats will. And so this isn't just about the DNC. This is about making sure that people are held accountable and that we are protecting our democracy. So yes, while Robert Mueller's investigation continues — it should continue — this is separate and apart from Robert Mueller's investigation.

SB: If Mr. Mueller’s investigation were to be shut down, what would happen to your lawsuit?

XH: Our lawsuit would continue.

SB: Is that part of the thinking?

XH: I think that part of the thinking is that we need to hold people accountable and we have evidence to do that. And we've seen the evidence grow over the last year. And so if Robert Mueller’s investigation is shut down, our lawsuit will continue.

SB: In terms of a political tactic, is this an attempt to kind of smoke out some documents and testimony under oath from some of the players here?

XH: This is more about transparency and accountability. I think that one of the things that the DNC wants to make sure that we get out of this is making sure that there is transparency.

SB: But the lawsuit would ask for people to testify under oath and would ask for documents?

XH: That absolutely could happen. And that could happen over the course of time. We're not there yet. This is just the beginning of the lawsuit. You know it's also very possible as we learn more information about the defendants and potentially other defendants that we're also able to amend our lawsuit. And so we're keeping all options open at this time.

SB: Now Mr. Trump has said that he is innocent. He said it from the beginning. Yesterday, he tweeted that the newly released Comey memos show clearly there was no collusion, no obstruction. What do you say to the president?

XH: What we've seen from the president is that he has tried to either shut down the Mueller investigation or undermine the Mueller investigation every step of the way. And if he has nothing to hide, then he should allow the Mueller investigation to continue. He should allow for an independent review. But that's just not the case.

SB: Well, the investigation is continuing.

XH: We've also seen him try to undermine the investigation. I've never seen a full-out assault on a former FBI director led by the Republican National Committee before, or by any party, which is pretty amazing what we've seen over the last week on James Comey. But also, you've never seen a president undermine the FBI and try to discredit the FBI the way that he has been doing now. And I used to work at the Justice Department. You never saw Barack Obama try to actually interfere in any sort of investigation or try to discredit the FBI. That would never happen. They are completely independent, they're career professionals, and they are professionals who care about you know not only this country but following the rule of law.

SB: So what next regarding your lawsuit?

XH: Well, we are waiting for a judge to be assigned to this case, and we will see what happens there. And then at some point, you know the defendants will have to respond. And so we will take it from there.

SB: Well, thank you for telling us about it.

XH: Of course. Thank you so much for having me.

SB: Goodbye.

XH: Bye.

JD: Xochitl Hinojosa is the communications director for the DNC. We reached her in Washington, D.C.

[Music: Ambient]

Harassment lawsuit

Guest: Julie Lalonde

JD: Julie Lalonde is taking heat for making one man in particular welcome at her anti-harassment workshop. Ms. Lalonde is a public educator. She’s been asked to run a pair of events at the Liberals' convention in Halifax this weekend. She's said she is glad to see Calgary MP Kent Hehr there, or she would be glad to see him therwe. And Mr. Hehr’s office says he plans to attend. But Mr. Hehr was forced to quit his cabinet job this winter over allegations that he himself had harassed women. And that has at least one long-time Liberal questioning whether or not he should attend. We reached Julie Lalonde in Halifax.

SB: Ms. Lalonde, Warren Kinsella has tweeted that Kent Hehr's attendance at your workshop might be a good PR move for him. But Kinsella says it's making some women feel quite uncomfortable. Have you heard from women who are uncomfortable?

JULIE LALONDE: I have not heard from any women who are uncomfortable with Kent Hehr’s presence, no.

SB: You had one of your workshops take place already today, was Mr. Hehr there?

JL: No, Mr. Hehr did not attend the session that was today, although the session today was in French, and the session on the weekend is in English. So we anticipate a larger attendance for that session overall.

SB: So if he does show up to the workshop, what would be your approach? What would you like to see from him?

JL: Well, first of all, I think it's important to state that as an educator, I train thousands of people every year in coed settings, which means men who are or are accused of being violent are in my workshops all the time, so this is not new territory for me. And if folks attend any bystander intervention workshops, they know that the goal is to learn some skills, to have a conversation, to get folks talking about systemic issues. So I don't intend to draw attention to him. I don't tend to draw attention to his particular case because I think it's really naive to pretend that the issues in politics reside with him or even a couple other bad apples when what we're talking about is a massive systemic problem.

SB: Would you ask him to apologize, as some have suggested should happen?

JL: I think if people are excusing me or anyone of creating a PR move, I think that would be a PR move. Me asking him to apologise in front of a crowd of people would not be a sincere apology. It would be grandstanding, both on my part as educator looking like some sort of hero, but on his part as well giving him this opportunity to dominate a conversation. And it's not about him.

SB: So you say that it's not the right thing to do, it's not your approach to focus on these high profile cases. And we know that Mr. Hehr is certainly not the only Canadian politician who has been accused over the last little while. Members of all the major parties have been called out. What is your approach then if you don't single out those who have been named, how do you approach this?

JL: I've been teaching bystander intervention in this country for a long time, and what we know to be effective is conversations about prevention — true prevention. And that includes what is the role of bystanders? How do we create conditions in which people feel comfortable reporting? Because so much of what's come out around #MeToo, for example, is this emphasis on women need to come forward. But my question to audiences — including political folks that will be attending my workshop — is how are you creating the conditions in which it's safe enough to come forward? It's not enough to have policies. What are you doing every day at work to make people feel safe? And if they don't feel safe, how are you making it comfortable for them to speak out?

SB: There's something about the political culture that many people have said makes it one of the more dangerous potentially industries for this kind of bad behaviour. How do you tailor your approach to that?

JL: Well, we know that any organization with a certain level of hierarchy is going to be a place in which sexual violence is rampant. Because we know sexual violence and sexual harassment are based in power and control. It's not about sexual desire. It's about power and domination. And in an industry like politics, which is very cutthroat, very competitive, people are very ambitious, that's a huge problem. And so for me, it's just naming that. And this morning in the workshop when I said sexual harassment is about power, some women actually applauded. And they came up to me afterwards and said thank you for naming that because that's a huge part of this problem is the power differentials within politics.

SB: And also, I worked as a political reporter for ten years. There's a different culture on Parliament Hill for example. These people are away from home; they're lonely, they're working very hard, they're working with young people around them all the time. It's a different dynamic than exists in many other industries.

JL: Another element of the political world that complicates this conversation, particularly for someone like me who’s asked to come and talk specifically about workplace is that much like journalists; your workplace can be constituency office. It could be at a convention. Oftentimes its meetings at the pub down the street from the Hill. So the confines of what constitutes workplace are very different for political staffers and politicians than they would be for someone who has a traditional office job. So it's a matter of discussing it in the sort of larger scale of what safety looks like, what equity looks like. Because it's not just a 9-to-5 job where you clock into your cubicle and then you go home. Sometimes you're on overnight trips with your boss in remote areas, and you're out knocking on doors. And you know there's a lot of dynamics at play there that we need to name.

SB: You sound pretty hopeful about getting through to these people.

JL: I have to. I mean I spend my life travelling the country, having conversations with people from elementary school students up to parliamentarians. I mean last night I was at a high school in the Toronto area, talking to high school girls. Like, I have to be optimistic that change is possible. Otherwise, by definition, I wouldn't do this work. I fundamentally believe that people want to do better. They just need tools, and they need space to have honest, frank conversations. And it's my goal to open up those spaces.

SB: But am I right in remembering that I've heard you discouraged about some of the industries? I’m thinking of the military, where you went in and held workshops?

JL: Certainly, my experience at the Royal Military College a few years ago of being sexually harassed while giving anti-sexual harassment workshops was a bit meta, but I still do the work.

SB: A bit?

JL: Yes. And even when I filed a complaint with RMC, I mean it's on the record in the e-mail and in which I filed a complaint I said I want to work with you. You have a problem. I'm owed an apology for what happened to me, but I also want to put together a game plan. I want to fix this. I want women to feel safe. And so certainly, I have days where I think oh my god like are we going in reverse? But overall, if I didn't have hope that things would change, I wouldn't do this work.

SB: Well, good luck with your meeting tomorrow.

JL: Thank you so much.

SB: Thanks for talking to us. Bye bye.

JD: Julie Lalonde is running anti-harassment workshops at this weekend's Liberal convention in Halifax. And we reached her in Halifax.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Heathrow auction

Guest: Ivan Macquisten

JD: Ever since it was opened by the Queen in 1969, millions upon millions of travelers have made their way through London Heathrow's Terminal One. And tomorrow, the contents of the closed-down terminal will be sold off piece-by-piece. The sale will include signs, furnishings, art — even the check-in counters. Ivan Macquisten is helping organize the sale. We reached him in London.

SB: Mr, Macquisten, can you give us a preview? Give us a sample of some of the pieces from Terminal One that will be on the auction block tomorrow.

IVAN MACQUISTEN: So the top things that are coming through now where we've had the most preregistered bids — there's been about 5,000 across the whole sale so far — but the top bit off of things like the airport clocks, which are quite retro-chic. They look quite ordinary, but when you get up close, they're eliminated, they're huge. Some of those I think the top one there's had about 160-170 bids so far. Then you get all these that are quite again retro-chic type, black and yellow signs. The most popular ones tend to be the departure signs, which are slightly more popular than the arrival signs. I know we're after the romantic trip, whatever it is.

SB: I think we all get that, right? We all get the significance of a departure sign.

IM: Absolutely, yeah. So they're probably there. And then anything with Terminal One itself on it, in fact, one of the lots is going to be the really huge sign that was on the outside of the building when you drive up that said Terminal One. That's for sale. The illuminated sign for the gentlemen's toilets has three times as many bids as that for the ladies. So there you go.

SB: There is a psychology experiment in all of this, isn't there?

IM: there certainly is. For example, there's huge coloured glass partitions where the nothing to declare sign has certainly more than something to declare sign.

SB: Let me ask you about some of the items that it's kind of hard to imagine people wanting to purchase, wanting to pick up. There is a Terminal One check in desk. Who'd want that stuff?

IM: It's amazing. Everything has a bid on it so far. Every lot in the sale has a bid. We've got something in the region of 5,000 preregistered it's already there. And I can tell you already that the money pledged before the auction has even begun is now over 100,000 pounds. So that's a start. The sorts of people bidding I can tell you just because of the way the bids are falling; you're going to have a mixture of people. You're going to have aviation enthusiasts. You're going to have seasoned travellers who just got a romantic notion about having someone from an airport. You're going to have collectors of retro-chic sort of stuff that they just want something to add to their collection. You're going to have dealers in the market who think hey you know what? I can take these things and sell it at an interior design fair or decorative fair.

SB: But what could you do with a check-in desk? Who is going to come home and say, honey, look what I got?

IM: Ah, well you see this is one of the other people who buy. I've got a pretty good idea that some of the people who are bidding are going to be nightclubs, pubs, restaurants, that sort of thing. So just imagine where you come into a nightclub and your reception desk or hat check desk or whatever it is that could be a check-in desk.

SB: All right, well you've got the enthusiasm. You've got us all excited. But I know it's your job to sell this stuff. But tell me the truth now are there any items that make you think there is no way we're going to be able to sell that?

IM: Well, one of the items is a fairly modern recycling waste bin. And last time I looked, that had 30 bids. Now, this isn't something that is retro. It's not something that would have been in the terminal for very long. It's certainly not something you know very old. It's a you know perfectly adequate metal recycling bin. It has 30 bids, why?

SB: What is it about Terminal One that makes people want to own a piece of it?

IM: Well, I think you have to go back, Okay? Whatever's happened in the world now with the way things have changed, Heathrow was the busiest airport in the world. And this was the terminal that first opened back 50 years ago. And it was really what when Britain became an international hub of flying. It's when people certainly from our country started to go when they went on their vacation. They started to go overseas. They started to fly. Before that, most people never got on a plane. It was quite rare. So this was the place that people went to do that for the first time. So a lot of people have been through there. There are a lot of memories.

SB: But have you heard from anyone out there who is kind of sad about seeing the contents of Terminal One being sold off piece-by-piece?

IM: Well, funnily enough, no. I mean I think that a lot of people don't like change. Change happens. But let's face it, this is an amazing opportunity. The general public can bid on something if they have a real attachment or had a real attachment to Terminal One like former staff, they have another opportunity to bid at auction and buy and own something that was in there. It’s also nice nice to see that this stuff is being recycled.

SB: What would you put a bid on if you could?

IM: So there's about three or four things I would love to have. I'd love to have nothing to declare sign. I think that would be terrific! If I had to say one thing. It would be one of the murals; they are amazing. I love those new up-cycle desks because I'm actually moving house soon, and I need a new desk in my office, and I think one of those would be terrific. And I think there is something for everyone really, without trying to oversell it.

SB: Where would that nothing to declare a sign reside in your home? Where would you put it?

IM: Well, it's about two-and-a-half-metres high, it's green; it's got a black sign on it. It's almost like a big glass panel. So, as I said, I’m moving house, and I'm moving to a nice, big Georgian house. So I've got like a big drawing room with big high walls. And I collect art anyway, so I've got pictures on my walls, and I could see that being sort of almost like a sculpture standing on one end of the room. That would be good. Next the drinks cabinet I think. What do you think?

SB: It sounds good to me. It was fun talking to you. Good luck with the auction.

IM: Thank you so much for your interest.

SB: Bye bye.

IM: Bye now.

JD: We reached Ivan Macquisten in London, U.K. And you can see photographs of some of the items from Heathrow's now defunct Terminal One that are up for sale by visiting our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Part two: Gynecology statue removal, BBC sound effects archive

Gynecology statue removal

Guest: Harriet Washington

JD: In the midst of the debate in the United States over memorials to Confederate heroes, Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered a review of the New York City's monuments. Now, one has been officially removed from Central Park. It's not a statue of a general, or a soldier. It's a statue of a doctor who's considered to be the father of modern gyneocology. J. Marion Sims was a 19th-century surgeon. And in developing his technique for treating vaginal fistula, he conducted experimental operations on enslaved black women in Alabama — without anaesthesia. Harriet Washington is a medical ethicist who advocated for the removal of the statue. We reached her in New York City.

SB: Ms. Washington, you attended the removal of the J. Marion Sims statue. What was it like to see it come down?

HARRIET WASHINGTON: It was gratifying to see it come down. And the people who were there were quite jubilant, you know? It's been a long ten years of activism for a lot of the people who live in that community, and the medical students as well who were heavily engaged. So it was actually a happy event.

SB: For those who aren't familiar with J. Marion Sims, can you tell us about him and what he did?

HW: Certainly, he was a physician of the 19th century whose behaviour was quite consonant with the times. A lot of physicians were slave owners, and those who were not like Dr. Sims would borrow or rent slaves from others. These slaves simply had no right to informed consent. They couldn't say no. And historians — even contemporary historians — have long acknowledged that these bodies were forcibly used. In Sims case, he used the bodies of many black women on whom he tested reproductive surgery repair. There was a horrible condition called Vesicovaginal fistula, a consequence of difficult childbirth. And Dr. Sims wanted to cure it because he knew that if he could cure this, he would become a medical hero, it would make his fame and fortune. But he only experimented on these black women, whom he repeatedly did surgical excisions in their genitalia. He would make a repair, sow it up, only to see it become infected and fall apart again. And in each of these women, he repeatedly did these surgeries without anaesthesia. So very painful, it was also very distressingly intimate and embarrassing. This was the Victorian-era after all. And one enslaved woman had 30 surgeries over the course of five years — all failures. In the end, he was able to cure it. And he didn’t linger to cure them. As soon as he knew how to do it, he immediately left, went to Paris, came to New York City, where he was toasted, became the head of the American Medical Association at the Academy of Medicine in New York City, he was a very prominent figure.

SB: There are people who argue that statues like this one should stay up, so that so that people remember the history. And it can be used as a teaching instrument the way you had just told us about what he did. Why was it important for you that the statue be removed?

HW: Well, statues are not historical documents. What I learned I learned about Dr. Sims not from a statue. The inscriptions on the statues are propagandistic; they give an idealized, fictional view of him. I learned what I learned from him by reading his own writings, his own biography, and his own medical journal articles, in which he expresses not only these techniques but his opinions. I saw him, for example, boast about removing the jawbone of a slave after tying him to a chair so he couldn't escape. And that's how I learned about him. So people who want to know history need to consult historical documents.

SB: Did you always feel this way about the statues?

HW: No, I did not. Ten years ago I was a bit more naïve, and I felt that exactly the argument you proposed. I felt that taking the statue down would be a mistake because it would eliminate the lie, but it would also eliminate proof that this lie was believed. But now I understand that it doesn't exist to inform people of what happened. It exists to show people as a symbol of who is in power in this area and this community, which by the way, it’s East Harlem, populated by African-American and Hispanic women — the very women targeted by Sims. I also you know became educated by many visits to Germany. I had lived in Germany as a child. I go back every year to visit friends. And when I go back, I don't see statues of Hitler and Goebbels. Instead, I see things like Stolperstein — little pressed brass stones on the pavement that are memorials to Holocaust victims. So I realized that in Germany, they honour the victims of racial oppression. In this country, unfortunately, we've chosen to honour the perpetrators.

SB: You mention the statue's location. What was it like for you when you used to walk by the statue when it was still there?

HW: Well, the interesting thing is that my first encounter with the statue was at the Academy of Medicine. The Academy of Medicine's library was open to everybody. You didn't have to be a student or faculty at the university. You could just go into the library. So I used it to do my research frequently. So I would see the statue every day, and I used to eat lunch under the statue as a matter of fact because I initially had warm feelings towards Sims. I believed what I had been told about his heroism and about his altruism.

SB: Realy?

HW: Yes, it's during my research that I discovered to my horror that I had been lied to. I mean here James Marion Sims writing a medical journal — actually two articles — in which he boasts of having forced surgery on an African-American man. So I understood here is somebody who had no regard for the welfare, nor for the autonomy, the right to say yes or no to research of African-Americans. And it was actually a very rude awakening for me. So that was my first experience with the statue. And again, I'm now a fellow at the academy, so I go to meetings frequently. I'll be going to a meeting next week. It will be the first meeting I'll go to in which I will not pass that statue. I'm looking forward to that.

SB: Where's the statue now? Where will it go?

HW: It's been taken to Sim’s grave in Green Mount Cemetery in Brooklyn. You know some debate about whether it should be still standing or not? And frankly, I think what's really important is it's no longer standing where it is. But still, I'm not happy about the fact that it's still standing someplace that as far as I know, I don't know if it’s a public cemetery or not, but I certainly would not want my tax dollars going for its maintenance. On the other hand, as I said, the important thing is it no longer stands in Central Park, across from the Academy of Medicine — a very public site, and a site that’s home to so many women of the type that he abused. So it's definitely an advance to have it elsewhere.

SB: Ms. Washington, thanks for your insight today.

HW: Thank you.

SB: Goodbye.

HW: Bye bye.

JD: Harriet Washington is a medical ethicist. We reached her in New York City.

[Music: The kind of music heard in my imagination when I try to sneak a couple cookies from the bag while my girlfriend is sleeping. Soundtrack music]

SB: Mr. Rooks, why did the BBC need something like a radiophonic stomach in its archives?

SIMON ROOKS: Well, the answer to that is probably the BBC needs anything at any given time I guess for any sort of program that is being made. So that's a fairly complicated electronic creation there, so if you needed a comedy, stomach-churning event in your comedy program or something, then you wouldn't want to have to create one specially, you want to pull one off a disk that is on the shelf already.

SB: How far does the collection go? How far back does it go, and what else does it include?

SR: Well, it's an interesting one actually because this is a bit different from the program archives of the BBC. This is more like a sound library, so people started to collect sounds that they thought might be useful for future programs right from say World War Two. We have some examples of people going out during air raids to record the sounds of bombs falling. Fairly sobering really because people were reading lives as they to go and do that.

SB: Let's listen to one of those.

[Sound: An air raid on Brittan]

SB: So tell me what we heard there, and how it might have been recorded?

SR: Well, that was recorded during the Second World War in London. And that would have been probably depends exactly when it was accorded, I don't have the exact date in front of me, but it likely would have been a recording car. So the recording machinery would have been inside a car or a small truck, and they would have been cutting a disk. The BBC wasn't using tape at that time. And then the sounds that were recorded on those disks — the selected sounds that might be useful for future programs — were then processed on to, people might remember, sort of 78 RPM disks or vinyl disks — that kind of disk, which would be good for a good number of plays of in the future.

SB: I have another effect here that I’d like to listen to — it's called “Guillotine Being Used at an Execution 1971”

[Sound: A scary guillotine]

SB: I'm hoping, Mr. Rooks, that wasn't actually the sound of a real guillotine?

SR: Yeah, absolutely. That kind of thing was usually substituted for humans as various sorts of vegetables. So I think they used cabbages for heads, which gave a good sort of crunchy sound. And it’s interesting I mean archivists and librarians like me, we love our metadata and our information. And the information that's comes through on the on the site that says 1971 obviously that's when the effect was recorded. It’s not supposed to be an execution from 1971.

SB: So you have a bit of fun in this job sometimes?

SR: I mean if you think like CBC, BBC can make a program on any subject at any time. And any of those programs whether they are serious dramas or comedy shows or even current affairs you might need a bit of extra sound to support it. So you can literally be asked that anything at any time. So yeah, there's never short of variety.

SB: And this next sound effect that we'll talk about I think you're familiar with it — It's called “Standard Orgy”.

[Sound: This isn’t sexy at all]

SB: What was that?

SR: Well, you may well ask. It's I mean it's awful. There’s no two ways of saying it. It's a dreadfully lame recording from sometime in the 70s. In my early days, I've been in archives for just over 29 years, so in my early days, I can remember older colleagues of mine telling me how that was recorded. And essentially, some studio managers one afternoon just brought a few of their colleagues into a studio, and probably grabbed a few passing BBC employees, and just gathered them said right, we're going to recreate an orgy. Crack a whip and make some screams. How on earth you knew what an orgy sounded like is beyond me, and probably we shouldn't go into it. But I couldn't possibly tell you whether it's been used in any program. I've never heard of it being used, so I think it might have been a bit of an aspirational sound effects recording that never actually saw its day.

SB: Tell me about living and working in the midst of these sounds all the time as an archivist. What's it like for you to be around these sounds and the stories they tell?

SR: Well, those sounds have been collected. You know they're not just randomly collected. People made decisions about what sort of sounds should go into that library to be available as a resource. So I think to work in that environment, those of us that look after those sounds are very aware that you know we're here to make sure that the sounds are kept. And all these sounds have been digitized, and so they are safe and they're safely held, and duplicated and all that sort of thing. So we know that they're going to be you know in another 50 years. I mean it's great to just live within the centre of that resource where you could be after anything at any time.

SB: You're making these sounds available to the public — they can just go online and have access to them. But the idea is also being used for a project that is aiming to help people with dementia. How are the sounds supposed to help?

SR: It's an interesting one; they have used not only these sound effects but also program archives as well to trigger memories, and playing to groups of dementia sufferers. And they found that they spark memories and spark conversations and sort of more you know improved social interaction between dementia sufferers and their carers. So you asked about what it's like working as an archivist? One of the fascinating things is that sometimes arc1hives are collected for one reason, but they find another use later on for a completely different reason. And this will be a really good example of that. So I do know that there are some sort of serious clinical trials planned for later this year. And that the project team worked with academics to really sort of trial this and see how effective and the results were encouraging enough for them to expand it and also seek some proper clinical trials to establish this as something that actually improved the lives of dementia sufferers.

SB: Well, it was good to talk to you. I really enjoyed it, Mr. Rooks.

SR: You're very welcome.

SB: Thank you.

SR: Thanks.

JD: Simon Rooks is the BBC's Head of Archives. We reached him in Guildford, England. And you can find a link to our archive on our website at cbc.ca/aih. And we're going to leave you with one last sound effect. With many of us enduring a cruelly extended winter, we thinks its time has come. This is "Broad-leaved Woodland in Late Spring".

[Sound: Broad-leaved Woodland in Late Spring]

End of the world

JD: When one reads the titles of the books by author David Meade, one has questions. What is "Planet X — God's Endgame?" How shall I prepare for "The End of Days — Planet X and Beyond"? And can "Own a Piece of Paradise in the Florida Keys" really help me own a piece of paradise in the Florida Keys? If the advice is "buy some property", then I guess it can. But those "Planet X" ones… they’re more mysterious. Especially given recent claims that Mr. Meade was predicting Planet X — also known as "Nibiru" — would bring about the apocalypse this Monday. David Meade calls himself a "Christian numerologist". His predictions involve interpreting number codes in the Bible, collating them with astrological events, and always keeping in mind Nibiru — a mysterious planet-sized object in space. Scientists insist Nibiru is no threat, however, due to its not existing. The recent story was that David Meade had predicted the world would end on April 23rd — because of the Book of Revelation, and probably Nibiru. But now, that outlandish story has been debunked by an expert: David Meade. Mr. Meade says the apocalypse will not occur on Monday. That's a ludicrous claim, and insupportable by fact. Rather, the world will begin ending sometime between May and December, when the rapture begins. Then we'll have seven years of "tribulation". Then a thousand years of "peace and prosperity" — then the apocalypse. This is different from the time he predicted the world would maybe start ending last October 21st. This is real. Only seven years, then a thousand years, then at some point after that, it's all over. Goodbye in advance, Planet Earth. Hello, Nibiru.

Part three: Nobel scandal, China forced confessions, Hans Asperger documents

Nobel scandal

Guest: Loukas Christodoulou

JD: Sweden's largest and biggest-selling daily newspaper has called it a "tragedy" — and compared it to the final scenes of "Hamlet". In which, of course, everyone dies. The scandal that's embroiled the Swedish Academy — the body that hands out the Nobel Prize for literature — began last November. That's when allegations of sexual abuse and harassment were levelled against Jean Claude Arnault, who's known as a power broker in Swedish cultural circles. He's also been referred to as the "19th member" of the Academy, by virtue of his marriage to academy member Katarina Frostenson. After months of public arguments, of resignations, and more allegations, today the Academy finally issued a formal statement — confirming that there had been "unacceptable behaviour", and referring the matter to police. Loukas Christodoulou has been covering this story for Radio Sweden. We reached Mr. Christodoulou in Stockholm.

SB: Mr. Christodoulou, what brought the original allegations against Mr. Arnault and Ms. Frostenson?

LOUKAS CHRISTODOULOU: So the original allegations come back to a newspaper report in the wake of the #METoo movement. So last year a newspaper which is the probably the most prestigious newspaper in Sweden, they interviewed 18 women who made accusations of sexual assault — including rape — at this organization, this institution, this forum which is very closely connected to the Swedish Academy. And the member of the academy who is married to the accused man that's Frostenson. But what she's accused of are crimes of trust and conflict of interest. And it is, in fact, those kinds of economic crimes that have now been reported to the police as the academy's internal investigation is handed over today.

SB: Now Mr. Arnault — her husband — and the allegations against him of sexual misconduct and abuse. He has denied those allegations, is that right?

LC: Yes, and the Academy has said that their internal investigation did not find anything criminal. But they are saying that they are very sorry there was unwanted advances, and they seem to consider that his conduct was not at all in keeping with what they want. But critics say well, why did you ignore this essentially for 20 years and close your ears to women who reported it?

SB: What's the significance of the statement today by the Swedish Academy?

LC: Well, some people have called it sensational. Some people have said it's incredible because the Academy split over whether to move forward with this internal investigation. And now, they've not only moved forward with it, they've given it over to the legal authorities. And there could, in fact, be prosecutions.

SB: So, Ms. Frostenson did resign, as well as another woman. Tell me about those resignations?

LC: So the main woman who resigned who people are talking about is Sara Danius because she was the leader of the Academy. She was what's called the permanent secretary. She's the person who came out from behind the elegant doors to announce that they've decided to give Bob Dylan the Nobel Prize for Literature. But she tried to push forward with this internal investigation, and her line got voted down, and several of her allies left. And eventually, there was some kind of formal or informal vote of confidence against her. So she left with her head held high, and many people have taken to the streets last night to support her. But at the same time, Ms. Frostenson also left, and I don't know the circumstances around that.

SB: It's interesting that two prominent women have ended up resigning when the original allegations revolve around a man, Mr. Arnault.

LC: Yes, and the people who've led the academy during the last 20 years when these allegations are supposed to have taken place were two other men, one of whom is still holding on to his position as a member of the Academy. Another one of whom has stepped down over the lack of action, and this is something the courts people again to demonstrate last night. Many people said this is a case of a woman taking the fall for what has actually been problems caused by men.

SB: It sounds like a mess. How divisive has this been for the Academy?

LC: It's been incredibly divisive — unusually divisive — and it's blown up from a situation where the academy was an absolute tight organization with a very code of secrecy, very little public announcements to suddenly an open fight on the street the equivalent of people throwing plates at each other. People have been publishing articles against each other in the newspapers, accusing each other of different things, and it seems difficult to imagine that they can learn to trust each other again.

SB: And what does this whole scandal mean for the reputation of the academy and the Nobel Prize for Literature?

LC: The Nobel Prize is really the deadline that’s looming, that's concentrating minds. Because if there is no Nobel Prize that needed to be decided then maybe the Academy could have their private difference, and that could just roll on. But if the academy itself loses its reputation, loses respect then it's lost one of the main functions that it has. Right now there's no permanent secretary at all; someone is doing the job temporarily. We don't even know who would announce the winner of the next Nobel Prize.

SB: How do you see this getting resolved, or do you see it getting resolved?

LC: There are different options. One option is simply that people get tired of the fight, and the different sides of compromise and are able to be okay with a good enough solution. One thing that other people want is for the remaining members to all resign, and for a clean sheet to be started. I feel that there's a lot invested in the Academy. A functioning Academy is good for Sweden's reputation abroad, it's good for literature; it's good for the Swedish language. So there's a lot invested in getting it to work.

SB: What about the women who originally complained? What's their role in this going forward?

LC: So I've seen one of them interviewed, and she says what's happening right now is not enough. It's all very well for the Academy to have fine words now and say we promise to be open, we promise to have better rules. But how do we even know they'll deliver? After all, there's no body that regulates the Academy. They don't have any duty to do this sort of thing. And I think it's very much in the minds of lots of people who are working on this. But one of the things that got the ball rolling are terrible stories of people having violence inflicted upon them.

SB: Mr. Christodoulou, thank you very much.

LC: Oh, you're very welcome.

SB: Goodbye

LC: OK, goodbye.

JD: Loukas Christodoulou is a reporter with Radio Sweden. We reached him in Stockholm.

[Music: Orchestra]

China forced confessions

Guest: Peter Dahlin

JD: In January 2016, Peter Dahlin was hours away from flying out of Beijing, when the authorities showed up. The Swedish human rights campaigner next appeared weeks later, in this segment on the Chinese network CCTV.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER DAHLIN: I violated Chinese laws through my activities here. I have caused harm to the Chinese government. I have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. I apologize sincerely for this, and I am very sorry that this ever happened.

JD: Peter Dahlin now says that his confession was forced — as are many other people. Mr. Dahlin has joined an international campaign to impose sanctions on journalists and media outlets that help exact those confessions, and then broadcast them around the world. We reached Peter Dahlin in Bangkok.

SB: Mr. Dahlin, tell us where you were when you spoke those words and what was going on?

PD: Specifically, I was in the south of Beijing in a secret prison facility, being kept in solitary confinement. When those words were spoken, I was sitting across from a CCTV journalists and a camera man surrounded by state security agents in a so-called meeting room across from my cell and my interrogation room.

SB: Were you experiencing duress at that point?

PD: That's a hard question to answer. I was in solitary confinement, and I had been in it for close to 20 days at that point. So, of course, there was some kind of duress. But compared to most of my colleagues in China and most Chinese human rights workers, of course, my treatment was with kiddie gloves basically. But with that said, of course, my girlfriend was being kept in solitary confinement just like myself, and it's been made very clear to me that she would continue to be in that situation for up to six months unless I cooperated.

SB: The journalist that was asking you the questions did she know what was going on?

PD: There's no doubt about that. She had been driven to a secret prison. There is no doubt whatsoever that she was entirely aware of what was going on.

SB: Did she express any reluctance about the situation?

PD: I did not see any real reluctance from her in terms of our charade that we played.

SB: How do you know that she knew it was a charade?

PD: Well, I was given a paper with questions and answers. And she was giving a paper with the same questions and answers. She, of course, does not figure in the actual recording of myself — it's just me. But she's sitting there right across from me, and she's reading the questions, I'm reading the answers. And next to us, of course, is a number of members from state security that's directing us in terms of if I'm reading the answers correctly, if I'm using the right tone, if I'm sitting the right way, if we need a retake.

SB: Can you describe that?

PD: The thing that I remember most clearly is stumbling over that one line: I have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. That is a bit of a comic relief sentence really. It's so ridiculous that we all laugh about it. We've heard it so many times said by many different people. So when they wanted me to actually say that sentence, it was quite hard to say it with a straight face. And it did take quite a lot of takes. The whole thing is a little bit preposterous really.

SB: This all happened to you more than two years ago. Why have you decided to speak out now?

PD: I've only really spoken to the media twice before this about anything of this. And I've never seen the forced TV confession to be that interesting in comparison to me being inside this new system of secret imprisonment that they've established in China. When I was asked to write my testimony, of course, I wouldn't say no. So I did it. It was difficult to say for sure, but I was happy to do it for the purpose of this report. And what struck me the most really is about a month after I sent off my testimony to the editor of this report. For me that changed my thinking about this issue quite a lot. What he says and the way he says it is a point-by-point bottle of international criticism. And not only that, he's using the language that is used by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. For me, there have been many of these before, and mine, of course, was also related to this issue like trying to rebut criticism from the outside world. But his, for me, it really took the cake. That was like literally a state from the Foreign Ministry, executed by the police with collaboration of the media that handles all of the post-production as well as the recording. And that that changed it a little bit for me.

SB: Why is it important for you to go after journalists?

PD: That's a good question. Many people think of those in China that act like journalists as being some kind of passive victims. They are forced to broadcast something that the police gives them. But they're not just passive collaborators; they're active collaborators, they're actually sending people to do interviews inside secret prisons, knowing full well that people are speaking against their will. Then they add extensive post-production, and they broadcast them. And sometimes they broadcast them on the international arm of the Chinese media. We've seen that Iranian state media has been sanctioned for this very reason. We've seen limitations on their ability to operate. But here when it comes to China, it seems to become both systematic in the way that the media collaborates with the police to create these, but no one basically speaks about it.

SB: So what specific sanctions would you like to see imposed on journalists or media outlets that that participate in these forced confessions?

PD: If we can prove that Chinese media operators are collaborating with police that is proven using torture to force people to broadcast confessions — including on the international arms of that media — for example in Canada then obviously we need to take steps against that. And that's what the Magnitsky Act is for, where we can actually take steps to punish those that are responsible. And I think that needs to be the first step. The individual's proven to be responsible for these or collaborating with this needs to be punished.

SB: So you don't believe that it's a question of these journalists being under duress themselves and forced to act this way?

PD: I am certain that they don't feel particularly happy about this but to say that they are forced to do this No, that is absolutely not true. They have a choice to say no, and they will not suffer consequences if they do. They are choosing to co-operate in this as a way to get ahead in their careers. No doubt about that.

SB: Mr. Dahlin, thank you so much for telling us about this.

PD: You're welcome.

SB: Bye bye.

PD: Bye.

JD: Peter Dahlin is a Swedish human rights campaigner. We reached him in Bangkok.

[Music: Ambient]

Hans Asperger documents

Guest: Herwig Czech

JD: It’s common knowedge the Nazis experimented on, and murdered, hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities. What we didn't know, until now, was that the eminent pediatrician Hans Asperger — for whom Asperger's Syndrome is named — may have collaborated with the Nazis to euthanize hundreds of disabled children. Including two of his own patients. Herwig Czech is the historian who spent years researching Dr. Asperger. His new study is published in the journal Molecular Autism. He works at the Medical University of Vienna, which is where we reached him.

SB: Mr. Czech, what was it that made you want to look into Asperger's personal files and his patient records in the first place?

HERWIG CZECH: Well, I have to say that I've been working in this field of research the history of medicine for quite some time. And my interest for Hans Asperger grew out of this work on euthanasia crimes and Nazi medicine in general.

SB: What did you find?

HC: Well, I found that the common narrative of Huns Asperger is someone who was not a National Socialist himself, who even might have resisted Nazi policies, protected his patients, needed revision because it didn't hold up to the documentary evidence. I looked in to a lot of different files from different contexts, but the most important files were patient records actually from children who had been killed at the infamous child euthanasia facility here in Vienna. And in two of these files, there are traces of Hun Asperger who had transferred these children actually.

SB: He was the reason these two children were directly sent there?

HC: Yes, they were patients at his clinic. He worked at the University children's clinic, and he had them transferred to child euthanasia clinic.

SB: Was Dr. Hans Asperger a member of the Nazi party?

HC: No, he never joined the Nazi party. He did join an affiliated organization the German Physicians’ League as a candidate. It was a way of having something to show in terms of proof of political loyalty to the regime.

SB: Can you tell us the story of the two young girls who Dr. Asperger referred to the clinic. What do we know about them?

HC: One of them, she was called Herta, she was under 3 years old, so at a very young age. According to Asperger, she had suffered brain damage caused by an infectious disease. And she was severely handicapped. And the caring for her simply proved overwhelming to her mother. That's why she sought out Asperger’s advice. And it seems that there was some complicity and also some acknowledgement from the mother that that having this child killed or having her die would actually be a relief for her.

SB: So you have no doubt then that the doctor knew — that Asperger knew this girl would be murdered?

HC: From the specificities of this case, I have little doubt. Yes, because he signed the transferral note basically saying that the child should be placed permanently calling for permanent placement at the clinic that was known for killing children.

SB: So while only two of his own patients were directly sent to that clinic, you believe Hans Asperger was involved in the murder of more children — in what capacity?

HC: In his capacity of specialist consultant for the city of Vienna for mentally abnormal children was the wording of the time. In this capacity, he was called to sit in a commission of seven members who would examine 200 children who were patients at the psychiatric hospital. And the commission's task was to categorize these children according to their prognosis, the potential to get to be able to grow to be useful members of society, and there was also a group of children who were deemed to be hopeless cases, uneducable who were earmarked for euthanasia. So here in this case, the responsibility is somehow more mitigated. It's spread over several shoulders, so to speak. But clearly Asperger had a part in legitimizing this whole approach, and in putting this on the children that later led to their transferal and their death.

SB: How has this news been received among people in the autistic community?

HC: Of course, it's been received grief dismay. People feel betrayed. It's something they assumed they would have wanted to know earlier. There's also tales of worries that this could mean that they will lose to the diagnosis, which has proven helpful for a lot of people. So it’s very ambivalent I would say.

SB: Do you think that this higher-functioning autism known as Asperger's Syndrome — named after Dr. Hans Asperger — do you think that name should be changed?

HC: Well, I don't think this story should interfere in the question of the clinical usefulness of this category. I also don’t want to speak for people who are really affected by this on a very personal level in their lives. But from my standpoint as a historian, I would tend to say that history should not be purged. That the fact that there's a problematic history that is happening should not lead to simply erasing it from history and from also from the medical lexicon. This is an opportunity to learn to reflect on the past and if possible at all it should be kept.

SB: Well, thank you for telling us about it.

HC: Thank you.

JD: Herwig Czech is the author of a new study about Dr. Hans Asperger. Mr. Czech works at the Medical University of Vienna, and that's where we reached him. We have more on this story on our website.

[Music: Horns]

Kit-Kat fingers

JD: They were hoping for good luck, but someone else crossed their fingers. The fingers I'm referring to are the ones that make up a Kit Kat bar — four fingers that were protected by trademark in the European Union. 80 per cent of a hand worth of milk chocolate, emulsifiers, and — in the U.K. — something called "cocoa mass". That trademark meant that no one else in the EU could replicate the chocolate bar's distinctive four-finger shape, which was a big deal, because trademarking shapes is notoriously difficult. The Rubik's Cube people fought for ten years to get a trademark for their toy on the basis of its shape — no dice. And Lindt wasn't allowed to trademark its gold-foil-wrapped chocolate bunny. Now, thanks to an EU court, Nestle has lost that trademark. First, judges ruled, with shocking callousness, that the Kit-Kat shape had, quote, "no inherent distinctiveness," unquote. And now, Nestle's appeal has been thrown out, too. The company did prove that the bar was widely recognized in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. But that excludes Belgium, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal. Which means Kit-Kat isn't considered distinctive in the whole EU, which means no EU-wide trademark. Now, the European market will be flooded with Kit Kat-style chocolate bars. Or probably it won't. Either way, there's not much Nestle can do about it. It can't even make an immature gesture of disappointment — because when you have four fingers, there's no middle one.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 20, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode