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 30, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Not what he would have wished. A Toronto restaurant is ordered to pay a man $10,000 after demanding that he and a group of friends prepay birthday dinner, simply because they are black.

JD: Show of force. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu puts together a prop-packed presentation to back his argument that the Iranian nuclear deal was based on a series of lies.

CO: They were just out riding bikes. A Manitoba chief says his community will have to find a way to heal after an accident over the weekend leaves the families of three boys in mourning and one young man accused of impaired driving.

JD: Against the tide. The former president of Kiribati, and the subject of a new documentary called "Anote's Ark", describes his race to tell the world about his island republic before it disappears beneath the Pacific's rising waves.

CO: His later works. A French museum is forced to remove more than half of the paintings from its collection after it's discovered that they’re fakes.

JD: And...buzz kill! An Australian arachnologist blames a wasp for killing the oldest spider known to science, but not before the leggy lady revealed the secrets of her seriously sticky sex life.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Monday edition. Radio that never loses the thread.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Restaurant complaint: Human Rights Commission ruling, Netanyahu: “Iran lied”, oldest spider dies

Restaurant complaint: Human Rights Commission ruling

Guest: Emile Wickham

JD: When Emile Wickham and three friends sat down to a late-night meal at a Toronto restaurant, they got an unexpected surprise. The server told the group that before they could eat, they'd have to pre-pay their bill. That struck Mr Wickham not only as rude — but racist. Now, four years later, the Ontario Human Right Commission has agreed, and ordered the Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant to pay him 10-thousand dollars. We reached Emile Wickham in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Wickham, how did it feel to get this human rights judgment in your favour?

EMILE WICKHAM: I would say I feel relieved. I've been asked a lot today if I felt happy about it. I can't say I feel happy about it. It was a very sad indictment about all black persons in this city, and the country are treated. I have received an overwhelming amounts of support from like strangers, friends, acquaintances, who have been thanking me for going forward with this case and not giving up because it speaks to similar incidences that they have experienced.

CO: And I want to get to that in a moment. I just want to get the story itself of what happened that night in 2014. You were there for a birthday celebration at the restaurant, right?

EW: Yes, I was celebrating my birthday, and we also had a friend — a visiting scholar — from Trinidad — my home country. Yeah, we were out celebrating both events.

CO: So this was the Hong Shing Chinese restaurant. What did you do, and how did you react when the server told you that you had to pre-pay for your meal?

EW: There was an immediate like what? Like we were all like shocked by the request, and we voiced our surprise of the request. We were told that this was standard procedure. And after being told that, we relented and we're like OK, we're comfortable with the situation.

CO: So you gave in to that, and you put the money up. At what point did you begin to think that this policy might be something to do with the fact that you were black?

EW: It was something when I decided to get up, it was something to like ease my own suspicions, and it wasn't something I was hoping would be the case. I would have loved to the first table I talked to asking them that question and be like yeah, we actually did pay, and that would have been the end of the story. If any other tables had said that they did pay, that would have been the end of this story. But the fact that no other table paid, and when we confronted them about it, they did not offer any excuse or any sort of way to rectify the situation. They simply asked us if we wanted our money back.

CO: Were there other black people dining in the restaurant?

EW: Not at that time.

CO: You went table to table, and found out that none of the other patrons had been asked to pre-pay?

EW: Yes.

CO: And what did you finally do? Did you sit down and have your meal?

EW: No. We told them that this was unacceptable. And like we asked for some sort of explanation on it, and none was forthcoming. I’ve worked customer service for a number of years, and you would expect in a situation like that the supervisor or the manager on duty would do their best to address the concerns of a customer, but there was no sort of hospitality or empathy shown.

CO: The restaurant did have a response to the Human Rights Commission in response to your complaint, and it said that they had an experience with people leaving without paying — the so-called “dine-and-dash” thing. And that they had this policy to ask for pre-payment from anyone the staff didn't know, and that because you were unknown patrons, you were treated that way. What's your response to that?

EW: Well, I'll say that this policy was never explained to us. This policy was not publicly available for viewing within the restaurant. The fact of the matter is that other patrons there did not have to pay, and we did. So I think that debunks any sort of legitimacy that they would have for their defence.

CO: In fact, the adjudicator at the Human Rights Commission rejected that claim on the part of the restaurant. In ruling in your favour, the adjudicator said that you were treated, quote, “As a potential thief in waiting.” And that she goes on to say, “His mere presence as a black man in the restaurant was presumed to be sufficient evidence of his presumed propensity to engage in criminal behaviour.” Is that what it felt like to you?

EW: It did. And the adjudicator is very accurate in her description. And for me, I've been living in Canada for ten years; I came here at the age of 22. A lot of times being black in Canada hurts because it's one thing that you experience a situation, and there are times you think about addressing it or calling it out, but then there's the understanding that if you do that, you could be told that you were overreacting. You saw it in a different light. Your concerns aren't believed, and do not seem as valid. And that adds to the hurt, right? And when I first got the email from my lawyer saying that we won, I was relieved that we were believed. And like there's been a lot of talk about the monetary award, but I would gladly give that back. I would gladly not go through this whole process of the hearing as well as even just with the media for two hours that I lost bonding with my friends.

CO: Mr. Wickham, thank you for telling us what happened to you. I appreciate that.

EW: Thank you very much for having me on.

CO: Bye.

EW: Bye.

JD: We reached Emile Wickham in Toronto.

[Music: Indie rock]

Netanyahu: “Iran lied’

Guest: Joshua Pollack

JD: When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strode onto stage today, two huge words beamed out from behind him: "Iran lied." Prime Minister Netanyahu held the dramatic press conference to reveal what he claims is new, damning information about Iran's nuclear capabilities. He said he had proof that Iranian officials lied when they said they never pursued nuclear weapons. And he used black curtains, bookcases full of binders, and an enormous PowerPoint presentation to prove it. Joshua Pollack is editor of the Non-Proliferation Review Journal. We reached him in Washington, DC.

CO: Mr. Pollack, it was quite the show-and-tell by Prime Minister Netanyahu today. Can you describe what you saw? What did it look like?

JOSHUA POLLACK: Well, I saw a true showman at work. He presented not only images and words on a screen, but he had a dramatic reveal of actual three-dimensional objects — in this case, binders and CD-ROMS — which he described as copies of documents stolen from an Iranian archive, documenting its suspended nuclear weapons program.

CO: And he had all of this onstage. Of course, black curtains, bookcases, but the biggest thing of all was the big sign saying “Iran lied”. And that’s his message. He that Iran lied about its nuclear program. Is that true?

JP: Yes, it's not news, but I have long believed so. I believe that the Iranians have hidden their previous attempts to create nuclear weapons in order to save face. They do not want to clash with the international community over this issue anymore — at least not in the foreseeable future. But they wanted to close the books on this story without admitting that they ever did wrong.

CO: And so knowing that, even though it was not overtly known, it was covertly understood that this had happened, and the agreement went through.

JP: The agreement was created because of this program. The agreement was a response to Iran's nuclear weapons program. It is premised on the idea that they cheated on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and could do so again. Therefore new safeguards had to be put into place, and they had to restrain their program in a number of ways. That's the whole point of the Iran deal. In exchange, they get sanctions relief. So while this may seem damning, it actually just underscores the value of the agreement, the entire point of the agreement, and doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. Those of us who follow this stuff carefully knew most of this in 2011.

CO: So why did he do that? Why did Mr. Netanyahu make this presentation today? Who was it for?

JP: Donald Trump. It's for the same reason that Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel came to Washington. It was to lobby Trump, not to undo American participation in the Iran deal, not to restore sanctions that have been waived. So this was Netanyahu’s way of getting Trump’s attention in a way that Trump would find compelling, I think. He responds well to the television — as we all know — and so this was probably a more effective means of communication than a one-on-one visit.

CO: About half the presentation that Mr. Netanyahu made was in Hebrew, so does that suggest it’s for another audience as well?

JP: He has a home audience to speak to. Perhaps it would be just a little too transparent only to deliver it in English. I think he is an outstanding showman, and he knows his audience.

CO: But is it not the case that there are a number of Israelis who disagree with Mr. Netanyahu on this? That find it flawed for all the reasons that you're citing that they think the Iran nuclear deal is worth it?

JP: Certainly, his top advisers on defence and intelligence seem to value the Iran deal for exactly these reasons because it places barriers in Iran's way, should they ever consider restarting this program. And because it gives them incentives to stay within the painted lines so to speak. But it is not how President Trump sees it, and it is not how Prime Minister Netanyahu sees it. They have a common perspective. And it is President Trump who has the decision in his hands ultimately.

CO: And he has that decision to make on May 12^th, is that right?

JP: That's right. That is when he will be presented with the decision whether or not to waive sanctions again. Right now, the smart money says that he will not waive it, effectively withdrawing United States from its participation in the terms of the deal. And that will put the ball I think into the court of the remaining high-level supporters of the deal, particularly the European leaders, who will then find themselves looking for ways to convince the Iranians to stay in.

CO: But if Iran didn't agree to that, and you're saying that this deal is regarded widely by those who were part of it as the best way to get Iran to not return to its nuclear program — or at least to know what they're up to. What happens after that? What happens if the deal is cancelled, and Iran doesn’t decide to go along with new terms?

JP: Well, the Iranians are members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are still obligated not to pursue or possess or test nuclear weapons regardless of the status of the JCPOA. What will be lost is the extraordinary degree of access that is provided to inspectors, and a variety of time-limited constraints on the Iranian enrichment program. I certainly would not welcome such a development from my perspective as a non-proliferation specialist. But if we are compelled to live without it, the world will probably find a way to navigate that problem.

CO: Does that make you nervous?

JP: It makes me unhappy. But one thing I have learned is leaders come and go. There is a way that events have of reverting to the mean. Eventually, we will find ourselves walking down the same path again if we withdraw.

CO: OK, on that philosophical note of encouragement, we'll leave it there. We'll be following this story. Mr. Pollack, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JP: You're very welcome.

JD: Joshua Pollack is the editor of the Non-proliferation Review Journal. We reached him in Washington, DC.

[Music: Ambient]

Oldest spider

Guest: Leanda Mason

JD: She spent her long life resting in an underground hole in Western Australia. Now the oldest ever recorded spider — a trapdoor spider by the name of Number 16 — is resting in eternal peace. Number 16 was 43 years old. She stunned researchers who had visited her burrow every year since the 1970s. Number 16 was first discovered by scientist Barbara Main, who unfortunately had to retire because of dementia. The spider visits were taken over by one of Ms. Main's students Leanda Mason. We reached Ms. Mason in Perth.

CO: Ms. Mason, tells us about the moment you discovered that Number 16 had died.

LEANDA MASON: Oh, I felt very miserable, and then I was thinking about Barbara because I really wanted her to be there. So Barbara had started the study forty three years before I'd discovered the spider, and I was there because she couldn't be there to check on it. And then I felt like she should have been there.

CO: And Barbara Main she discovered this spider in the 1970s. She has dementia, is that right?

LM: yeah, she's got dementia and Alzheimer's now. But she started the study, and pegged out all of the spiders. So Number 16 was the 16^th spider that she pegged out.

CO: How many years was Barbara Main watching that spider?

LM: Forty-two years she was following it. So it really was just that last year that she couldn't make it out there.

CO: Had you grown somewhat attached to Number 16.

LM: Oh yeah, I've been going out with her for the last six years before that. So we'd always b-line to Number 16, and just go check that she’s still alive before checking the rest of the burrows.

CO: As far as we know, this is the longest living spider — 43 years, is that right?

LM: Yeah, the oldest living spider before that was 28 years old, and that was in captivity. Number 16 was out in the bush, so yeah, which is even more impressive because we all know that animals living in captivity can live longer perhaps than those in the wild.

CO: Did she die of old age?

LM: No, she didn't. She died from a parasitic wasp attack. Sorry, it wasn't it wasn't funny. They’re quite brutal the way they predate on spiders. They go into the burrow and then lay an egg either in or on the spider. And then the egg, once it hatches, the larvae will either eat the spider from the inside out or the outside in.

CO: Good Heavens!

LM: I know, it's gruesome, it's a gruesome, gruesome death for Number 16. And then it will create a little cocoon and become an adult wasp, and then the whole cycle starts again. So yeah, poor Number 16 got cut down in her prime actually. She could have lived for longer. We don't know how long she might have lived had not been subjected to the wasp egg.

CO: She was a trapdoor spider. That’s what she was called, right?

LM: Yeah, trapdoor spiders.

CO: She stays in her burrow all the time; she's an extreme homebody I understand?

LM: Yes, her whole life so to speak — hole as in whole. So when they leave their burrows as spiderlings from their mother’s burrow, they won't go very far. They’ll go maybe a couple of metres and create their own burrow, which they live in their whole life. For the females, they will stay in their burrow. With the males, they reach sexual maturity at about five to seven years old, and then they'll leave their burrow. I’m going to tell you just quickly how they mate.

CO: Oh, I understand this is quite the story. So yes please!

LM: Quite the analogy. So the males, the ejaculate onto a silk mat, so they put down a bit of silk on their burrow, and then they'll ejaculate onto that, and they've got these little petty palps they call them, which look like little legs close to their fangs. In the males, they act as turkey basters essentially. So they suck up the sperm off the silk mat, and they're carrying around this sperm in their petty palp, as they're walking to go find a female. And the female will put these little silk doilies, so they’ll roam and go find the females. And they'll tap on the door to get consent. And yeah, it's kind of like a fertile handjob in the sense that they've been carrying around this sperm in their hand, and then they kind of grapple with the female to get into position, and then insert their hand — petty palp — into the female’s opening, and squirt the sperm into the opening, so that they can fertilize the eggs internally.

CO: With their little turkey basters.

LM: With their little turkey basters, yeah — and their fertile handjobs.

CO: OK, you have won the prize. We've had animal sex of all kinds described on this show before, but never like that: the silk doilies, the turkey basters, the little hands, the handjob. Honestly, you win a prize for sure.

LM: You’re so welcome.

CO: Does the male spider does he stick around after that? Or what happens?

LM: Actually, we're not 100 per cent sure. We think they might be able to visit multiple females. But with other spiders, it kind of depends on how many females are available.

CO: Do the males have the same longevity as the females do?

LM: Oh, not at all. They go out with a bang so to speak.

CO: OK, well, this is an X-rated “As It Happens tonight. And so now did Number 16, did she have mates? Did she put out her silk doilies often enough?

LM: Oh, most certainly she did, yes. Honestly, I'm not sure if she went through a spider menopause? Or if she stopped you know ten years ago or whatever. But I have a feeling that they probably will just keep producing as long as they've got sperm on hand.

CO: OK. Well, I thank you for telling us about Number 16, and especially for telling us about trapdoor spider sex because that is absolutely going to be a prized piece of “As It Happens” archival material for years to come.

LM: Yes, I'm glad that I can share that with you.

CO: Have a good evening. Thank you. Bye bye.

LM: Yes, you too. Thank you. Goodnight.

JD: We reached spider researcher Leanda Mason in Perth, Australia. And to find out more, and see a photograph of a spider that looks a lot like Number 16, check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Elevator music]

Same sandwhich

JD: At first bite, it seemed like another crusty British sex scandal. But it wraps up with a tasty little twist. The sex part involves an assistant to the UK's Housing Minister, Dominic Raab. One of the tabloids is reporting that, when the young woman wasn't busy booking the minister's appointments, she was busy selling sex for cash. But the tasty part is that so much of the reportage is about neither the sex nor the cash. No, what has tongues wagging is the minister's lunch — and the fact that he ate the same one every single day. The supposedly sex-selling assistant accused the Minister of having a thing for the take-out chain called Pret a Manger. She's quoted by the tabloid as suggesting that, when it came to lunch, he only had one thing on his mind. That was a chicken Caesar and bacon baguette, something called a 'superfruit pot' and a decidely un-sexy-sounding 'vitamin volcano' smoothie. Cue the headlines. The meal has been dubbed the Don Raab Special. The regularity with which the Minister ate it is being used as evidence that he's either some sort of hero of culinary conservatism, or an open-faced example of everything that's wrong with politics in the UK. But statistics dug up by the Guardian suggest that this analysis may be balogna and the minister's habit may be as humdrum as PB&J. The survey they found showed no fewer than three in every four British workers eat the same lunch each and every day. So while Minister Raab's meal selection may be sub-sexy, he does appear to have done nothing worse than join the club.

Part two: Manitoba deaths, fake art museum

Manitoba deaths

Guest: Marcel Moody

JD: The boys were between the ages of eleven and thirteen. And over the weekend, while on a road in northern Manitoba, they were struck by a vehicle and killed. The loss of the three boys has left the community of Nelson House in mourning. Today, a 27-year-old man was charged with multiple offences related to the boys' deaths, including driving. Marcel Moody is the Chief of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. We reached him in Nelson House, Manitoba, earlier today.

CO: Chief Moody, first of all, I'm so sorry for this loss to your community.

MARCEL MOODY: Yeah, thank you.

CO: I know you've been meeting with the families of the three boys. How are they doing?

MM: Well, they're coping I suppose. Everybody is struggling in the community, and everybody's taken it very hard.

CO: Can you tell us a little bit about the boys, and what they were doing on Saturday night when all this happened?

MM: I guess they were out biking you know on the main highway. Just basically enjoying the day I guess with the rest of their friends. And I guess on their way back, they got hit by a vehicle.

CO: Were there other kids with them, or just the three boys?

MM: Yeah. There were two other kids, but luckily, thank God that they didn't get hit.

CO: There’s a man who has been accused of fleeing the scene — among other things. But do you know anything about him?

MM: Yeah, he's a young man from Nelson House.

CO: This is Todd Norman Linklater?

MM: Yeah.

CO: He's facing nine charges, is that right?

MM: Yeah, I believe so. I don't exactly know what the charges are, but there's several.

CO: Well, impaired driving causing death, impaired driving with blood alcohol levels, and then three counts of failing to stay at the scene of an accident. What did he do? Did he leave on foot?

MM: Yeah, my understanding is that he took off on foot, but he eventually turned himself in at the detachment later on that evening.

CO: What are people in the community saying about this?

MM: Well, everybody is still in shock. People are trying to you know make sense of what happened. People are in shock and grief and loss. Today, we’re trying to find a way to move on and start our journey to you know healing — the healing process. We're having a vigil tonight. We also had a prayer you know that night at the hall when the bodies were taken. So we came together as a community, and I want to continue to meet with the family a five o’clock, and have a vigil at seven o’clock this evening. So you know the incident is really unfortunate, but we have to start our healing journey. There’s councillors here to be with the students and teachers and families and all the people who were involved. And the emergency personnel that were involved at the scene have all been provided with counselling service.

CO: Can you tell us a bit about the boys? Their names, I guess you knew the kids, right?

MM: Yes, I personally knew them. One of them was Mateo Spence, and the other one was Terrance Spence, and the other one I didn't really know, Keithan Lobster, but they're all pretty young — 11 to 13 years old. And they were actually friends with my grandson. My grandson lives in Winnipeg, but every time they come to Nelson Hose, those kids were always at my place. My grandchildren were so devastated when we told them yesterday about what happened.

CO: How did you tell your grandchildren about the deaths?

MM: It's difficult, and we’re trying to shelter them from all the news and you know the Facebook. I'm in Nelson House, my son-in-law was in Winnipeg with our grandchildren yesterday, so we got them together by phone and try to tell them as painlessly as possible you know about the news, trying to make it I guess more painless. But it's difficult. But we did eventually have to tell them you know accidents happen, and your friends are gone to be with the Lord, and have gone to heaven. But they really still took it hard. There's no way you cannot feel the pain you know that that they're going through. And it was really hard to convey the message to the kids.

CO: The boys, two of them were 11 years old, one was 13. So they were busy boys. Someone else was saying they went ice fishing; they were always doing kid things, and must have had a lot of friends. So how do you deal with all the other kids in the community, who must be really, really shaken by this?

MM: That’s a challenge we face, but I mean we have a lot of supports in our community to help us deal with the loss and the grief that our community is coming together to deal with. We’ve identified who we need to talk tom, what we need to tell people. So we have good support systems in our community, and we have a crisis response team that came from Thompson to help us with the issues that we’re facing in the community. So we have a lot of supports and systems in place to help us with our loss.

CO: And lots of healing to do as you say, and so I will leave you. Chief Moody, I appreciate you telling us about the boys and what happened. Thank you.

MM: But you know what? The support has been tremendous from a lot of leaders, a lot of different business people. They have reached out to us and the support has been tremendous by the entire country and the province. It's so heartwarming to know that people do care about what happens in communities like Nelson House.

CO: I'm glad to hear that. Thanks Chief Moody.

MM: OK.

CO: Bye.

MM: Bye.

JD: Marcel Moody is Chief of the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. We reached him in Nelson House, Manitoba.

[Music Somber]

Kabul attack

JD: After the first suicide bomb, people rushed to the scene. And then, there was a second detonation. That's what is believed to have happened this morning in Kabul. More than twenty people were killed in the capital of Afghanistan, including at least 9 journalists. Dozens more were injured. A spokesperson with the city's police has said that the second bomber pretended to be a member of the press. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility. One of those killed today was photojournalist Shah Marai. He was Agence France-Presse's chief photographer in Kabul. The BBC's Waheed Massoud remembered his friend and colleague in an interview with the BBC.

SOUNDCLIP

WAHEED MASSOUD: Marai was a great photographer, a good friend, a family man; he left behind six children. He was looking after not only his own family, wife, and kids, but also he was looking after and paying for two of his blind brothers, for his other siblings and sisters. His father had died a long time ago, so he was looking after extended family. He was a happy face. Always had a smile on his face, and willing to help everybody.

HOST: And also, a very canny photographer in the times of the Taliban. You know did quite a lot to try and get photographs out that it wasn't always possible to do.

WM: When I joined AFP, right after the Taliban regime collapsed, and I got to know Marai, and he was telling all these fascinating stories that how under the Taliban when taking photographs was banned, how he would take a small camera under his scarf or under a shawl, go out and take photos, but not look at the lens, just assume that this would be the a angle, and take many photos, and then come back, and then wash the negatives, hoping that at least one of them would be in focus and right. And every time he would go out, he would accept that maybe this time I will be arrested and be put in jail. And that showed how much passion he had for photography, what risks he took at that time. He didn't have to, but he was doing it because he liked the profession. And he was taking joy from it.

JD: That was the BBC's Waheed Massoud remembering his friend and colleague Shah Marai, who was killed in an attack in Kabul today. Another journalist, the BBC's Ahmad Shah, was also killed in Afghanistan today in a separate attack in the province of Khost. ABC News has called this, quote, "a terrible day, bathed in blood." Unquote. In Kandahar, nearly a dozen children were reportedly killed in another suicide bombing that also injured several Romanian troops and civilians. The U.S. military has also said one of its soldiers and several member of Afghanistan's security forces were killed during what they called a "combat mission."

[Music: Sad piano]

Fake art museum

Guest: Yan Walther

JD: A museum in southern France has discovered that there are some fakes in its collection, and not just a few fakes. The museum is composed almost entirely of works by the Impressionist painter Etienne Terrus, 60 per cent of them are forged. The discovery, as you can imagine, is huge embarrassment for the town of Elne — and the museum dedicated to its most famous local son. Police are now trying to find out who sold the museum the art. Yan Walther is an art-testing expert whose business is dedicated to sniffing out fakes. We reached him in Geneva, Switzerland.

CO: Mr. Walther, how did the museum discover that 82 of its 140 paintings were forgeries?

YAN: WALTHER: Well, it is not first-hand information, but what I am to understand is an art historian came in to the museum as the opening, and some quite evident detail struck him and showed for him that the works were not original. It seems you would check at the rather early stage when you do your due diligence on a painting, like checking the back of the work, the type of canvas that was used, and also, I am to understand that some stylistic or iconographic elements were problematic. Like apparently, one of the works represented a building that was completed only much later after the supposed date of creation of the work.

CO: The building in the painting was built 30 years after the artist who is supposed to have painted it was dead.

YH: Yeah, yeah, apparently that's what the art historian was able to spot.

CO: So not just that there were forgeries — it sounds like they're bad forgeries?

YH: Yeah, yeah, but I can testify that in our laboratory, we see every day a lot of strange things. And we have seen artworks on which a signature has been added much later. We can see artworks where you have fake cracks on the painting — cracks that are added artificially either by putting an artwork in an oven or by drawing fake cracks with a thin brush on the painting. Some people may add also brown colours to make the painting look older. So we can see a lot of things. And, of course, the quality of the fake can hugely vary. It also depends, of course, on the market value of the work, and who is let's say the potential victim, the potential buyer of the work. But surely you can see a lot of different quantities in the fake.

CO: You mentioned this local art historian who was the first to discover the paintings where were fakes. He had a white glove on, and he wiped the signature of the painting that was supposed to be done by Terrus, and found that just came off; it was ink. What do you make of that? How common is it to have fake signatures in paintings?

YH: It is pretty common among forgers to try to reuse old canvases or old artworks because the painting or the artwork will look old enough, and they would add a signature on it.

CO: Have you seen that? Do you have other examples of when they've done that?

YH: Yes, yes, absolutely. This is one of the first things we would check on an artwork. And usually, it's not as evident as that. You would use a microscope — a sterile microscope — to check the signature. For instance, if a signature has been added afterwards, the paint used for the signature will go into the cracks. And the cracks usually appear on an oil painting about 60 years after its creation. And if you see that the paint of the signature goes into the crack, then you will know that the signature has been added afterwards.

CO: But it seems that this this museum — the Terus Museum in Elne — were they just very gullible? I mean how did they get taken in to such a degree to acquire more than half of their collection as fakes?

YH: Well, I can only guess, but you can imagine a lot of things. Maybe the museum had some budget to acquire works and is a small local museum dedicated to one artist, so they were ready and willing to buy a lot of works. They have some budget, and maybe it became known in the aftermarket in the region among forgers, maybe among some dishonest galleries or antique shops, and people started to produce fake works basically to answer the demand for this artist by this museum. The worst case would be, of course, if someone inside the museum was also involved in the forgeries scheme, but again, it's only purely a guess; I have no idea.

CO: And there was quite a fund of money because apparently in this town, local citizens were contributing money. There's a big fundraising drive to get a fund for purchasing the works of Etienne Terrus. And they ended up buying 80 new works, so that would have been known to forgers that there’s a big pot of money to be spent on buying these paintings.

YH: Sure, sure, absolutely, and then maybe also that the museum did not have all the required expertise to proceed with these acquisitions. But the fact that there is a budget and that people are willing to buy works from a certain artist is basically the trigger for all forgers. You have now a lot of forgeries on Monet, Van Gogh, or Kandinsky, or Modigliani. And forgers are willing to do fakes of these works because they know there is a big appetite on the market for these artists.

CO: The people in this city, in the town are very upset. They're very hurt because they were so much part of this fundraising drive. And so can they expect to see that someone will be charged? Is it possible the museum can recover the money?

YH: Well, this I absolutely don't know. I think it will depend on the outcome of the investigation. If it appears that there were a lot of Forgers, or if it was a scheme organized by a few people. So I think the outcome of the investigation will pivot.

CO: All Right. We'll be following this story. Mr. Walther, thank you.

YA: You're welcome. Have a nice day.

CO: Good evening. Bye.

JD: Yan Walther is an art-testing expert with SGS Art Services. We reached him in Geneva. And if you would like to see some photographs of this art, go to our website.

Larry Harvey obit

JD: As it has every summer for 31 years, this summer, a temporary city will spring up in the middle of the Black Rock Desert in northwestern Nevada. Within days, its population will soar from nothing, to some 70,000 impermanent residents from all over the world, and all walks of life. And before they leave, they will gather under the city's main attraction: a giant stick-man effigy, which will be set ablaze — before the town is dismantled and disappears without a trace. But this year, one man will be conspicuously missing from Black Rock City: "The Man in the Hat", as he was affectionately known to many attendees of the Burning Man Festival. Larry Harvey, the spark behind the world-acclaimed annual event, died on Saturday, after suffering a stroke earlier this month. He was 70 years old. In 2015, Mr. Harvey was a presenter at the Design Indaba conference, held in Cape Town, South Africa. Here's some of what he shared, about how it all got started — and how big it had since become.

SOUNDCLIP

LARRY HARVEY: This is the Burning Man, as he stood in the desert last year. He's pretty big, isn’t he? The largest we've ever done. We’re going to shrink him back down this year. But the thing I like about this design: if close to it, then you're in this position where you have to look up so vertically, that it actually hurts your neck. And at the same time, it registers right at the bottom of your spine and fills you almost to the extent that you feel you might teeter over. And that translates into a feeling that combines a keen sense of jeopardy with a feeling of complete awe. And I'm very interested in those two feelings, and what you can do with them. That, in fact, goes back to the beach where we began, and all part of a bohemian milieu that I participated in with many people in the 80s in San Francisco — a place that's famous for its underground culture. Originally, it was mainly carpenters that I knew that I'd recruited to build this thing. And during all of the time, not one of them ever asked me what it meant. They never asked what it represented. Most of them were artists in their free time and craftsmen in their professional life — carpenters. And it was that immediate of a relationship. It took us what four years on the beach to master fire, and in the fifth year, we actually learned how to use the lever. The centre of gravity, which, of course, the solar plexus — we had no symbolic intent — but that was the best way to engineer the rising of it. The rope would hinge on that and gave us a mechanical advantage. First of all, I had no brakes, so if people kept pulling on that rope, it would just to top of bottom like a gridiron. So that was certainly a sense of foreboding mixed with awe. And tensions sang down that rope, entered into to everybody, we of necessity were aligned with its spine so that we could pull that up efficiently at. That tension then just entered into our bodies, and we were instinct and one with it. So, of course, they didn't have to ask what it meant.

JD: That was Larry Harvey, co-founder of the annual Burning Man festival in Nevada, speaking in Cape Town South Africa in 2015. Larry Harvey died Saturday. He was 70 years old.

Part three: Hot Docs “Anote’s Ark”

Hot Docs “Anote’s Ark”

Guests: Matthieu Rytz, Anote Tong

JD: What can one man do when the ocean threatens to swallow his home? That's the question at the heart of the documentary, "Anote's Ark", that will have its Canadian premiere at Toronto's Hot Docs Festival this week. The 'ark' in the film is the island republic of Kiribati. 'Anote' is Kiribati's former president, Anote Tong. He's on a mission to tell the world about his country, which is on the front lines of the devastating effects of climate change. Here's a clip of Anote Tong, speaking in the film.

SOUNDCLIP

ANOTE TONG: My own experience and in my own mind, I keep asking myself what is to become of my grandchildren? Where will they be when all of this water starts coming in? Will somebody else find a solution for them to ensure that they will be safe by then? We must no longer stand on the sidelines because this is coming and it is going to destroy our lives.

JD: That's Anote Tong in the documentary "Anote's Ark". He and the director of the film, Matthieu Rytz, joined Carol in the “As It Happens” studio.

CO: Anote Tong, Matthieu Rytz, welcome to As It Happens — to ur studio.

MATTHIEU RYTZ AND AT: Thank you.

CO: President Tong, I just want ask you, first of all, if you can tell us a bit about Kiribati because the documentary is very disturbing, very troubling, but it's also very beautiful because your country, your nation is so beautiful. Can you describe Kiribati?

AT: Well, you are absolutely correct, it is a beautiful country. It's right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, on the equator, and also straddling the international dateline. They're all mostly coral atolls. Of course, coral atolls are just bits of coral on top of the seam-lines, and so the elevation is on average about two metres above sea level, and therefore, not very resilient to any kind of a storm. And, of course, with the rising sea level the level of vulnerability is extreme. I think we argue that case every time we go to the United Nations to discuss about least development country status. That even if we do achieve some development, all of this could be cancelled out whenever there is a bot of an adverse condition.

CO: It's disappearing — your republic is sinking?

AT: Well, you don't see it sinking, but you see things happening, OK? And I think I wouldn’t be exaggerating to say that in the last few years, we're seeing this sea level rise, and I've never really said that. But what I say is this: we are seeing events like the contamination of the water lines. We are seeing villages gone. We are seeing the destruction of food crops. But I think you take that in combination with the science that's coming forward, and there’s real reason for concern in the future.

CO: You have about 100,000 people who live there.

AT: We've got over 100,000 people.

CO: And the other thing that seems to be changing, which you've documented in this in this program, is that you're getting more severe weather. Did you have these typhoons before in Kiribati?

AT: We don't get typhoons. Since we're on the equator, we actually create the typhoons. But then they go north or south, they don't stay on the equatorial region. I mean that area is the doldrums, very boring, very stable weather conditions. But in 2015, one of the cyclones that the islands of Vanuatu totally destroyed — it actually went north. It came back north, and flooded all of the islands, flooded our southern-most islands, and also flooded the rest to a lesser extent. But the effect of damaging a lot of food crops, which had been there for decades, and also contaminated the waterlines. And so this is new, and taking that in combination with the science that say it's going to get worse not better, I think it really is a story to be listened to.

CO: Matthieu Rytz, you, of course, thought this was a story to be listened to, and my congratulations to you because you made it very beautiful, but you had pretty good material to work with. Why did you want to make this documentary?

MR: So I started as a photojournalist covering the global issue of the rising sea. And really why I wanted to start this whole project is when I first met with President Tong in Kiribati because I met an incredible man at the time four years ago, very charming, but with a mission that blew my mind. I mean as a head of state knowing that you will be stateless within a century was like what’s the biggest journey? What’s the biggest challenge? You don't have something bigger as a head of state than losing the state. So it really came into my mind when we first met, and then I go back to Canada and I start thinking about it. But it was very hard in the beginning because you know I go to any broadcaster and producer and I say I have a great movie, I have a great idea about you know a nation that going under water with climate change and everything. And they say oh yeah, we know the story of already. We know it. We have plenty of movies about it. And I was like yeah, but it's a different story. Please listen, and then ask me what did you do before? Any other movie? No, that's my first feature; I never even did a short. So no one there was listening to me in the beginning. So I had to be very stubborn and believe in the story. And so the first two years was quite difficult trying to convince people, and putting all my energy and money you know just get getting full in-depth just to keep on because I saw that the story was important.

CO: You had as, you point out, President Tong, who is an extremely compelling, articulate character for your documentary. So thank you, President Tong. But at the same time, there were some other people that you feature in this, and they get their names right: Ato and Sabari, who are just citizens of the island. And can you tell us why you included them? What do they bring to your story?

MR: Since day one, it was very important for me to have intertwined stories of people who really get affected in Kiribati and follow their story. And because it's more a story about climate justice and adaptations on climate change actually. I mean climate change we kind of know it now. You know we had those movies ten years ago. “Inconvenient Truth”, and you know like just people starting understanding what's what will happen with climate change. But I think in 2018, we don't need like another full feature explaining about climate change. I think the next debate is climate justice and adaptation. So understanding what the process of those people who are really are affected on the frontline, and what they're going to go through. I think those two characters going to New Zealand and seeing how they adapt themselves to the new life and all the struggles they have was absolutely important to get the story.

CO: And they go to New Zealand for work. And there is a baby born — they have a new child, which the sense in that moment when you see that face, that little girl this is the future, which brings them joy, but many questions about what future she faces.

MR: Absolutely, and for me it was a way to convene a universal story because any parent can relate to this feeling of having a child and understanding what's the impact of giving birth in a place. And that's a very universal story. I mean here in Toronto, half of the city were born outside of this country. So people in Canada, any part of the planet, will understand the feeling of raising a child in another country than their own country. But the difference with Sabari is maybe that child will never see Kiribati, maybe never get back. And if the country won’t be there, what are they going to say to the child? We come from that place that is no longer. I think that’s a very powerful message.

CO: You're listening to “As It Happens”. I’m speaking with Anote Tong, former president of Kiabati, and filmmaker Matthieu Rytz about their film “Anote’s Arc”. And President Tong, you go the world, you travel the world, trying to explain what's going on, trying to get people interested and to care. You go to the United Nations, you meet the pope, and you keep trying to make your case. What is it that you were asking them to do?

AT: I think it's you know because the focus of the climate debate has in the past been on the science, whether this was human-induced, or whether it's part of the normal cycle. And that took some time to resolve. But by 2007, with the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — It was fairly conclusive that it was human-induced, and so they came up with scenarios, which for me were extremely disastrous for our people. So climate change is not so much about the science. It's not so much about the environment. It's not about the economy. Because a lot of countries leaders have argued that to cut their emissions would mean a reduction in the rate of economic growth. But for me, it's always been about people. And I think that's the point that I always wanted to make to bring in the human dimension of the challenge of climate change. And so because a lot of countries believe that it is not relevant. It's not imminent for them. That it doesn't matter. They can still survive, and to a large extent, there is still that thinking.

CO: And we think when actually describe it, no one hides it. They talk about climate change winners and losers.

AT: Absolutely, and so here we are losers, and you know we are losers. But are you going to allow it to happen? And this is why I have always said climate change is the greatest moral challenge for humanity because if you know that the action what do you do actually results in the demise of people on the other side of the world, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to keep going on doing it? Or do you have the moral caliber and capacity to refrain from doing it? And that question and that challenge remains unanswered until today because our situation remains unresolved. Our islands will be under water — unless, of course, we undertake very significant adaptation measures for which there are no resources forthcoming even at this point in time.

CO: You actually go to the Arctic, and because all our focus on climate change has been on the massive changes going on at the polar ice cap, and you see a polar bear while you are there. But sometimes, I wonder I mean yes polar bears, that is a great motivator for dealing with climate change. But I wonder sometimes if you thought that you might get more attention and were more concern if you were a nation of polar bears? I mean that they seem to be far more concerned about the animals, that's justifiable, but less concerned about your people.

AT: This is a question that we ask. And so when I made that contrast in one of my statements at the United Nations, I think it made people sit up and ask themselves the question maybe we got our priorities wrong, or maybe they have it right. But I think it's about getting people to understand that every action that you do, whatever happens in the Arctic, whatever happens here in Canada, has implications for those of us on the other side of the world. And I think I was asked a question just earlier on and somebody was saying good luck. I said no, it's not luck that I need. I need you to take positive action to deal with this. And so that is the challenge that we as human beings have to face up to: understanding that knowing the science, having the knowledge that we know today, that all of the things that we do in order to make ourselves comfortable just a little bit of inconvenience would mean a great deal for the future of the future generations on the other side of the world.

CO: Throughout this documentary, you are this voice of calm and reason as you go place to place, you do interviews. I just wonder if there's ever a time when you get angry about this because you know your nation, Kiribati, has a nonexistent carbon footprint compared to the industrial powers who put you in this situation. Do you ever want to say you got us into this mess, now you get us out?

AT: Yes, I was angry, frustrated, depressed, with a deep sense of futility that I'm not making a difference. Nobody was listening because there was the focus on the terrorism. But what I learned later on is that people do not listen to somebody who is preaching something radical, something not acceptable to their sense of comfort. And so I had to inject a great deal of rational thought into my presentation. So instead of being such a radical, I' decided to become a rational radical — a radical that makes sense. And it's about bringing people together that OK, this is where we are. There's no point in pointing fingers at people, but we need to go forward. And in order to go forward, we need to work together. And so this is the way that I put it across. And I think for those who needed an excuse to say that I am a radical and do not make sense I made it somewhat more difficult for them to just dismiss me like that. But also, in a sense, it also had a very good effect on myself to be talking in a rational, calm fashion because it's about relating to people that climate change is not only relevant for people like me, but it's also relevant for people who now think that they're not being threatened by the impacts of climate change. And I think this is being over and over again by the events that have taken in those places that in the past considered themselves immune to the impacts of climate change.

CO: But your own family, your own children, grandchildren, it must be so disturbing to know — and as you point out in the film — not just that you're going to lose this place quite possibly, but how much else you lose. You're an Indigenous people, you lose the entire culture.

AT: You know I can tell you it's not a nice feeling. And especially I have more than a dozen grandchildren, and I do watch them play. One day, I asked myself the question where will they be? I discussed it with my wife, and said where will these kids be when all of this comes down? And this is why I know that there is a certain sense of thinking that maybe God will provide. Let God provide, but we need to do as much as possible in order to allow that to happen. And I think there are things we can do to give security to our people. And this is what I've been saying that coming up with all kinds of radical wild options, but in the absence of anything else, why not?

CO: I'm speaking with Anote Tong, who is the former president of Kiribati, and filmmaker Matthieu Rytz about this movie “Anote’s Arc”. We are in the As It Happens studio. I want to play a clip from the film because you mentioned earlier, Matthieu, and both you mentioned about adaptation. At some point, you have to conclude that no one's going to stop this thing from happening, and you have to start to adapt. And this is a clip from the movie.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: A lot of the media is so far focused on where islander will go, and where we will relocate. And I want people to know that we don't want to move from our island. And we shouldn’t have to move from our island. So I’m marching today because I have a daughter, and I want her daughter, and her granddaughter, and the next generations after to grow up, and live, and thrive in our islands, a to know where they’re from.

CO: That's a clip from the film. And you have tried to do things, President Tong. You actually purchased a parcel of land in Fiji I understand.

AT: Yeah, it's all part of the effort to try at least to bring some sense of comfort to people. There was a time when I feared my people asking me okay, this is happening. What do you have to ensure our safety, to guarantee safety in the future? And so that was part of that. It won't solve everything, but at least it's a move towards addressing the issue. But more importantly, it was a challenge to the international community that here we are looking for solutions and nobody is coming forward with solutions. So if nobody is coming forward with solutions, then we must find those solutions ourselves, including doing something like that. But let me add that since we did that, my greatest concern is what would be the reaction of the people of Fiji, of the government of Fiji? And I think Fiji has been the only one that's responded in the most appropriate manner. Fiji has offered to be able to accommodate the people of Kiribati if ever they needed in order to address the challenge of climate change. So that was the kind of moral response that I'd been challenging the world global community to come up with. And that's been the only response that I've had so far. I had discussions with the leader from East Timor. You know he was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. And, of course, he also offered, but it's not been followed up. But I think it's the kind of moral response that we sadly need.

CO: And Matthieu, you also document in “Anote’s Arc” some other projects, including something called the Green Float and the Ocean’s Spiral. Can you describe what these are?

MR: Yes, that was very interesting. It’s is a corporation based in Japan, and the way I portray it in the movie, it sounds like science fiction, but they’re actually building in the bay of Tokyo right now it's a floating island. But why it is trying to be built now in Tokyo is also for the overpopulation of a city like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, all those coastal line cities that will be very affected by the rising sea also. So I think the way they approach Kiribati with this project is because it's under the equator, so it's a very calm climate, so they wanted to test the technology in Kiribati also. So it’s part of the solution for Kiribati, but part of you know another technology, and another kind of almost capitalist tool for this Japanese cooperation just to sell the product. So it's becoming a bit of a tricky question where you feel like they a good will to serve the country, but here we go again. It's the same paradigm and same mindset behind that we can we build this incredible technology to solve the problem. And I think what is addressed in the movie is like first you know if people from Kiribati have to move to a floating island how can they can keep their spirituality and culture in a new land that's totally different you know. But it brings also another dimension of it that we believe that the technology will fix the problem. And without actually changing paradigms and so only the only way to solve the climate crisis is really to reconnect to nature fundamentally. it's a deep sense we need to do that as a species to really change things, otherwise I don't know where humanity is going with the climate crisis.

CO: Well, the first thing when you show these floating islands. This is so futuristic you think this is science fiction and you realize this is not so far in the future. But what is doubly alarming about that segment of these alternatives is that clearly, people see business opportunities in climate change. There is money to be made as nations like Kiribati go under. That somebody can actually make money on selling stuff.

MR: Absolutely. And there is another layer of it, they're going to have a huge carbon footprint to build them. So you try to solve the problem by creating another one. So it's not a bad thing. I mean it's good people try to find solutions. And I met with the director of this program of this cooperation, and he’s a good man, he really wants to help. It's a good debate I think. But really what I wanted to portray in the movie is too basic conclusion is that technology as we know it now is not the only part of the solution. But also our democratic institutions through the U.N. and through all the big players are not the solution either. So it's really I think I mean the capitalist, liberal, democratic, global the global scale just doesn't have a tool really to solve the problem. So we have to rethink everything.

CO: Another disturbing aspect of this is that, of course, we think we are hoping the international community can find solutions. And the Paris Agreement is supposed to be the great hope of those who are trying to fight climate change. And you see President Obama in those clips that you run in the documentary. Well, he's gone, and a different president who has no interest in the Paris agreement. And so you know it just spirals right down to the bottom again. How discouraging is that for you to see how little the international community can really do?

AT: Well, I said very often that one of the greatest obstacles to addressing this global problem is the fact that we come to the negotiations, to the discussions, including in Paris as independent sovereign nations, bringing our own national agenda, and trying to put in our priorities somewhere there. And this is exactly what's happened. I mean with the new administration in the United States, now they think that that is not the priority. And the reason why that is not a priority is because they're looking at climate change as something outside of their national agenda. But the reality is this: on climate change, we're all part of the process. And so we should not be coming with our own national agenda. We should be thinking as global leaders. Not as individual leaders from different countries. For example, the debates that I've had with colleagues, other leaders who have insisted that to go below two degrees in the rise in global temperature was to damaging to their economies. My response was very clear: I hear you, but any rise in global temperature means that my country no longer has a place. My future generations will not have a home. And I have no problem, you can emit as much as possible, but if you could keep it within your national borders, not a problem. But, of course, you cannot. And you cannot claim your right to send your emissions my way. And I think this is the question where I think the challenge for the international regime regulatory arrangement is inadequate to deal with this. Because if that was the case, and I often talk about this, if it destroys somebodies home, you take people to court here in Canada, but we cannot take anybody to rectify the injustice. So until we can acknowledge and accept that everything we do if it's damaging to somebody else, we must be liable one way or another.

CO: But it's not just the outside players, the president the United States, or international associations. Your own country, your own republic, you're not the president anymore. A new government has come in; the opposition is now running it, and they have as I understand it reversed all of your climate change policies?

AT: I think this is the point that I've been making that climate change is not something to be made a political issue.

CO: So what are they doing? What have what have you lost? What are the plans and the ideas are the people who are now running the republic?

AT: Well, I think I can understand where they're coming from. But I think they're just going over the path that I had gone over and gone past. And I think I understand the emotional reaction of rejecting the notion of having to leave your home. Nobody wants that. But that is an emotional reaction. You’ve got to face the brutal reality of the science, what is happening, what is going to be happening. And no matter how undesirable it might be, you've got to get over that emotional hurdle. Otherwise, you cannot respond rationally. And so these are the brutal realities.

CO: We are all going to be in your shoes at some point. I have grandchildren too that I look at, and I'm thinking my God, what world will they inherit? What have we left them? When you talk to people, when you go around the world trying to make the case that your nation is disappearing, do you think that registers with people?

AT: No, because they do not think it's relevant to them. I mean what's relevant is when you listen to “Inconvenient Truth” and just examine why it was inconvenient. It's inconvenient for people who are living a grand lifestyle. But for us, it's not inconvenient, it's disastrous. So it's always that perspective. And I think we've got to come to understand that. I've always used the term “frontline states”, and we are a state on the frontline, and we will fail. But if nothing is done, other countries will be the next on the frontline — until eventually, maybe we would have gone all the way to destroy the planet.

CO: I hate to leave on that despairing note, but that is what the documentary leaves us with as well, and very powerful work. Matthieu Rytz, thank you for the documentary.

MR: Thank you.

CO: And, Anote Tong, thank you so much for your wisdom, and for sharing it with us.

AT: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share this story. But please, don't just listen then then forget about it. I invite you to do something about it.

CO: Thank you for that.

AT: Thank you.

JD: Anote Tong is the former President of Kiribati. He's the subject of a new documentary film by Matthieu Rytz called “Anote's Ark”. The film is having its Canadian premiere at the Hot Docs Festival in Toronto this week. To see pictures of Kiribati, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 30, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode