Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The AIH Transcript for February 27, 2017

Hosts: Helen Mann and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello, I'm Helen Mann.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I’m Jeff Douglas.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

HM: Shattered. A Philadelphia rabbi tells us about the clean-up at a Jewish cemetery where dozens of headstones lie toppled and broken – the second act of vandalism at a Jewish cemetery in the U.S. in less than a week.

JD: A tale of two tales. Author Joseph Boyden acknowledges the similarities between one of his short stories and a story by an Ojibway elder – but says he didn't copy from the latter to write the former.

HM: It's not whether they win or lose – it's how you watch the game. Unsportsmanlike conduct at hockey games result in suspensions in Edmonton – not for the players, but for their parents.

JD: Party un-pooper. The people who voted for him believe Tom Perez can change the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the U.S. – but so-called progressives believe the new DNC chair is just more of the same.

HM: Court of mass appeal. The late Judge Joseph Wapner presided over some strange cases – but even when he was assessing damages to a plaintiff who'd been dosed with laxative, he maintained order in "The People's Court".

JD: And...never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. That's a wise saying, but members of the press are fighting back anyway – because they object to a government plan to fingerprint new journalists who cover Parliament Hill.
As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that figures Ottawa's going to see a lot of one finger in particular – the one that can't be printed.

[Music]

Part 1: Jewish cemetery vandalized, hockey-fighting parents, new press gallery

Jewish cemetery vandalized

Guest: Yosef Goldman

JEFF DOUGLAS: It looks like a tornado hit it. But that would be a lot less disturbing. People in Philadelphia are banding together to help repair and restore a Jewish cemetery after it was vandalized. On Sunday hundreds of headstones were found knocked over and damaged. That act of vandalism comes less than a week after around 200 headstones in a Jewish cemetery in Missouri were defaced and damaged by vandals.
Yosef Goldman spent five hours at the Philadelphia cemetery yesterday helping with the cleanup efforts. He says this was a deliberate act of violence. Mr. Goldman is also a rabbi at a local synagogue in Philadelphia and that is where we reached him.

HELEN MANN: Rabbi Goldman, describe for us what you saw when you arrived at the cemetery.

YOSEF GOLDMAN: Well when I got there, I saw a group of people that had arrived that heard the news somehow and showed up, and they were collecting garbage and they were working together to lift headstones that had been toppled. As I walked through the cemetery, I saw row upon row of toppled headstones.

HM: How many do you think were knocked over?

YG: Well somebody that was with us went and counted. Looking for the toppled headstones and signs that bits of concrete that connected the headstone at the base were still there. It had been a storm the day before so it was clear which ones were recently toppled. We counted 539.

HM: Were any of them permanently damaged?

YG: Yes there were certainly ones that were permanently damaged. There were some that were cracked in half and there were some that were chipped.

HM: Now do you believe the cemetery was targeted?

YG: Oh, certainly. It’s a cemetery that's at an intersection with a cemetery on each of the four corners. It was the only Jewish cemetery there, and was the only cemetery of the four that was vandalized. It took a concerted effort to topple that many headstones. It must have been at least three people because some of these stones weighed several hundred pounds and would have taken a lot of force.

HM: What are police saying about the investigation at this point?

YG: They are not saying much. Their investigation is ongoing and I know that they are in close communication with the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia also that I saw showed up with a group of fellow rabbis and very soon there were Christians there was a Quaker man who worked at a nearby Quaker cemetery, and then there was a group of Muslims that showed up and we were all lifting these tombstones together. As they walked through and was seeing the extent of the damage and the desecration, that was really devastating. And then as I watched this group of strangers come together as sisters and brothers I was filled with hope. This was an act that was a cowardly act. But then to see how people are coming together, it's clear that we're not going to respond to this with fear. We the Jewish community is going to be stronger for this. In the wake of the executive order addressing immigration, I organized a group of my fellow rabbis for a couple of weeks to go to two different mosques for Friday prayers. We spoke with the Muslim leaders. It's a shame that the connections between our two communities have not been as strong as they could have been. But that is changing.

HM: You mentioned the support from the Muslim community and the support you're giving them as well. In fact we've learned that after the cemetery was vandalized last week in St. Louis, the Muslim community raised a lot of money. Members of that community, to try and help restore that cemetery. Now they're going to use some of that money to help you folks out with this Mount Carmel Cemetery. What does that mean to you?

YG: It's so touching to have the Muslim community offer funds from that they've raised after the attack on the cemetery in St. Louis. And one of the organizers of that fundraiser, Tarek El-Messidirek is a local Philadelphian. He was getting on a plane when he heard the news of the Mount Carmel Cemetery. He got right off the plane and came to the cemetery to tell the Jewish community in person about the funds that he had, and I was moved to tears to hear that from him.

HM: You mentioned the president's executive order and I'm just wondering your thoughts about the timing of this incident, the threats that you have mentioned generally to Jewish community centers. What do you make of what's happening now? How does it compare to other acts of anti-Semitism you might've seen in recent years?

YG: Acts of anti-Semitism nationally are not being tracked carefully. I think that's beginning to change, but anecdotally there is marked rise in acts of anti-Semitism. It's no surprise that it's happening now. Our president ran a campaign that was filled with hateful rhetoric towards minority groups; towards immigrants, towards Latin Americans, towards Muslims, towards Jews. This is the result of that sort of rhetoric. And the policies that he has put in place since being elected make it clear that those were simply words, that this is the type of presidency that he plans to have and it's going to take the community of Americans as a whole to stand up and say that we will not tolerate hate.

HM: Do you have any plans to increase surveillance or security around the cemetery or any other Jewish sites in and around Philadelphia?

YG: Well I cannot speak to the cemetery. Actually just today, there have been several more threats to Jewish community centers around the country and our local Jewish day school. The Perelman Jewish day School is just outside of Philadelphia had to be evacuated after a bomb threat.
So, we are part of a group that addresses our security together, but we will certainly be reassessing our security needs, and trying to balance, on the one hand, ensuring the safety and security of anyone who walks through the doors of our synagogue, while on the other hand, remaining an open and welcoming community.

HM: Rabbi Goldmann thank you so much for speaking with us. I wish you the best with the cleanup and restoration.

YG: Thank you. A pleasure to speak with you.

HM: OK bye bye.

JD: That was Rabbi Yosef Goldman. We reached him in Philadelphia. Over the weekend a Jewish cemetery in his community was vandalized, less than a week after sin similar vandalism at a Jewish cemetery in Missouri.

[Music]

Hockey fighting parents

Guest: Mark Doram

JD: "It's not about winning. It's about having fun."
If you have a kid who plays sports, you've probably used that advice on them once or twice before. But in Edmonton, the parents seem to be the ones in need a reminder of that.
Last week, Hockey Edmonton sent out a letter to the organization's participants asking them to behave. It follows a number of incidents at the rink – including one where police had to be called. To tell us what happened, we reached Hockey Edmonton president Mark Doram – the author of that letter. We reached him in Edmonton.

HM: Mark Doram, tell us about this recent incident at the rink where Edmonton police were actually called. What were the parents doing?

MARK DORAM: They were being a little overly aggressive towards an official. And so the officials felt threatened and stayed in the official's room until police arrived to escort them to their vehicles.

HM: When you say a little over aggressive, what are we talking about?

MD: Well, being verbal verbally aggressive with them and threatening. You know, there wasn't anything physical you know so we take all matters like this very seriously and we've had another you know a couple other incidents where police were called. You know and one of the things that we want to do going into playoffs and provincials, is to make sure that people keep their emotions in check and know when they're getting to that boiling point so that they can actually leave the arena, maybe go in and have a coffee or sit in the car for a while and listen to some music or walk around the outside of the arena, you know to prevent something that they wish they could take back.

HM: Yeah. Well you say threats. What's the nature of the threats they were making?

MD: Actually it's still under investigation right now, so we're not quite sure of what's been said. You know, so that there I'm not privy to.

HM: You say the refs stayed behind their doors. Is it true that they locked themselves in there?

MD: From what we understand, yes. You know, and one thing we always want to make sure that people understand too, it's a small group of people within the sport. You know you don't go to a hockey game and see fights and clashing of parents and officials on a on a regular basis. It's a small group of people and it could be anybody, you know where the emotion just you know, it just gets too high.

HM: How old were the kids playing?

MD: That I can't share with you while it's under investigation?

HM: Can you give us the age range for your league?

MD: Our our age range is four to 18.

HM: So they are they're minors in any case.

MD: That's right. And the fours, fives, and sixes generally don't cause a lot of problems, or in the initiation league. And they usually like lying on the ice making snow angels. So–

HM: Right. Now you say this is a small group of parents. Have you had other incidents of this kind?

MD: Yes, we do every year, you know. But what we want to do is make sure that you know we don't have pages of parent suspensions coming through our operation. So we want to make sure that people actually police themselves and police each other on their teams.

HM: Behind all of this, you have to wonder, these are young people playing, are parents are in a situation and they've got unrealistic expectations? They see the kids you know, making it to the NHL and somehow they're mad at the refs or the coaches? I'm just trying to figure out why anybody would be so upset.

MD: Well sometimes that happens, or you know they think there was a call that should have been made, and the call wasn't made. Or you know, somebody was hurt on the play, and you know it almost seems like somebody wants their pound of flesh. And you know, the referee you know gives them a two minute or four minute penalty, and you know they think the player should have been banned for life. And you know so those types of things happen.

HM: What did the refs make out of all of this? Just you know they must feel really torn.

MD: Well, some you know, we lose some. You know just because you know, I didn't sign up for this. You know and in some cases you know you may have a player and the referee happens to be maybe two years older than them, or four years older than them, that they're reffing. You know they don't know what to make of it. Because you have an adult coming there and you know in their face type deal.

HM: What about the players themselves? They're all under 18. You have to wonder what kind of effect this is having on them. What do you say to them? What they say to you?

MD: Well, a lot of them are very embarrassed you know, because you know the next time they go into the dressing room, you know their other teammates are going “Oh yeah. Did you see Johnny's mom, how upset she got? Or you know Johnny's dad you know getting in the face of the ref or you know the police that came? Or you know, they become extremely embarrassed. Some leave the game because it was just too much an embarrassing situation for them.

HM: How many parents have been suspended?

MD: I think in the last month, I think it's probably about 5.

HM: And how long for?

MD: Well it depends on the severity of it. So some may get, you know a game, some may get two, some could get the rest of the season. We have had some in the past that have been suspended for the full year.

HM: So what does that mean suspension?

MD: That means you drop your son or daughter off at the door, and either you can go and sit in your car in the parking lot, or you can come back later when the game is over.

HM: You used to be a hockey parent yourself, I understand. What did you learn from sitting on those benches that you want these people to know?

MD: You know what, at the end of the day don't embarrass yourself. You know, that, you know, and don't say things that you're going to regret. You know, and it's just the game and you have to be able to leave it at the rink. At the end of the day, the whole purpose of the game is for your son or daughter to enjoy the game, to love the game, and to be able to take something from the game, you know, whether that's becoming a good team player you know or becoming a great hockey player.

HM: Well good luck dialing down all these tensions. Thank you very much for talking to us about it.

MD: And one of the big things though is we you know, we really want to stress, it’s not rampant. It’s just that we've had you know, a series of larger incidents that we decided we need to you know we need to put a clamp down on this so that it doesn't escalate.

HM: Well thank you for telling us about it.

MD: Thank you.

HM: All right bye.

JD: Mark Doram is the president of Hockey Edmonton and we reached him in Edmonton.

[Music]

Oscars Bellemare

SOUNDCLIP

SYLVAIN BELLEMARE: This award by far is a collective art, made by people from many countries around the world, lead by the Quebec team– Salut Montréal.

JD: That was Montreal's Sylvain Bellemare last night, acknowledging his hometown as he accepted the Oscar for Best Sound Editing. Mr. Bellemare took home the award for his work on the hit sci-fi film, "Arrival" – about a linguistics expert charged with deciphering the language of alien visitors after they land on Earth. The film was directed by Denis Villeneuve, who, of course, also hails from Quebec.
This morning, Mr. Bellemare spoke with Mike Finnerty, host of CBC Radio's Daybreak. He shared what it was like to hear his name being announced, and the experience of readying himself to say something. And he also revealed what both he and Denis Villeneuve consider to be one of the most powerful tools when it comes to sound in film, particularly in Arrival.

SOUNDCLIP

SYLVAIN BELLEMARE: My goodness. Everything's go pretty fast. You need to remain calm and say that you need to just say a few words that will represent the people you love, the people that share this prize with you, and there's a lot of people behind that, and especially also Denis was there, three metres from me so I wanted just to celebrate that's with him.
I wanted to say more stuff than that, but unfortunately, the countdown, the time, felt that what's left. You know, the countdown, the time, felt that you have a certain pressure to tell everyone what you’re saying.

MIKE FINNERTY: Sound editing for Arrival, beautiful film. What set this project apart for you as a sound editor?

SB: I would say that science fiction by far is a medium that we never really do in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It’s not something that we have the capability usually to do that, because for different production matters, it takes a lot of money. So of course, science fiction is the big step and it's fantastic to do.

MF: I'm thinking Sylvain, of when they're in the alien ship and they have the pods on the other side of whatever it is the screen, or the glass and you have the canary, or a bird chirping in its cage to signal whether the atmosphere is still OK. And suddenly, one of the heptapods puts, I want to say a hand, obviously not a hand, on the glass. And much I suppose, it plays a lot on silences as well, but I thought that was tremendously effective.

SB: Thank you very much. Yeah the silences. I'm so happy that you talked about that. The silences are so important in Arrival. And Denis said recently in an interview, for him silence, is the most powerful sound, which is such a contrast because silence is not a sound. So the use of silence was so important in Arrival, so yeah that was part of it.

JD: Montreal sound editor Sylvain Bellemare speaking with CBC Radio's Mike Finnerty this morning. Last night Mr. Bellemare accepted the Oscar for Best Sound Editing for his work on the Sci-fi blockbuster Arrival.

[Music]

New press gallery rules

Guest: Tonda MacCharles

JD: Journalists on Parliament Hill are being uncharacteristically frank about a new proposal making its way through the House of Commons. It is a new security measure and it would force new members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery to provide fingerprints for criminal record checks. Right now it is being discussed at the committee level but the press gallery is already sounding the alarm. Tonda MacCharles is a Toronto Star reporter and the president of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. We reached her in Ottawa.

HM: Tonda, can you think of a time when a journalist has instigated a security incident on Parliament Hill?

TONDA MACCHARLES: Look, I can’t. We don't know of an incident where the journalist was the security risk. I mean certainly journalists were in the line of fire that same day in the in the corridor up on Parliament Hill when the Parliament Hill attacker stormed the front doors and came in blasting his gun. But no we don't. Sure there might be some MPs who might not like being buttonholed by reporters in a way. But no, reporters are not security risks in the course of doing their job, and you know frankly our access on Parliament Hill has been limited more and more over the years anyway.

HM: Why then do you think this proposal is being put forward now?

TM: I'm not really sure if it's got to do with the fact that the RCMP have taken over supervision of the Parliamentary Protective Services or whether this is a concern that stems more from you know the Board of Internal Economy. That's an all-party committee with MPs on it, themselves raising the concerns, or what. Certainly they asked for a security audit. There appears to have been some evaluation of security on the Hill that seems to have identified some gaps. That seems to be the source of this but where did it come from in the first place. I'm not sure.

HM: So the Parliamentary Press Gallery as a group has formally opposed the proposal. What is it that's of particular concern to you and other gallery members?

TM: We have several concerns, but for the most part, look we don't know what this is going to entail. We don't know who's going to have the final say. The RCMP is proposing to do fingerprinting of journalists and run it by a database for criminal record checks. I mean, I don't know why that is necessary. We don't know what criminal offenses would be deemed reason to bar a journalist. We don't know who has that final decision actually on deciding who would and wouldn't get access. And you know, sure you can see lots of things on television these days but really, access to Parliament Hill access to law makers and decision makers and staff is important. Access to committee hearings to go talk to witnesses and the people who helped shape policy up there, that is important. And so someone is suggesting to bar journalists from Parliament Hill, that has an impact on our reporting. We're there to report to inform the public about how people are exercising power. We have a concern that that you know potentially, this kind of security screening could impair our ability to do that.

HM: It appears the plan would not just have journalists be screened in this way. It would include MP staffers, interns and others who work in Parliament Hill as well. Does that alleviate your concerns? That it’s not specifically journalists being targeted?

TM: Well it doesn't alleviate our concerns insofar as this I don't know if this is the exact same proposal for them, for starters. We don't… we're not fully briefed on what the others are going to face. And also, those final decisions may lie actually with the MPS themselves in the end. We are aware that we're not above anybody here in all of this. We're not trying to say we deserve special privileges or special access.
Simply, we're raising these questions as to you know, who's going to be the final arbiter? Is it the RCMP? Is it security service or is it is it Parliamentarians themselves? Or is or could it be the press gallery? We don't know.
Certainly we can acknowledge that to have a police force that's responsible ultimately answerable to the government of the day, and whatever government that might be the executive branch, deciding whether or not journalists should get in, that's a problem.
We already are assigned here by our organizations and our employers. They assign trusted journalists to come up and do these jobs. The Parliamentary Press Gallery screens its members for the purposes of deciding well, do you really have any business up there? Do you require access to these premises to do your reporting and where does your reporting show up? Are you actually a reporter? I think in this day and age when we see the police you know being overzealous in Quebec and their surveillance of journalists are not really giving a fig about press freedom, I think we have a right to be concerned and I think we have a right to raise these questions and ask for some justification of the measures.

HM: You know, watching this being discussed on social media, I noticed it’s not perhaps surprising that there's people out there who will say, you know if you've not done anything to add that you have to hide, if you've got no criminal past, what do you care if they take your fingerprints if it increases security in Parliament Hill? What do you say to those people?

TM: It’s a specious line isn't it, to say “Well if you haven't done anything wrong, you know. You shouldn't be afraid.” You know it's kind of like remember when the Public Safety Minister and the Conservative government said “Well if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists,” or “If you're not with us, you're with the child pornographers.” It's a ridiculous line of argument in what's supposed to be a democracy which respects freedoms. And one of those freedoms is freedom of expression and freedom to report on those who do wield power and exercise power over the rest of us.

HM: Now you mentioned that your newspapers, television media, whoever, pick who they're going to send to Parliament Hill. But is there any screening process for security right now to make sure that journalists are who they say they are?

TM: We certainly verify and require organizations to verify the identity of their reporters. But is there an RCMP background check? No. No we've never been asked to go through this extensive screening even to cover him on his own plane. You do answer a whole bunch of questions about who you are and what your past is and where you've lived, and you know they have references in terms of addresses and stuff like that they can check. But this just seems to us to be a little bit overzealous.

HM: Do you think your concerns will be taken seriously? Noting that at one point CSIS, the spy agency was proposed as being involved in the screening process, and they are not on that list anymore. Do you think they're listening to you?

TM: Well you know what? I'm encouraged by the fact that they've reached out and they have consulted with us and said that current members would be grandfathered. I mean, to a certain extent that shows flexibility. We're extremely relieved that CSIS has been dropped, because that raised a huge number of concerns around protection of our sources.
But yeah, no I would say look there's a conversation to be had and it's just beginning. And having gotten the mandate from our members on Friday to have that conversation, I guess we'll be able to report in in a few more weeks sort of the result of some other conversations we have. I don't even know to what extent MPs and their staffers are aware, or were aware before Friday, of the measures that were being proposed for their own people. So you know, if I was an Opposition party, I'd have questions to ask around that.

HM: Well Tonda, thanks very much for going through this with us.

TM: Okay thanks Helen.

HM: Good to talk to you. Bye.

TM: Bye.

JD: Tonda MacCharles is a reporter for The Toronto Star and President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. We reached her in Ottawa

Part 2: Joseph Boyden: APTN, new DNC pick

Joseph Boyden APTN

JEFF DOUGLAS: People are asking Joseph Boyden some hard questions… again. The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has published a detailed report showing similarities between 2001 short story by the award winning Canadian author, and a 1989 story by an Ojibway storyteller named Ron Geyshick. Both describe a medicine man who receives special powers during a visit by the Lord and two helpers. This follows, of course, an earlier investigation by APTN, that called Mr. Boyden's Indigenous heritage into question. Joseph Boyden is defending his short story. We reached him in New Orleans.

HELEN MANN: Joseph Boyden, before you wrote your 2001 story Bear Walker, had you ever read this other story by Ron Geyshick?

JOSEPH BOYDEN: I hadn't. I actually wrote that short story in the mid-90s.

HM: And it was published in 2001.

JB: Right. Yeah. That came out with Cormorant Books, a collection of stories, but I was working on them for a number of years before. And keep in mind too, Bear Walker, the story you’re referring to is a 6000 plus word story and APTN brought it to my attention that there is a few paragraphs in that story, in my story, that happened in flashback, and I think there's maybe 60 words or something that are the same. But it's striking, obviously, the specifics of them.

HM: So I take it now you have read his story?

JB: Yes I did just recently.

HM: So when you look at the passages that APTN was drawing attention to, do you understand why people are asking about the parallels?

JB: I do, of course, but this was again an oral story that was floating around in the mid-90s up north. You know, the story of the Lord and his two helpers. The men in black suits, I remember these details. Like, I was thinking about Pulp Fiction at the time and the two helpers in their black suits as John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson kind of things. There are some striking similarities. Yes. This was a story I heard, and it was floating around. You know is this really national news? You know I think with the big story here, that people want to make, is the idea of who's allowed to tell stories, an oral story, and who isn't.

HM: But some of the people asking the questions are within the Indigenous communities where the stories apparently floated around. And they're pointing to not just similarities in terms of the basis of the story and some of the symbolism, but also its structure and the narrative flow of the story as well.

JB: It's a story that I heard floating around. And again, you know, I think the real question here is the question of oral stories and who owns them and who doesn't. You know, it was recently quoted that I said “Nobody owns oral stories.” And that's a misquote. What I was talking about is if we're sitting around a campfire, or at the coffee table having coffee and someone brings up a funny story that's one thing, but I understand very much the importance of traditional oral stories, and stories that belong to family or to community, or to a people. And I'm always very careful with those stories. You know, look at Wenjack, you know my last book that came out.
It's a fictional telling of Charlie Wenjack. I went to his family I went to his sisters Pearl and Daisy, asked their permission and waited, and they said “Yes” and then I went ahead. In The Orenda, when I wrote The Orenda, I went to the scholars, I went to the Indigenous people, I went to Georges Sioui, the Wendat scholar, and amazing poet, and he gave me his permission, his blessing. And Three Day Road, you know, Pegahmagabow’s family, and I am an adopted brother of one of the Pegahmagabows. It was like Xavier Bird, my first fictional child I called him. He is the namesake of the real Xavier Bird.

HM: Well let me get back to that, because you say you first heard this story from Xavier Bird. He's now dead, but his brother, Louis Bird told APTN he doesn't believe that Xavier Bird would have told you this story. Louie Bird is a storyteller, and he says this story and the imagery in it is unknown in the area. What do you say to that?

JB: I know Louie, I actually spoke to him last week and I have deep respect for Louie. He's an amazing elder and storyteller. Xavier told me the story, others told me the story. I don't think they were telling it to me as if it was their own. They were passing on a story that had come across, that was floating around. Stories do that. That's what happens with stories.

HM: Well you said you spoke to Louie, but what did he say to you, because he said quite clearly that he doesn't believe his brother would have told you the story because his brother wasn't a storyteller and wouldn't have known this kind of story. That the imagery isn't even the kind of thing that would be reflective of that community.

JB: I can't speak for Louie, unfortunately, but I do know what I do know, and I know what I've heard and you know, this is a story written 20 years ago. Of the hundreds of thousands of words I’ve published since, no one's ever come to me before and said “You've taken my story” or “You are a thief.” And I think this is the way people are trying to paint me right now, some people anyway, and it couldn’t be anything further from the truth. My stories are like my children and they are my creation, and to take those couple of paragraphs and try to paint me as somebody who is one who feels is wrong. APTN didn’t even use the word plagiarism in their article. And yet, this has become a big story for people, or some people, and I'm not quite sure why. Or maybe I do know why but it's certainly not about those couple of paragraphs. It’s far bigger than that.

HM: What are you thinking it's about?

JB: I think it's about certain people in certain communities want to silence voices or uphold other voices. I think it's about the idea that you're not allowed to speak anymore versus you are. And I'm not going to be that person whose voice is shut down because of it.

HM: Did you ask Xavier Bird's permission back in the day, or did you give him credit? Why didn't you give him credit in front of the book?

JB: I was working on a project called Shabotowan and I spoke to many many different elders at the time. I did credit families in the back of the book in my acknowledgement, and I, to this day honor and credit Xavier Bird by naming my first literary child after him. Something that he was happy with and gave me his OK and his blessing and his permission.

HM: Do you have any documentation any notes you might have taken at the time because people are asking these questions?

JB: Notes or documentation about that?

HM: About asking him permission about the way the story was told to you. Anything like that?

JB: 20 years ago, no, I don't think I do. But you know what? I asked him and he gave me his blessing and then being questioned so deeply about this kind of amazes me. You know, people want to discredit me, certain people. And it's gotten to the point where I have to speak out now and not allow them to try and discredit me.

HM: This of course comes on the heels of the story just some weeks ago where people were questioning your Indigenous roots. You've spoken about your not having written proof of this being “a white kid from a Toronto suburb with native roots.” Have you discovered any more about those roots since that time?
I am very solid in who I am and I am the same person I was before the holidays. I am grounded in my birth family, I am grounded in the foundations of my traditional family. I am grounded in my communities where I do my work. I am the same person I was before, what I think and want to call the manufactured drama began.

HM: Why do you say it's manufactured?

JB: The sheer amount of energy and time and focus and unhappiness and anger directed at me has been a little bit astounding.

HM: One of the people who's also asking questions though about the short story is Judith Doyle. She was the co-author with Ron Geyshick of this book where the story appeared. She says that when she compares the stories, they are beyond coincidence. You know she is also saying that she spoke with Mr. Geyshick’s daughters and that they were hurt by the revelations about your story. What do you want to say to them?

JB: I understand that I have hurt them and I'm going to be reaching out to the Geyshick family. My intent as a writer is never ever to copy somebody else. Look at my work; it is not copied from someone else or stolen from someone else. But I will sit down if the Geyshicks allow it, and I will speak with them. And I will apologize that I had hurt them. That is how I live and that's who I am.

HM: You have said that you want to step back from the spotlight to allow other Indigenous voices to be heard. Why is that important to you?

JB: Because you know, I've come to realize that you know, I was the go to guy too often and I happily accepted that because I'm an honorary witness for the TRC, and that is my mandate is to speak about it. What I've come to realize is I was that excited a little kid give to the interview and to try to help. But I spoke too much, and I realized there are so many. And I knew there were so many others, elders and experienced people in other communities that should be speaking more. And so I'm more than happy and I'm really happy about to hear that there are other voices now speaking to mainstream media.

HM: And this weekend you're taking part in a panel on writing Canadian history. Is that stepping back or are you taking a new approach?

JB: Well you know, I'm a writer. I should be allowed to speak about my writing at times. And I'm really excited to speak about that. There's nothing I am shameful of or anything else in my novels. They are my children and I'm happy to speak about my children. And it is about history and I believe truly that Canada is a living history and we're going through some of the most important time in this country's short 150 years.

HM: Joseph Boyden, I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you very much.

JB: My pleasure.

HM: All right. Goodbye.

JB: Bye.

JD: Joseph Boyden is a Canadian novelist and short story writer. We reached him in New Orleans and you can find that conversation on our website, cbc.ca/aih. After a disastrous federal election the party needed a fresh start.

[Music]

New DNC pick

Guest: Leslie Wimes

JD: After a disastrous federal election, the party needed a fresh start. But some people think Tom Perez has been hanging around too long to provide that.
Over the weekend, members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. elected Mr. Perez as their new chair. He was the former secretary of labor under President Obama. And after his victory, he spoke about uniting the party's base.
At the moment, though, the party itself is divided about Mr. Perez. Many of those who had supported Bernie Sanders call the new DNC chair a "establishment" candidate.
Leslie Wimes is the founder of the Democratic African-American Women's Caucus. We reached her in Boynton Beach, Florida.

HM: Ms. Wimes, why don't you think Tom Perez is the right person to lead the Democratic Party right now?

LESLIE WIMES: Because he's more of an establishment candidate. As you may have heard, he is more along the lines of the President Obama, Hillary Clinton faction, and he's not the candidate that is supported by the more progressive wing of the party, the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren wing.

HM: But Mr. Obama was a successful president to most Democrats over eight years. He was I guess Secretary of Labor. Why does that not give him some credibility?

LW: President Obama was an inspirational person and he actually connected with a lot of people. He was sort of a once in a lifetime sort of person. He connected on a lot of different levels with a lot of different people. And we don't have that. We didn't certainly didn't have that with Hillary Clinton. And unfortunately we didn't have that to a large degree with Bernie Sanders in that he didn't connect with the establishment. President Obama connected with everybody, and even though Secretary Perez was his labor secretary, he still is an establishment person, and he doesn't connect with the younger people, he doesn't connect with African-Americans, and he certainly doesn't connect with the progressives in that. And you can see in the DNC the Democratic National Committee race, he didn't have the support of the Bernie Sanders wing.
And so when you look at who would have unified the two different factions, that was Keith Ellison.

HM: So what is it about Keith Ellison that made you feel he was the person to lead the, at least the administration of the party?

LW: The people who are on the ground, the activists the people who would get out there and work for the party, Keith Ellison had their support and the Democratic National Committee needs change and he was more of that change candidate than Tom Perez.

HM: Why don't you think Keith Ellison won?

LW: He won because you had those establishment people who do not want change. They don't want to see their power and their position go anywhere and they will fight tooth and nail to keep that. And that's what they did. Tom Perez was a late entry into the race. When they saw the momentum that Keith Ellison had, and they knew that he wanted to change things, when he wanted to shake up how that party was run. They needed to stop that. And initially they tried with Jaime Harrison. He was the chair out of South Carolina. And when that didn't work, in comes Tom Perez.

HM: But isn't the chair, mostly as I suggested, an administrative position? They're not the people that tend to set the political policy. You know how much weight does this rule have as far as you're concerned?

LW: Well when you look at Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was the previous chair before Donna Brazile became the interim. Look at all of the damage that she did. When you look at the primaries, when the decision was made as to how many debates there was going to be. She made that decision unilaterally. So the chair has a lot of power. And people tended to go along with what she said. I mean she was and she was very toxic. I mean in elections, in the midterm elections, when the decision was made not to utilize President Obama and Obamacare. And you saw a lot of the candidates ran away from him and campaigned not on how much good Obamacare would do and how much good Obama was, they ran away from him and they lost and they lost badly. And that strategy came from the Democratic National Committee.

HM: Tom Perez says he wants to unify the party. In the moments after his win, he made Mr. Ellison his deputy. What else can he do to unify this party?

LW: Well first of all, I'd like to say that when you talk about symbolic, that definitely was symbolic. That's throwing the progressive wing of bone, and we're tired of bones. We want meat. And as far as unification, you know, we need transparency which the Democratic National Committee has not had. You know he needs to get rid of the consultants who have been making, you know millions of dollars off of the party. He needs to get rid of the staff that's still there. I mean what's the point in having a new chair if you're going to keep all of the old people that are still there that caused the majority of the problems that the Democratic National Committee has had?

HM: So what will you do you think and other Bernie Sanders supporters be able to do within the party to try to shake things up?

LW: For people like myself and for Bernie Sanders supporters and Elizabeth Warren supporters, we have no place in the party and the establishment people have made sure that there is no voice. That's why they want to place establishment candidates in control. When they are in power and in control, we have no voice. We have no room, no place to go to say “OK this is what we want.” Because that particular position can say no and there is nothing that you can do about it.

HM: So will you continue to work for the party? Particularly when there's so much weight on the midterms coming in 2018?

LW: I will work for issues. I will work for issues and I think the majority of progressives will do the same because, you know we always have to fight for 15. We to always have to fight for justice and civil rights and things like that. But you know until the party is ready to change, that there really isn't anything that we can do other than try to run candidates who are progressive and you know that's an everyday process. You know, we have to find our candidates and run them and then we're still fighting against the big money donors. I mean for right now, the Democratic National Committee their purpose seems to be to make big money donors happy and make the consultants who are there rich.

HM: Ms. Wimes, it's good to talk with you. Thank you very much for joining us.

LW: Thank you for having me.

HM: OK bye-bye.

LW: Bye-bye.

JD: Leslie Wimes is the founder of the Democratic African-American Women's Caucus. She is one of a number of Democrats who doubt that it's newly elected chair Tom Perez will give the party what it needs to defeat President Donald Trump in the next federal election. We reached Ms. Wimes in Boynton Beach, Florida.

Part 3: Opioid warning, Stanley Dearman obit

Trapped resident

JEFF DOUGLAS: Depending on where you live, a streak of unseasonably warm sunny days can be a welcome break from the winter blues. But for Kevin Ryan and his family, such weather spells trouble, and it's a harbinger of perhaps worst to come. Mr. Ryan is a resident of Waterville, in Quebec’s Eastern Townships. And since Saturday he has been largely unable to leave his home due to flooding from the nearby Moe. It is not the first time As It Happens has spoken with Kevin Ryan almost exactly a year ago, when his family was forced to temporarily abandon their house due to water and ice encroaching on its foundations we spoke to him. On the weekend, Mr. Ryan spoke by phone from inside his home with CBC reporter Claude Rivest Mazzanna. Here's some of their conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

KEVIN RYAN: Well right now, the House is kind of surrounded by water. We have, you know the property is built up, the house itself has built up much higher than where the water is flowing now. So you know, the house is not in any danger of being you know affected by water at this time. But the fields around us are completely full of water. There's pockets of ice kind of everywhere, the driveway is now completely blocked with ice, and you know, the water's flowing. So that's always a good sign. When the water is moving, it means that eventually it will just drain itself out. But thankfully there's no rain at this time that's just adding to the volume of water that we're seeing.
What we're monitoring is what's below us and hopefully the ice that we see that's blocked in the river now will start moving with all of this water and that will allow a lot of drainage, at least through our property, and then once it starts moving, hopefully it'll be kind of like a bathtub, and you know pulling the plug and just draining all the surface water that's around us right now. So you know we kind of just wait it out and the temperatures will eventually drop this evening and right now the big thing is the quick melt of all the snow that fell in the last couple of weeks. But this is the thing with global warming, you know, make no mistake it's happening. And these really really warm days in the winter are so unpredictable that here's you know, we're in a situation again.
The river behind us is very very shallow. So a quick heavy rain affects the levels very very quickly. And farmers have drained all of their farmlands towards the rivers and there's there's people below us as well that are affected by this. I know the city of Sherbrooke, right now is probably watching their levels of the St. Francis river when this all flows into the St. Francis so they must be keeping a close eye on that as well.

JD: That was Waterville, Quebec resident Kevin Ryan speaking with the CBC's Claude Rivest Mazzanna on the weekend. Mr. Ryan and his family are currently confined to their home because an ice dam in the nearby Moe River has caused severe flooding in the region.

[Music]

Opoid warning

Guest: David Juurlink

JD: In Ottawa, the government is still working to pass legislation addressing the opioid crisis. But a doctor in Toronto says that they could make a real change just by adding a single drug to the controlled substances list. That drug is an opiate. It is called Tramadol. And David Juurlink says it is too easy to prescribe, and too easy to abuse. Doctor Juulrink is a drug safety researcher at Toronto's Sunnybrook Hospital and that is where we reached him.

HELEN MANN: Dr. Juurlink, first of all what is Tramadol and why is it so dangerous in your mind?

DAVID JUURLINK: Tramadol’s a painkiller that was first synthesized by a German drug company in the early 60s and it's become a popular drug for the treatment of pain. It has also unfortunately become a drug that's abused quite often.

HM: When you say prescribe for pain what types of pain and why would it be prescribed instead of other treatments?

DJ: Well it's prescribed for a whole host of different pain conditions. One of the reasons why it's prescribed, I think more than it perhaps should be in Canada is because many doctors don't appreciate that it’s an opioid. So it's been marketed as a drug that's special because it's got two mechanisms of action. Tramadol, the drug itself, acts a bit like an antidepressant but your liver turns it into an opioid like morphine in a very unpredictable way. But the selling point of the drug has been that you can tackle pain through both of these different mechanisms.

HM: And when you talk about it being dangerous, why is that? Is it because of the unpredictability?

DJ: Well there are several factors. That's one of them. So if I give you Tramadol I have no assurance that you're going to convert it into its opioid metabolite. You might not do that at all. You might do it to a very high degree. In addition though it causes seizures, it can cause low blood sugar, it can interact with other drugs in ways that many other pain killers don't.
One of the other concerns in Canada in particular is that because it's not considered a controlled drug, many docs and patients and even pharmacists don't realize that it isn't opioid. It's treated the same way in many provinces as a blood pressure pill or you know, a cholesterol pill. You can write prescriptions with multiple refills if you want.

HM: So given that, how frequently does it get abused in this country?

DJ: If we had good stats on that, I could answer your question. We don't have stats on its abuse or on deaths involving it. I can tell you that both of those things do happen. In Ontario, we know it's prescribed about half a million times a year. So this is not infrequently prescribed drug.

HM: And what about in the rest of the world? Is it used elsewhere?

DJ: Oh, it's very heavily used in some parts of the world. In fact it is one of the main opioids used in developing countries and has become a very serious drug of abuse in in Africa and parts of the Middle East in particular.

HM: I recall it also has veterinary use. Is that right?

DJ: It's often used by the and there are occasional anecdotes of people going to the vets to get Tramadol for their pets and then using it themselves or selling it.

HM: So you've asked for Tramadol to be added to the controlled substances list. What would that mean?

DJ: Well what it practically would mean is that doctors would no longer, I think, view it as some sort of you know magical drug that doesn't have the side effects of an anti-inflammatory and somehow isn't an opioid. You know if I want to put somebody on a pain killer, and I'm particularly worried about using an opioid for whatever reason, if I didn't know better, I would think that maybe tramadol was safe to use in that patient. And that's my primary reason I think for suggesting the drug be appropriately scheduled. HM: And if it is on the controlled substances list, does that limit the ability of physicians to provide repeats in that sort of thing?

DJ: It would make it somewhat more difficult. It really wouldn't mean the drug is taken away from people who are benefiting from it. There are people out there who take Tramadol. And I think do ok. It’s not a drug I would prescribe myself because it's so unpredictable. But I think the primary reason to re-classify it is just because that's what it's pharmacology demands, and it would help doctors realize it's not as safe as Health Canada seemed to imply in 2007 when it sure looks like they bowed to corporate pressure and decided not to schedule it after all.

HM: What do you mean by corporate pressure?

DJ: In 2007, Health Canada issued notice that they were going to consider putting Tramadol on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Very shortly thereafter, there were a flurry of lobbying from two drug companies in particular Jansson and Purdue Pharma, and the following year, for reasons that were really not very satisfactory or even very clearly spelled out, Health Canada decided not to list Tramadol as a control drug, which again makes no sense.

HM: Do you have any real evidence that they buckled to pressure from these companies?

DJ: No, I wasn't part of the phone calls or the meetings. But you know, it's not much of a reach to suggest they planned to make this change. They had dozens of lobbying contacts with Pharma and a few other groups and changed their mind.

HM: Why is it that doctors would need Ottawa to tell them that a drug like this is potentially dangerous and addictive when you know, a quick Google search by even a non-physician can show you that there's a lot of concern about it?

DJ: It's a fair question. I think the practicalities of practice are that you know, doctors don't have the time, to study in great detail the pharmacology of every drug they prescribe. I mean, we have a general familiarity with the meds we use. But you know, if a drug rep comes by with some samples of a drug and you give it to a patient and that patient seems to benefit, I mean the very fact that a lot of the information we get about drugs comes in one way or another from the companies that make them.

HM: So what kind of response have you had to the concerns that you've raised?

DJ: Crickets mostly. I mean Health Canada seems to fall back on the position that the World Health Organization thinks the drug shouldn't be controlled. That decision itself was very heavily criticized by some knowledgeable people and I think the WHO probably has in the back of its mind that Tramadol is one of the few opioids available in various parts of the world. And so the concerns about Tramadol’s availability in North Africa might be quite different than they are in Canada. I think that, you know, any objective person who looks at this realizes that because it's converted to an opioid by the liver, just exactly the same way codeine is, it's really hard to suggest that the drug should be treated differently from codeine.

HM: Dr. Juurlink, thank you very much for speaking with us.

DJ: My pleasure.

JD: Dr. David Juurlink is a drug safety researcher at Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto and that is where we reached him.

[Music]

From Our Archives: White Helmets

JD: In the short time it has existed, the Syrian Civil Defense Force has seen a lifetime of tragedy. Also known as the White Helmets, the volunteer-run rescue group has rescued 60,000 people since it came together in 2013. They've seen thousands more killed or injured, and they've watched Syria sink deeper and deeper into conflict.
This weekend marked a small sliver of hope for the White Helmets. They were the subject of a documentary call The White Helmets – and the film took home an Oscar last night.
Over the years, As It Happens has interviewed several members of the White Helmets about the work they do. Last September, airstrikes had pummeled a group of convoys outside of Aleppo, and the attacks left 20 aid workers dead. At the time, we spoke to Ammar Al-Salmo, head of Aleppo operations for the White Helmets. Here he is in conversation with Carol.

SOUNDCLIP

AMMAR AL-SALMO: We saw the flare of the of firebomb and the explosion. We have a centre of 20 volunteers. I asked them to wait because there is another helicopter. The next helicopter went the same place and dropped another two firebombs in the same place.

CAROL OFF: If I understand correctly, you didn't… your volunteers didn't go to this site right away because you'd heard another helicopter was coming in that it might drop more bombs.

AAS: Yeah we used a tool because we use to do that. We name this “double attack.”

CO: So they wait till you arrive and then they strike again.

AAS: Yeah. After the second helicopter finished, we got to that place and we saw that the fire in that truck and that the destroying of the building. We think that it is Russian because it fired at us, C-5 fired missiles.

CO: So they're firing at you as well, once you arrive to try and put the fire out and to rescue people, they began to fire on you.

AAS: Exactly exactly. The aircraft didn't leave the sky for two hours. You could say it is unbelievable. Actually it's unbelievable. Just a circle of madness, a circle of hell happens there.
But it is a reality, a reality that happens in Syria every time, every day.

CO: Were you able to help anybody during these two hours of this intense bombing?

AAS: Yeah. We get to do the injured people and we pulled the dead bodies. I saw the head of the of the Red Crescent boy, his name Omar Barakat, his leg is cut off and he asked us to help. We just hurry him, hurry to him in order to help. We were exposed to bullets from the aircraft, and we [unintelligible] him to the hospital but he was dead later.

CO: I'm sorry. You knew him. He was a friend of yours, was he not?

AAS: Of course, he was a friend of all the community. Orem al-Kubra was a place before the revolution it was industrial place. But after the revolution, this place become a home for the refugees. Omar Barakat was like the brother, the father of those. He is a lovely man for all those people.

CO: Why do you continue? Why do you keep doing this very dangerous job?

AAS: People, when we look at their eyes, they just see that they have trust in us. There is no one left for them but us.

JD: That was Ammar Al-Salmo, head of Aleppo operations for the White Helmets, speaking to Carol last September. The documentary about The White Helmets earned an Oscar for Best Documentary Short last night.

[Music]

Stanley Dearman obituary

Guest: Jerry Mitchell

JD: The case changed the course of American history and also changed the life of one journalist in Mississippi who simply would not let it go for more than 30 years. Stanley Dearman was the newspaper editor of The Neshoba Democrat in Mississippi. And in the summer of 1964 – when three civil-rights workers were killed there – he was determined to see justice done. Stanley Dearman died on Saturday. He was 84 years old.
Jerry Mitchell knew Mr. Dearman as a journalist and as a friend. He's an investigative reporter with The Clarion-Ledger. We reached him in Jackson.

HM: Jerry Mitchell, first of all I'd like to offer my condolences on the loss of your colleague.

JERRY MITCHELL: Stanley Dearman was a great journalist, he really was.

HM: Explain for us the significance of his work and is this infamous case involving three men who were killed in Mississippi back in 1964.

JM: Well Stanley Dearman had always reported on the killings at the time but Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, the three civil rights workers who were killed in Neshoba County by the Klan, and he'd been very troubled by it. Nobody had ever been tried for murder in that case. And that very much disturbed him and disturbed me too. But obviously, I reported on as well, but he lived in the town where the killers walked the sidewalk, and he still reported. And that's incredible… I mean incredible courage to stand up and say “This case needs to be prosecuted. There needs to be a murder trial.” And finally the case was reopened in earnest in late 2004, the prosecution took place in 2005. But he was a part of that organization called the Philadelphia Coalition that really pushed for that to be prosecuted and they were successful in doing that.

HM: Earlier than that though, the fact that he didn't want to let this go. That can’t have been popular with some people.

JM: No. I mean as the deputy in that case who was a part of the group that took three civil rights workers out and killed them worked in the jewelry store on the square. It’s he's not crossing paths. These are people he would have encountered, and I know he encountered. He told me about it on a regular basis. So it took incredible courage to be writing a story that was not very popular and it wasn't popular.

HM: What did he tell you about those encounters?

JM: He would get threatening phone calls, he would get angry letters to the editor. “Why are you digging up the past?” A lot of harassment about it but it didn't faze him. He just kept doing and he kept writing about it. The other thing he did that was really fascinating is he really wanted to put a human face on the story. And he got talking some with Andy Goodman’s mother, whose name is Dr. Carolyn Goodman. And so he flew to New York City to interview her and they got to be very good friends as well. And so he kind of let her tell the story about Andy and that helped to kind of shift some attitudes as well because it's not just some guy from New York. You have a human face.

HM: So he retired from the paper in 2000, sold it. And you mentioned this organization, the Philadelphia Coalition. Tell us a little bit about that and the people there and what they were working towards.

JM: So this Philadelphia Coalition was white, African-American and also Native Americans, there’s Native American population and Neshoba County as well. Stanley Dearman was a very integral part of that group and really pushed the attorney general to let's have justice in this case. The other thing important that he did was to bring Dr. Goodman and Carolyn Goodman to Mississippi. So she met with the Philadelphia Coalition who had also invited the attorney general of Mississippi. So they had a meeting all together and she basically got to tell her story in person. And I think that had as much of an effect on anything with regard to the Mississippi attorney general deciding to do the case.

HM: What about for Stanley Dearman? What was about him as a man that made him so obsessed with this particular story?

JM: He just told me one time he says there's not a day that I don't think about it. It just really bothered him that three young men could be killed in cold blood like that and nothing was ever done.

HM: Now you were in the courtroom in 2005 when the jury found Edgar Ray Killen guilty of orchestrating the killings. What do you remember of Stanley Dearman’s reaction on that day?

JM: I just so distinctly remember, he was just weeping. Just tears running down his face when the when the conviction happened, and he was not alone. But obviously, he was very moved and he wiped away the tears. And there was just a whole other stream of tears behind it. He just likes like so much of what he had fought for and stood for was kind of vindicated in that moment.

HM: In these trying times for journalists, what do you think the legacy of Mr. Dearman is?

JM: I think Stanley Dearman such a shining example of what a journalist can be. You know, newspapers have historically just been the lifeblood of communities. And I think that's why it's important to, I think recognize and honor the work of good journalists like Stanley Dearman.

HM: Those of us who didn't have a chance to know him as you did, what do you think he would like us to think of in association with him.

JM: Well, he was a fascinating guy. I mean, he just was very meek and mild, but you knew this fire kind of hidden underneath him. And the way you saw it sometimes if he was an incredible piano player, and he loved Chopin. And so he would play Chopin. You know and these are very difficult pieces, as someone who was a horrible piano player. These are incredibly difficult pieces he was playing. And just the passion, you can just feel the passion coming out of his hands as they hit the keys. I mean, you would never guess it was the same guy. So this flame just burned underneath them and he never gave up.

HM: Mr. Mitchell thank you very much for remembering your friend with us. We appreciate it.

JM: Absolutely. Thank you.

JD: Jerry Mitchell is an investigative reporter with the Clarion-Ledger. We reached him in Jackson, Mississippi.

[Music]

Dateline: Football team bus

JD: Dateline: London, England.

[Music]

JD: In the classic short story "The Gift of the Magi" by O. Henry, both halves of a poor couple demonstrate their love by buying each other the perfect gifts: she gives him a watch fob, and he gives her fancy combs. But the thing is, he sold his watch to buy the combs. She sold her hair to buy the watch fob. This deeply moving twist reveals something about the profundity of true love.
Now, the story I'm about to tell you also has a surprising twist related to affection. But it's not deeply moving, so much as deeply stupid. Which isn't surprising, because it's about British soccer fans whose behaviour was probably less motivated than by lager as by love.
Before Saturday's Premier League game between Crystal Palace and Middlesbrough in South London, fans of the former team wanted to show their devotion. So, in the dead of night, they went to the hotel where visiting teams usually stay, found the bus Middlesbrough players would take to the stadium, and spray-painted "Crystal Palace FC" on it, in huge letters. Then they probably stood together, swaying, and reflected on their heartfelt vandalism.
The next day, Crystal Palace FC players definitely saw the bus graffiti. But they didn't find it inspiring. Because the bus did not belong to Middlesbrough. It was their own – that is, Crystal Palace's.
According to a tweet from the team's assistant head groundsman, those devout fans had done about £40,000 pounds of damage to it. About $65,000 dollars Canadian.
Crystal Palace beat Middlesbrough anyway – partly because of what the Guardian newspaper referred to as "tremendous backing" from their home fans in the stadium. So fan support may have driven them to victory – even if their own graffiti-covered bus could not.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 27, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode