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 2020

The AIH Transcript for November 10, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: A 'Dear Don' letter. Former Congressman Tom Coleman explains why he and 30 of his Republican colleagues have written to Donald Trump, urging him to accept that the American voters have picked another president.

CH: The winds of change. With the election of Joe Biden. There's new hope for a shift in American relations with China and with it, maybe a chance the two imprisoned Canadians will be freed.

CO: Agreeable about disagreeing. The late Saeb Erekat dedicated his life to achieving Palestinian statehood. And a close friend and fellow politician says Mr. Erekat's strength was building bridges across stark divides.

CH: Infection overload. In a letter to Alberta's government, doctors call for a strict two week shutdown they're calling a "circuit breaker" to curb the spread of COVID-19.

CO: Watson Dear my elementary. When the UK shut down, a British comedian detected an opportunity to solve a nearly impossible literary puzzle in which you must solve a murder mystery whose pages are all out of order.

CH: And where the streets have new lanes. To help people navigate a complicated new intersection, Prince Edward Island produces no fewer than 11 instructional videos, which confused drivers will have to memorize before they hit the road. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that predicts some trips down memory lane.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: GOP letter

GOP Letter

Guest: Tom Coleman

CH: Today, Mike Pompeo assured everyone that there's going to be a smooth transition. But the U.S. secretary of state wasn't talking about Donald Trump handing over power to Joe Biden, the president elect. Here's Mr. Pompeo at a press conference in Washington.

MIKE POMPEO: There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration. Right. We're ready. The world is watching what's taking place. We're going to count all the votes. When the process is complete, there'll be electors selected. There's a process. The Constitution lays it out pretty clearly. The world should have every confidence that the transition necessary to make sure that the State Department is functional today, successful today, and successful with the president who's in office on January 20th afternoon will also be successful.

CH: That was United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier today in Washington. There's been some suggestion that the secretary of state was engaging in a little high stakes humor. Regardless, his statement is in stark contrast with a statement from 31 former Republican members of the US Congress. It warns that President Trump's claims of a rigged vote are undermining the legitimacy of last week's election. Tom Coleman is a former congressman from Missouri. We reached him in Fairfax County, Virginia.

CO: Mr. Coleman, when the United States secretary of state refuses to talk about a transition to Joe Biden's presidency, what signal does that send?

TOM COLEMAN: Well, I'm not sure it's a signal. It's just pouring on what the president wants people to do, to make this fairly complicated. And it's far from that. It may be a kabuki dance they're doing. I'm not sure what they're doing, but Joe Biden won fair and square. The votes have been counted. He's had a landslide election. The Republicans can't really complain because the Republicans did very well in the Senate races and picked up some positions in the House. So it doesn't make sense. And there was no fraud. And so Joe Biden will take office on January 20th.

CO: You have issued, along with 30 other former members of Congress, Republicans, that you want this to be recognized. What are you hoping to achieve with your statement?

TC: Well as former Republican officeholders, I think it's important that we stand up and accept this election result and not live in the fairy tale world of the current Republican Party, which has enabled Donald Trump for four years and now appear to be enabling him to create this mischief after the election is over. So we have 30 people, some of whom supported Joe Biden, some of them didn't endorse Joe Biden. But we all came together to say enough is enough, election is over, let's move forward. And I think for the good of the country, Joe Biden needs to be able to be called president elect and start the transition, which in our country provides for resources for office space, for people to start actually meeting with their counterparts in all the agencies and departments of government so they can start on January 20th when they take office.

CO: Why do you think that there are so few sitting Republicans willing to call out the president?

TC: Well, that's a question I've been trying to answer myself for four years, and I'm not one to be able to give a good answer. What I see as a kind of a cultish leader who has overtaken a political party and made it into his own image with a very big component of propaganda, not official from the government, but from Fox News which is kind of the de facto PR firm of the Republican Party. So that's a combination we've never really seen in this country. And apparently the people didn't like it since they had overwhelming vote for Joe Biden.

CO: But if Republicans believed that they would be a better government and they look at Republicanism and Trump-ism are synonymous, that Mr. Trump has in many respects become the party or Trump-ism has. So, I mean, doesn't that leave them in the situation where they have to defend his presidency even beyond this election?

TC: Well, they don't have to. They can speak up. They could say that this isn't the Republican Party they joined because this party has been put upside down by Donald Trump. All the things that used to be principles of the Republican Party, the traditional Republican Party, have now been upended. So they're living in a in a different world. They should know that they're living in a different world and different party. If they don't, then this is a serious problem for them. We have alternative reality now that this Trump administration has created and maybe too many people are living in that alternative reality.

CO: A number of supporters of Mr. Trump, even those who don't necessarily support him, say that he has a right to look into these allegations, he has a right to to ensure that every vote was legal and to trace down every allegation of fraud. Is that not the case?

TC: That is the case. And that's not what is in dispute. They have filed seven suits now against various states for voting fraud and so forth. All of them have been dismissed by the courts. So they're frivolous. They have no basis, in fact. And so they're just throwing things on the wall and see what will stick. But he has a right to contest. And in some of these close races, I'm looking at Georgia, for example, where I think the vice president is ahead by 10,000 -- I have not checked today, but it was 10,000. And then maybe it's more, but out of, you know, eight million votes, that's a very small figure. So even under state laws, there's a requirement for a recount to make sure that somebody, when they were totalling up the numbers didn't misplace a zero somewhere.

CO: So how many ballot cast cadavers do you think they'd have to find in order to change the results of this election?

TC: More than any in the history of the United States because whenever you have a recount, it's usually 100, maybe 200 at the most out of millions that look like they were miscounted. So these are very small things. What he's trying to do is to question our entire democracy and the legitimacy of this election. And even if he leaves office, which he'll leave on January 20th, what he's doing is sowing seeds of doubt, which is just unnecessary. He's not going to be president after the 20th of January, but he wants to, I guess, be destructive all the way out, which is kind of, you know, the byword of his entire administration.

CO: How destructive is this?

TC: Well, it means that people next time may say, well, it's all fixed, I'm not going to vote. So if you have a population that believes that the free and fair elections, which basically is the cornerstone of our democracy, doesn't matter, then you pretty well have lost a lot of what we call democracy. If you can't think that your vote is going to be counted, that you can actually vote and have a count, then it's pretty much all over. Then you turn to a strong person, an authoritarian dictator, somebody who will take care of things, and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

CO: Mr. Coleman, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

TC: Thank you.

CH: Tom Coleman is a former congressman from Missouri. We reached him in Fairfax County, Virginia.

[Music]

Alberta shutdown letter

Guest: Noel Gibney

CH: Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked premiers and mayors to do the right thing. He called on them to consider targeted shutdowns as the number of COVID-19 cases continues to soar across the country. But in Alberta, there's no sign that Premier Jason Kenney is changing course. Today, the province announced 713 new COVID infections and seven new deaths. Yesterday, a letter signed by 70 doctors was sent to Premier Kenney's office urging the government to impose a two week lockdown. Dr. Noel Gibney wrote that letter. He's a professor emeritus in the Department of Critical Care Medicine at the University of Alberta. We reached Dr. Gibney in Edmonton.

CO: Dr. Gibney, why did you and the other doctors feel it was necessary to send this letter to the Alberta government?

NOEL GIBNEY: Largely because of the increasing numbers of COVID infections in addition to the number of new hospitalizations,that combined with Premier Kenney's press conference at the weekend where he indicated that, again, he wanted Albertans to take responsibility for their actions, but was unprepared to actually introduce any new regulations to try and get the rate of COVID infections decreased. As the number of staff in the hospitals in Alberta are becoming infected with COVID somewhere around 60-70 staff at the Edmonton zone, mainly nurses are positive for COVID. And for each one of those deaths, probably at least six other individuals who are now self isolating.

CO: We've been speaking with doctors in Manitoba and Ontario and Quebec, that they're reaching this crisis place. How close are you to breaking point, do you think, in Alberta?

NG: We're managing at the moment. My worry is that we know that the numbers of cases have been doubling about every 10 days, so if we don't do something now, in two weeks time we're going to be in real trouble.

CO: What exactly do you want the province to do?

NG: For a start, we describe as a circuit breaker for two weeks -- make it short, make it sharp, and follow the numbers very closely. See what the impact is both within the province and then within sectors of the province and different cities. And then if indeed it looks like the numbers are decreasing in some areas, it would be possible to relax the regulations of lockdown. If indeed it looks like they're getting worse in other areas, then you increase them. And that allows rather than having the entire province with very different rates potentially of COVID infections all under the same set of regulations, it allows them to be titrated carefully to what the need is in that zone.

CO: Right. So it's a two week short and sharp lock down, a circuit breaker, as you say. What would you see being closed? Does that include schools?

NG: Hopefully not in the first instance. I mean, the obvious ones to me would be to limit the number of individuals who are together to similar to other provinces. Currently it's 15, so limit the number of people, close the casinos, close the bars, close the nightclubs.

CO: You've heard back from -- well, the same message that the premier and the government has been giving in Alberta, that they are trying to find a balance between the health of the economy and the health of the population. And they feel that they are striking this with the right balance, with asking people to accept their own personal responsibility for their safety. What do you say to that balance?

NG: It's not working. The numbers are increasing progressively and rapidly. One of the things that I've always felt is that nobody is very happy to have a limitation placed on their freedoms. There was a lot of grumbling when the mask policies came in, but once those regulations were established, everyone has done it more or less. And I think even now people would feel strange if they went into a shopping mall and they were the only people without a mask. Likewise, if we have regulations, nobody likes them, but they're prepared to adapt to them for their good and the good of the population as a whole. Nobody wants to limit individual freedoms or their ability to earn a living. Nobody wants to limit people's human rights. But the most important human right and the first one is the right to life. And if we get to the point where our hospital systems are overwhelmed such that patients who are critically ill with COVID or with other things such as trauma, strokes, heart attacks, pneumonia or whatever, if they can't get proper treatment, then the numbers of people who potentially are going to become very critically ill and potentially die will soar.

CO: We've also heard from public health professionals who are sounding the alarm that we have to find a better balance now, but also between mental health and physical health -- that mental health is suffering. Do you think that lockdowns respect that need for mental health?

NG: I think that you've got a very valid point there. The challenge is nobody wants COVID. And you then have to decide who are you not going to have any form of lockdown because you're worried about people's mental health. But you could end up with thousands of people dying as against a small number of people committing suicide. It's a very tough balance, but I have to say that in my opinion at the moment, and I think that of the individuals who signed the letter with me, the balance is primarily towards protecting the large number of people who will inevitably become very ill and potentially die if we don't do something.

CO: You also mention in the letter the advancements in treatments that have meant that fewer people are dying of COVID and fewer people are getting severely ill. So don't we have to take that into consideration?

NG: The reason that we've done so well is that studies have helped us to refine our therapies. But if we get to the point, we are unable to provide the critical care to have a ventilator manned by a competent individual, then all of the advances that we made don't hold anymore. And we could find ourselves very quickly tipped from absolutely optimal care to something approaching third world care.

CO: We have seen in months since the summer that there is no love lost between the doctors and Premier Kenney's office. I wonder what kind of response you've had from Jason Kenney since you sent out this letter.

NG: There's been silence as far as anything directed to me. And I'm not aware -- again I keep an eye on the media as much as I can, but I'm not aware of any specific response.

CO: Well, Dr. Gibney, we will be watching in your province and in ours and all the others. So thank you so much for bringing us up to date.

NG: You're welcome Carol. Thanks very much.

CH: Dr. Noel Gibney is a professor emeritus in the Department of Critical Care Medicine at the University of Alberta. We reached him in Edmonton.

[Music]

Cain's jawbone puzzle

Guest: John Finnemore

CH: When the world shut down, people filled their time with baking, watching movies, maybe starting a puzzle. That's what British comedian John Finnemore did, although his was a little tougher than assembling a picture of a cute dog, he was working on a puzzle called Cain's Jawbone, a 100 page murder mystery by the famous cryptic crossword setter known as Torquemada. The pages are all out of order, and there are 32-million possible combinations. Over the last century, only two people have been able to solve Cain's Jawbone. And now John Finnemore can count himself as the third. We reached him in London, England.

CO: John, first of all, congratulations on completing Cain's Jawbone.

JOHN FINNEMORE: Thank you very much.

CO: Can you believe that you actually pulled this off?

JF: No, I'm very surprised. And I'm very surprised that nobody got there before me. I only submitted it about a week before the deadline and people have had a year to work on it. I assumed I would be way behind.

CO: But others have done it, but over 100 years, two others have done it, so you're a very small company there.

JF: Quick in the 30s. And I did my time, which is, you know, waited until I was born and then a little longer. And then it's like the bronze medal.

CO: Before we talk about how and why and everything else you cracked this code, what is Cain's Jawbone?

JF: Well, it is a novel. It's a 100 page murder mystery novel in which five people are killed by five other people, but mainly it's a puzzle. The 100 pages have been published in a random order, and you have to use the clues within it to work out firstly what the order should be and then second, what's going on and who killed who.

CO: Okay, when you have a whole bunch of papers that you forgot to number and they all fall down and they're all mixed up, you can generally figure out where they go because the sentences are finished on the next page and the thought is the consistent, and it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out. What is so difficult about putting these 100 pages of this mystery back together?

JF: Well, he's very sneakily made sure that every page ends with a full stop, so there's no run on sentences to join together. I think that might be one pair in the whole thing to give you a starting point but other than that, you're on your own. And then the whole thing is written in this very sort of elusive stream of consciousness style that makes it very difficult to work out what's going on or who is talking to who. The first time you read through it, it's a bit like reading sort of abstract poetry or James Joyce or something. And then eventually you start to put some pages together and find some kind of some kind of way through.

CO: Well, it's hard enough to read some James Joyce even when it's all in order. So you managed to solve this puzzle, so there's only one right way.

JF: Yes. And when you find it, it's a very cleverly put together puzzle. Once you read through it, you sort of can't believe that these could be put into an order that you would know was the right order. But actually, he's right, there is, once you get it you realize those two pages couldn't have been swapped.

CO: But what possessed you to -- I mean, why did you launch this project?

JF: [Laughter] I know it's an extremely good question. I do love a puzzle. Yeah. The first time I looked at this, I just thought there was absolutely -- it was clearly far too difficult for me. But then lockdown happened and suddenly I had a lot of time and evenings to myself and I thought, well, maybe this is something that I could have another shot at.

CO: Is there a prize for having solved it?

JF: There was yes. So it was published in a book in the 30s, and the publishers offered 15 pounds at the time. And it's been republished this year, which is obviously why I did it this year and the publishers worked out what 15 pounds would be in today's money and decided it was 1000 pounds. So very nice prizes.

CO: Were there any rules? I mean could you use Google?

JF: Oh I don't think you could do it without Google. It's so full of references to all sorts of poetry, but also science, geography. So yes, I was Googling every page and if anyone wants to have a go, it still sort of available to buy. And the first advice I would give is do not think that it's cheating to look things up.

CO: What was your greatest victory? What was the moment you went "Yes, I snagged that one?" Was there one of those?

JF: Yeah. Yeah, there's one -- I don't want to spoil it in case anyone gives it a go, but there's a thing you realize fairly early on about the structure that makes it you go "Oh I see. Alright then I understand how I'm going to go about the rest of this puzzle. So that was very satisfying. And then towards the end, there are a few things that, you know, because I'd left them to the end because I just couldn't get them and couldn't get them and then realizing "Oh I see it's a reference." There was one about dogs -- there's a lot of stuff about the second dog and the third dog. And eventually I realized that it was referring to the dog watches, which is what sailors used to tell time. And so when she says the second dog has not passed, she means it's between four and five o'clock. And that tells you where that page has to come in relation to the other papers that mentioned other times, so that's the sort of tricky thing that's going on.

CO: When you got to the end, when you finally did it and that moment when you realized that's it, I've solved it, I've done it -- how did you feel?

JF: Oh, I didn't have that moment really because I thought I got a pretty good order, but I was sure I would have made a couple of slips. And there still are a couple of references I didn't understand. And I thought, well, I'm nearly there, I'm pretty sure about the story, I'm pretty sure about who murdered who, but I don't know that this is the right order. So, yeah, I didn't know until they phoned me up and said I had won. And that felt great.

CO: Well, John, congratulations again. Sounds like a lot of fun.

JF: My pleasure. Thank you. Oh, and I've done a bit more Googling and I gather that you will be interested to know where I was born -- I was born in the town of Reading in Berkshire.

CO: Oh, that is very interesting to us. And you did as a researcher on Google, yes, you have actually found a very a clue to understanding this program. Lots of fun John. Thank you.

JF: Thank you.

CH: John Finnemore is a British comedian from Reading, and one of only three people to complete the murder mystery, Cain's Jawbone in the last 100 years. We reached him in London.

[Music]

Bookstore smell

CH: It's a distinctive, comforting smell. Step inside your local bookstore, breathe deep, and a cocktail of odors should immediately let your nostrils know where you are. The combinations may vary, but every bookstore worth browsing has a few key aromas wafting through it. Paper, obviously, a prominent sub note of dust, perhaps a whiff of mothballs and mildew, gently contrasting with the fresh off gases coming from the new releases table, and almost invariably a musty scent, perhaps tinged with mold and boldly undercut by the smell of takeout coffee. So it's kind of hard not to be skeptical of Powell's Books. The Portland based bookseller is about to release a new product. Because of the pandemic customers obviously can't spend hours soaking up that particular mixture of bookstore boutiques in person, so Powell's bottled a bookstore. For 30 bucks, you'll soon be able to get a bottle of its limited edition fragrance, which, "captures the scent of books with subtle hints of wood and violet." Well, kudos to Powell's for trying to offer some comfort to its estranged customers during this difficult time. But something smells a bit off with that description on the packaging. Subtle hints of wood, sure, but subtle hints of violet as in the flower. Not to judge a bottled book by its cover, but that just doesn't make scents.

[Music]

Part 2: ICG Biden presidency

ICG Biden presidency

Guest: Rob Malley

CH: A lot of people's hopes are riding on the upcoming Biden presidency. And for two people, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the stakes couldn't be higher. China has detained the two Canadians for almost two years now, accusing them of endangering the country's national security. But Beijing has also made it clear that their arrest was tied to Canada's arrest of Huawei executive Mengg Wanzhou for extradition to the United States. As Joe Biden prepares to take over as president, Ottawa is pressing him to help the two Micheals. Rob Malley is Michael Kovrig's employer. He's the head of the International Crisis Group think tank and we reached him in Washington, D.C..

CO: Mr. Malley, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has spoken with Joe Biden and the prime minister says he's confident that the president elect will push for Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor's release. How confident are you?

ROB MALLEY: I think there's every reason to believe that the Biden administration, just like the Trump administration did, and I'm not one who very freely gives compliments to or says positive things about the Trump administration, but I think they took the fate of both Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor seriously. I think they tried. They pushed. But I have no reason to doubt that the Biden administration will take that issue very seriously as well and push.

CO: What can Mr. Biden do that Justin Trudeau couldn't do? What powers, what ability, does he have to leverage that the prime minister of Canada doesn't have?

RM: Well, what we know is that the key to this tragic fate and what's happening and I could speak mainly about Michael Kovrig because he's my colleague, my friend. And what's happened to him, he's been taken hostage as a result of Chinese retaliation for the detention and the house arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei -- and that's at the request of the U.S. wanting to extradite her. So if there's going to be a deal or a settlement and the U.S. has a critical role to play in this, because it is the party that has demanded the extradition of Ms. Meng. So whether they could find a deal, whether that deal can be done in the next two months, hopefully by the Trump administration, if not, with the help of the Biden administration, the U.S. is a critical player and nobody can ignore that.

CO: So are you saying that the route to getting the release of the Canadians from Chinese prison would be if the United States dropped its case against Meng Wanzhou?

RM: Well, I'm not necessarily saying that. You know, there are different permutations, one could imagine. And, of course, the quickest, the fairest, resolution would be for China to simply release Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig on the grounds that they are being detained arbitrarily for no good reason. And I think I'm sure your listeners know that that's the case. Barring that, there will have to be some kind of settlement. And what happens to the case of this Ms. Meng, what happens to the other issues that are poisoning relations between China and the U.S.. That's what the negotiations would have to be about. There are different permutations that I'm sure negotiators and lawyers on both sides on all three sides, if you include Canada, could come up with.

CO: We've heard Mr. Biden say that China is a threat, that President Xi is a thug. And being tough on China is one of the few things people seem to agree on in Washington these days. And so how likely is it that Mr. Biden will concede to China's demands that they reconsider Meng Wanzhou? I mean, isn't that something that symbolically it's unlikely that he would do?

RM: Again, I'm not suggesting that the U.S. would simply drop the extradition request. One could imagine different forms of settlements that could occur that would not entail a clean release Of Ms. Meng. But I mean, you're right -- there's one thing, as you say, one of the rare things that both parties seem to agree on, both Republicans and Democrats, which is it's time to be tougher on China. At the same time, if you listen to what now president elect Biden has been saying for so many months is, yes, China is a rival, China is a rising power that we're competing with, but it should not be necessarily viewed as an adversary. And we're going to have to work with China on issues including climate change, nonproliferation and trade in one way or the other. And so, yes, I assume that things are not going to be smooth sailing between Beijing and Washington, even under the Biden administration. But there's no reason to imagine that they can't find some areas of understanding some compromises because two great powers are going to have to find a way to live together. It doesn't have to be the kind of rivalry or the kind of antagonism and hostility that would prevent certain agreements being reached. And again, one of those agreements needs to be, from our perspective, the release of Michael Kovirg and Michael Spavor.

CO: Do you know how Michael Kovrig is doing? I know there's been very little communication that he's been allowed to put. Do you know what's going on with him now?

RM: As you said, there has been far less communication since COVID-19, but everything we hear is that he is still showing the same fortitude, the same resilience that I think has had all of us and admiration towards him, two years in December and with virtually no contact with the outside world, almost no contact with his family, his loved ones, his colleagues. But everything we hear is that he is dealing with it as well as anyone could possibly do.

CO: How frustrating is it to have your friend, his fate so tied up with these huge international maneuverings, all these political things going on, and in the midst of it is this man who had nothing to do with any of it?

RM: Well, I mean, you put it well, it's more than frustrating. It's enough to make people not only angry, upset, but extraordinarily sad for the fact that it is two years -- not two years wasted because he's done a lot with his time. Again, I just marveled at how much he has done in terms of his reading, in terms of learning about himself and about and about others. But still, these are two years that he won't get back with his family. And I feel like I can understand how his family feels. But at the same time, if you want to look at the glass half full because there's nothing that he's done that has landed him where he is, it means that there is a solution because there's nothing to trying to gain by holding him. And the solution will come, as you say, when other things fall into place. If he were culpable of something, then one could imagine that they may hold him because of that culpability. But he's not. He's an innocent pawn and once that bigger game of chess gets resolved, he will be released. And so I remain very optimistic that he will be reunited with his loved ones sooner rather than later. But it's already been two years too long.

CO: Mr. Malley, thank you.

RM: Thank you.

CH: Rob Malley is the president of the International Crisis Group, where Michael Kovrig works. We reached Mr. Malley in Washington, D.C..

[Music[

Saeb Erekat obit

Guest: Mustafa Barghouti

CH: Saeb Erekat believed strongly that the establishment of a Palestinian state was not a question of if, but when. He won't get to see if that goal is ever realized. The veteran Palestinian peace negotiator died today of complications from COVID-19. He was 65 years old. Mr. Erekat helped write key parts of the Oslo Peace Accords in the 1990s, which established Palestinian self governance in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He spent his career fighting for a two state solution, but there were more obstacles than progress. As It Happens spoke with Saeb Erekat several times over the years, once in August 2001, after Hamas had claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed 15 people.

SAEB EREKAT: We can sit down and score points and assign blame and finger point at each other, but the net result of this, we as Palestinians will be counting our bodies and dead people -- and Israelis would be counting their dead people. We must stop this. And we call upon the Israelis to come back to the negotiating table unconditionally because it's cheaper -- it's much cheaper for us to discuss and negotiate in pain and frustration for five years than to exchange bullets for five minutes. I believe once we revive hope in the minds of Palestinians and Israelis, because these two people need peace more than anybody on Earth. Once we revive hope, once we show that there is a light at the end of the tunnel for a political solution based on a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel, I think this is the only way out of this vicious cycle.

CH: Saeb Erekat speaking to As It Happens in 2001. Mustafa Barghouti is the general secretary to the Palestinian National Initiative. He was a close friend of Mr. Erekat. We reached him in Ramallah.

CO: Mr. Barghouti, my condolences to you on the loss of your friend and your colleague Saeb Erekat.

MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: Thank you so much. It's a sad day for me personally and a sad day for all Palestinians. And I hope it's a sad day for all those people who want peace and want to achieve a peaceful resolution of all the suffering we are having here.

CO: In that clip we just heard, Mr. Erekat was saying that it's cheaper to sit down and have painful negotiations for five years than it is to exchange bullets for five minutes. What do you think he meant by that?

MB: I think Dr. Erekat hoped and believed in something that I also believe in very much which is nonviolence. But also he believed in a two state solution and he believed that through negotiations we can achieve peace. The very sad thing is that his life was finished at the moment when all the peace processes were crushed -- unfortunately, I must say that by the extreme right-wing in Israel and by Netanyahu, who did everything he could to destroy the process.

CO: Mr. Erekat we know was dedicated to that two state solution, to finding some way for Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side. We heard the bluster, the passion that he had in that clip. What was he like behind the scenes? What was he like in personal life?

MB: He was a kind man and friendly. And even when we had political differences about a few issues or several issues, actually, we belong to two different political trends -- and nevertheless, we managed to cooperate very well. And I really considered him a friend that could work with others, always in a principled manner and always with keeping his very strong dignity, the same dignity that the world watched when they saw him in Madrid peace conference wearing the Palestinian keffiyeh. He was flexible. He wanted peace. He was ready to go all the way and negotiate for a very long time. But his aim was the dignity of his people.

CO: You mentioned that scene at that moment when he arrived wearing the kaffiyeh, which Israelis considered a provocation, and yet so respected by many Israelis and American negotiators. What was he like behind the scenes? When he was sitting down at the table, how did he get their respect?

MB: I believe by not hiding his goals or his intentions. He could differ with you, but he will not hide what he wanted. Probably they respected that more than anything else because he always said what Palestinian people need to achieve the real peace. Some people considered him tough, some even called him an extremist. But he wasn't extremist at all. And I think he put all his energy and his life in believing in the possibility of negotiations. Unfortunately, his life ended without seeing the result of that.

CO: What did the Oslo Peace Accords process, which he regarded as a crowning achievement and many people do for Mr. Erekat, how did he regard that? Because it was highly significant. And it appeared to, as Mr. Abbas declared recently, that the Oslo process is dead. How did he regarded.

MB: Well, first of all, I knew Dr. Erekat when we were together in Madrid and before Oslo was negotiated. We reached a good point in 1993. There was perspective and there was big hope on both sides. But unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that I do not want to politicize this talk -- but unfortunately, much of that was destroyed by Netanyahu and the people that follow him. And Rabin was assassinated and the process went downhill since then. And I think if we want to save the possibility of peace, we have to understand what were the flaws of Oslo process. And the biggest of them, which I personally criticized all the time, was that the Oslo agreement was signed without insisting on stopping all settlement activities. At that time, we had 110,000 settlers. Today we have 750,000. You can't have peace and have settlements at the same time. A two state solution is a compromise between two people, and without compromise we cannot reach a solution. That's why I always said, please do not compromise the compromised. If you do so, peace will disappear.

CO: Saeb Erekat that this had been his cause really since childhood. He dies at a time when it seems so elusive, doesn't it, in these recent years under the Trump administration and Mr. Netanyahu. How was he feeling last time you spoke with him about the political situation? How was he feeling and thinking at that point?

MB: I met him just a couple of days before he fell sick with coronavirus. And we were all determined to stand up to the so-called Trump Deal because it meant that we Palestinians will have no rights but to be slaves in a system of occupation and apartheid. And I think it was a moment of unity. We all Palestinians, regardless of their political affiliation, felt all unified against that process of eliminating our rights. And, of course, now Mr. Trump is going to finish his presidency. Unfortunately, he caused so much harm worldwide and he did the biggest harm to the Palestinian cause by adopting Netanyahu's plan, which is called the deal of the century. We hope that the new administration now will learn from that and that there can be an opening, there can be a window of hope. But everybody should know that that hope will not happen unless both people feel dignified and unless Palestinians also have the right of self-determination, the right for freedom and the right for statehood. This was the dream of Mr. Erekat, and I hope it will be fulfilled one day. That's when I think his body will really rest in peace.

CO: Mr. Barghouti, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MB: Thank you so much.

CH: Mustafa Barghouti is the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative and a friend of Saeb Erekat. Mr. Erekat died today. He was 65.

[Music]

Many Roads

CH: Sometimes you just got to hit the open road, head out on the highway with the music blasting destination unknown. So you grab your keys and a pair of mirrored sunglasses and you sit down and watch a series of instructional videos. I know that's not romantic and so does the government of Prince Edward Island. But if you find yourself in the new displaced left turn lanes in Charlottetown and you're not prepared, you might just get out and walk. To solve a serious ongoing traffic problem, P.E.I. redesigned a major intersection and is about to open to new displaced left turn lanes off the TransCanada. A lot of us aren't familiar with those lanes. So I produced this helpful computer animated video.

NARRATOR: Traffic on Riverside Drive approaching intersection from the east westbound. A single lane will be provided for the left turning traffic to Charlottetown City Centre. Motorists in this left turn lane will then come to a first set of traffic lights in advance of the main intersection. This first set of traffic lights will stop the oncoming traffic flow on Riverside Drive, at which point the left turning motorists will be given a green light to proceed across the oncoming lanes of traffic up to the second set of lights at the main intersection. Once left, turning motorists are at the main intersection, traffic signals will again direct motorists when it is safe to turn left onto St. Peters road to Charlottetown City Centre.

CH: That sounds very reasonable, mesmerizingly reasonable. But what if I'm coming from a different direction? Well, P.E.I and it's soothing highway narrator have you covered.

NARRATOR: Traffic on Riverside Drive approaching intersection from the east. Through traffic heading westbound, we'll use the two centre lanes, as indicated on overhead signage. Pavement markings showing straight through arrows will also indicate to motorists that they are in the correct lanes. Traffic in these lanes will proceed westbound to the main intersection where they will continue to their first set of traffic signals...

CH: Very thorough. Each individual video makes navigating these changes seem breathtakingly easy. But there are a lot of different ways you can approach the new displaced left turn intersection: 11 different ways, in fact -- which is why there are 11 different instructional videos for drivers. And that's the only problem. If you don't know which direction you're going or coming from, you may have trouble remembering which video to remember. And then total memory gridlock.

NARRATOR: [Multiple videos playing at once] Traffic on the city centre....

CH: No, no, no -- that is not soothing at all. But I mean, people do need to be prepared and the P.E.I government is genuinely trying to help. So officials clearly figured one good turn deserves another and one weird new turn deserves 11 videos.

[Music]

Part 3: Kamala Harris's win is historic, but the 1st U.S. VP of colour was elected 91 years ago

Charles Curtis Indigenous VP

Guest: Jeanne Eder Rhodes

KAMALA HARRIS: We did it. We did it Joe. You're going to be the next president of the United States.

CH: Kamala Harris is obviously excited that Joe Biden will be the next president of the United States. But it's Ms. Harris herself who's really making history. The vice president elect is the first woman to hold the office and the first Black woman and the first South Asian American. She's also the first VP who's a step mom and the first VP to be married to a man. But as it turns out, she's not the first person of colour to be VP. Republican Charles Curtis broke that barrier in 1928 as Herbert Hoover's second in command after very nearly winning the presidential nomination himself. Jeanne Eder Rhodes is a Dakota Sioux historian and a former professor of American history at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. We've reached her in Phoenix, Arizona.

CO: Jeanne what kind of reaction do you get when you tell people that Kamala Harris will not be the first person of colour to serve as vice president of the United States?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: They're always quite surprised. They didn't know that there was a Native American vice president of the United States.

CO: So Charles Curtis is the man who was the VP. Who was he? Tell us about Charles Curtis.

JEANNE EDER RHODES: Well, he was a member of the Kaw Nation. And his mother was Kaw. And his father was English and Welsh, I believe. And he was three years old when his mother died and his father went into the civil war. And so he was raised by his maternal grandmother and he was a gregarious young man. He liked to race horses. He became a jockey. And he really enjoyed life on the reservation. But it was his grandmother on his mother's side who encouraged him to go and live with his paternal grandparents in order to receive the White man's education, because basically, she said, if you stay around here, you're not going to do anything, you're just going to continue riding horses and doing nothing with responsibility.

CO: And so he took that advice and he went to get the White man's education. And where did that lead him? How did that lead him to Congress?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: His education consisted of becoming a lawyer, became part of the Republican Party then, and would be pushed by them to the national perspective.

CO: He was at a time when Indigenous people in the United States and here did not have a right to vote, a right to citizenship in the United States -- how did he succeed in Congress? What was his status?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: Well, his right to vote came about because Congress wanted land in Kansas and Oklahoma, and so that was when the five civilized tribes were in existence, you know, they were very powerful. And so as part of an agreement that they had, he does get allowed to vote fairly early.

CO: Right. And because of that he was very successful. But at the same time, how is he regarded among Indigenous people in the United States? I mean, he sponsored something called an act for the protection of the people of the Indian territory and for other purposes, which is not exactly well thought of, is it?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: Well, no, because he felt that becoming assimilated into the White society was good for Indian people. Now, at the turn of the century, there were a lot of Native professionals who were educated in White schools who felt that, yes, Native people needed to assimilate into the White society in order to become successful citizens. So despite the disapproval of assimilation by Indians who stayed on the reservation or in Indian territory, you know, it becomes an area where he has to find a balance. So I would say that he's certainly part of trying to support Native people, but in a different time frame.

CO: Right. So what did he trade off for his political success?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: His trade off was that he lost some of the Native people who would be supportive. He ends up, I think, really wanting to return to his Native way of life, but that's not possible.

CO: He sponsored this act, as you mentioned, the Curtis Act of 1898. It had tremendous impact, not just on the efforts to try and assimilate Native people in your country, but also what happened to the land that was owned by Indigenous people in your country and treaties. What happened under the Curtis Act that changed so much for the control over territory?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: Well, the Curtis Act wasn't new. There had always been a push for Native peoples to own land individually. The feeling was they should become individual land owners and therefore become self-sufficient in the White society. So the whole idea of terminating Indian reservations began quite early.

CO: And it had a lasting legacy, lasting effect, did it not, to this day?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: Oh, yes. Yes. It virtually destroyed that whole communal system that Native people had. And it has brought us to today where we have so many problems with the allotment of Indian lands. And what I see as the biggest problem is that once the land was allotted out, what happened to the surplus land? Well, the United States government opened it up to non-Indians, so millions of acres of land are taken from the Indian territory for non-Indians.

CO: So how is Charles Curtis regarded today by Indigenous people in the United States?

JEANNE EDER RHODES: I think we tend to be proud of the fact that we have a former vice president of the United States who is American Indian, and yet we can understand the issues that he had to face. You know, the racism -- and Hoover never treated him very well at all. And Curtis was very flippant and they called him the comic, and he made some negative remarks about Hoover, which I don't think Hoover ever forgave him for that. So it's when he becomes vice president that he loses power, Hoover makes sure that he sort of disappears from the scene.

CO: Well, you have helped make Charles Curtis part of the conversation again today. So thank you for speaking with us.

JEANNE EDER RHODES: Well, thank you for calling.

CH: Jeanne Eder Rhodes is a Dakota Sioux historian and a former professor of American history at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. She's in Phoenix, Arizona.

[Music]

Serrece Winter

CH: Serrece Winter was afraid of her alleged abuser. She says that's why she didn't show up in court to testify against the man accused of choking her, assaulting her and confining her. As a result, she ended up in a Halifax police station strapped to a chair with officers pulling her hair and covering her mouth. When Ms. Winter didn't go to court to testify, the Crown attorney asked for a warrant to compel her to appear before a judge, so police arrested her. Video footage from the station shows that when police put her in a jail cell, she was so distraught that she banged her head against the wall. After she stopped, the booking officers tied her down in a chair. Now she is facing charges of assaulting a peace officer and the charges against her alleged abuser were dropped. Serrece Winter spoke with CBC reporter Elizabeth Chiu about what happened, beginning with the moments when she was strapped down. And a warning: some listeners will find this interview upsetting.

SERRECE WINTER: I was afraid. I wasn't sure what was going to happen next or what the purpose in that was, and then I just gave up. If you're going to be stuck in the chair until you do what they say, eventually you're just going to do what they say. You don't have to agree with it to know that's the only way out of that chair. To that point, I wished that the Crown attorney would spend the weekend in that cell so that they would have a clear understanding of what they sent me there to go through because they just signed a piece of paper and went home. And I don't think that they understand what happens when you're in there. Most of all, nobody addressed the very real fear I had of being assaulted or murdered if I testified. Nobody actually addressed that fear. And it was truly me trying to explain to them that fear is why I didn't go there, because they're basically telling me it's my responsibility to go to court. And I'm like, well, what about my mental well-being and whether or not this is even good for me? We know how defense lawyers are sometimes in cases like that, and they're certainly aggressive. And I don't want to be bullied by defense lawyers for the rest of my life on a case that you can't seem to get a conviction on, because if you could have, wouldn't you be convicted by now?

ELIZABETH CHIU: Why are you speaking up?

SERRECE WINTER: I'm hoping that maybe the police department will examine their policies and procedures, maybe the Crown could examine its policies and procedures. And maybe in Canada, we should ask ourselves, what do we do if the witness is truly afraid and in danger? And do we put them in jail? Do we throw them in the psych unit or do we address the danger?

ELIZABETH CHIU: I don't want to overstep when I say this, so you know I've been thinking a lot about this -- I have a really difficult time watching. It was that moment where the officers had placed their hands on your mouth and underneath your chin. And I just thought about the original reason why this was all happening because of Gerald Hape being charged with choking you.

SERRECE WINTER: Yeah, and that was a big reminder of what that felt like. I think that it's disgusting. I think that is that what Canadian was intended for is to terrorize victims if they're too afraid to testify? And who speaks for the victim, right?

CH: That was Serrece Winter of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, speaking with CBC reporter Elizabeth Chiu. Halifax Regional Police have declined to comment directly on the case. And for more on the story, you can go to: cbc.ca/novascotia.

[Music]

Promo: Tim Cook

CH: Military historian Tim Cook has written more than a dozen books, many of them about the Great War and several about the Second World War, including his latest. But his new book, The Fight for History, is a bit different. It's not so much an accounting of the war itself as a forensic examination of how we've remembered it and why our remembrances have often fallen short. But at the end of the day, Mr. Cook knows books aren't always what make the case best. And so his book makes the case for the kind of storytelling that does. Tomorrow, we'll air a feature conversation between Carol and Tim Cook. And here's a preview.

TIM COOK: One of the things that I have explored is how we know our history. And I'm a historian and I've written books and I wish everyone read all the books published out there. But we know that it's really popular culture often that shapes how we understand, in this case, I'll just say war and films have a tremendous impact -- I think of Saving Private Ryan, which just opened up a generation to understanding the experience of combat in World War Two. But of course, Canada landed on D-Day. We were there with the Americans and the British shoulder to shoulder. We bled for that victory landing on Juno Beach and pushing inwards. And yet we're not part of that story. And if we go back a generation to The Longest Day, another a really epic film that shaped the memory of the Second World War, again produced by Americans telling the American story, I recount in the book how the Queen's Own Rifles, one of our storied regiments in Toronto, which landed on D-Day when that film The Longest Day came out in 1962, they marched and had a celebration and marching bands, and they went to see it as a unit, the survivors -- and they came out so very disappointed because Canada was barely mentioned there. And I think we could keep rhyming film after film and television productions and Band of Brothers that really tell the story of World War Two. But Canada has rarely been there. We have not produced the same films and television shows. And I'm aware that we don't have a Steven Spielberg and we don't have the great amounts of money that Tom Hanks and others can access. And yet we haven't tried very hard. And as a result of that, for 50 years, our contributions in the Second World War were much diminished.

CH: Part of Carol's conversation with military historian Tim Cook about Canada's history of remembering and failing to remember the Second World War. You can hear their full interview on tomorrow's Remembrance Day episode of As it Happens.

[Music]

Skin gel science prize

Guest: Molly Shoichet

CH: Molly Shoichet has worn a lot of hats in her career: she was Ontario's first chief scientist, she's a professor of chemical engineering and applied chemistry at the University of Toronto, and she's won many many awards for her work. But today's award was an especially big one. Professor Shoichet has won Canada's top science prize, the one million dollar Gerhard Herzberg Canada gold medal for her work designing gels that mimic human tissues such as lung tissue in cancer patients. We reached Professor Molly Shoichet in Toronto.

CO: Professor Shoichet, congratulations.

MOLLY SHOICHET: Thank you.

CO: I understand you had to wait five months before you could tell the public about this.

MS: Yes, it's been a well-kept secret.

CO: This prize is for your work designing gels that mimic human tissues. Can you tell us about that in layman's terms please?

MS: Yeah, of course. So, first of all, a gel or a hydrogel is just a water swollen material. And, you know, everybody who's eaten Jello has actually eaten a water swollen material. So not that we're doing anything with Jello, but we are working with very soft, squishy materials like Jello. And one of the things that we've been really interested in doing is mimicking some of the tissues in our body. And if you think about it, other than our bones, which are very hard, most of our tissues are squishy or elastic. And so if we wanted to mimic their mechanical properties, we would need to use a soft material like a hydrogel. And also we all know that most of us are water. And so, again, using material that's imbibed with water is a good starting place, but probably not enough. You know, we couldn't just use jello. So what we did is we looked at the mechanical properties, but also the biochemical properties of different tissues in our body, such as our brains or our lungs. And we were able to mimic those properties sufficiently to mimic the way cells invade those materials in highly invasive diseases like brain cancer or lung cancer. And then. Once we had validated that our models were representative of the real tissue, we could start to then use them to screen drugs and maybe even discover drugs that would be more useful than the drugs that we've discovered so far for some of these diseases.

CO: Can you give some examples?

MS: Yeah. So we've been working in a very rare lung disease, which the short form is LAM and the long form is Lymphangioleiomyomatosis. And this is a highly invasive, rare lung disease that affects women of childbearing age. And our collaborator Bill Stanford at the University of Ottawa asked me to join him a number of years ago to try and see if we could mimic the way those cells invade into lung tissue. And so in collaboration with his lab, then we invented a whole new material that would allow these highly invasive lung cells to invade into our materials. And so that was the cool science and engineering. But now comes in the biology -- and the biology is, well, hey, we can do something that nobody else in the entire world can do, which is we can mimic the way these cells invade into lung tissues in our labs in a very controlled environment. And so now what we've been able to do with Bill Stanford's lab is start to screen drugs, not just to how effective they are at killing cells, but also how effective those drugs are at stopping cell invasion. And so you might think, well, wait, if you can kill all the cells, why do you care about invasion? But the problem is, is that there's always some cells that survive. And in fact, in some of our drug screening, we found that there would be drugs that would kill most of the cells and yet enhance the invasion of those surviving cells. So by screening drugs for how effective they are at both stopping cell invasion and killing cells, which is what you'd want to do in the context of a highly invasive disease like cancer, then it's opened up so many new possibilities. And so in collaboration with Bill Stanford's ab, now we've discovered drugs that nobody else would have discovered because they didn't have this very specific tool that allowed us to ask the question in such a different and more fulsome way.

CO: I just noticed there's an interview you did on CBC Radio a couple of years ago when Ontario's premier Doug Ford fired you, you were Ontario's chief scientist, the first in that position. And he came to office at that time in 2018, and you were released from that position. You said then science is not political, it's really about trying to make the best decisions for government. Do you think the governments have come to see the value of science in this past year? Do you think they understand that more now?

MS: Yeah, I completely think that governments see the importance of science. And I don't think that they didn't necessarily see the importance of science before. But certainly with this global pandemic, we're relying on evidence and science to help us get out of this mess. And so it's really brought the importance of science, creativity, innovation right to the forefront of our everyday lives.

CO: It may be inspired more young people to go into science and more girls and women who want to win prizes like the one you just won.

MS: I certainly hope so. You know what I'm so excited about and what I have been so excited about since I really started my journey in science and my science career was this idea of inventing the future. You know, how exciting is it to think that, you know, I or you could be part of inventing the future. And so I certainly hope that I can be an inspiration to young women and also young men to come into this field and help us solve these really big problems that we face in society.

CO: Professor Shoichet, again, congratulations and thank you.

MS: Thank you so much. It's such a wonderful honour to speak with you Carol. Thank you.

CH: Molly Shoichet is a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Toronto and the winner of this year's Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music]

Alessandro Meda Riquier

CH: Nearly four years ago in London, two burglars managed to pull off a heist that's best described as something out of a movie. They cut a hole in the roof of a warehouse and abseiled into the building without setting off a single alarm. Then they made off with a bounty of rare books worth more than 4.3-million dollars. Well, this September, the books were found hidden underground in Romania after being tracked by police and they were recently reunited with their owners, including Alessandro Meda Riquier in February 2017. Mr. Riquier talked to As It Happens about discovering that his books had been stolen. Here's part of that conversation from our archives.

HM: Alessandro Meda Riquier, what exactly did you lose in this heist?

ALESSANDRO MEDA RIQUIER: I lost 51 rare books that were stolen from a warehouse in London. They were packed and ready to be shipped to California Antiquarian Book Fair. My books value will be around 1 million pounds.

HM: Which was the one you that had the most value?

AMR: The most value was the Copernicus. The second edition of the De Revolutionibus of Copernicus. So the book that for the first time explain that the center of the universe was not the earth but was the sun.

HM: And what is the date on that publication?

AMR: The date was 1566.

HM: What are some of the other examples? What are the other books that you've lost?

AMR: I have lost another very very rare book which is the Pacioli, Summa de Arithmetica, published in 1523. And I lost a very rare edition of Dante’s Divine Comedy, lost the first edition of Andrea Palladio book about architecture. I lost many important books unfortunately. Clearly this book were insured but having the money back does not mean that I will be able to find them again and to purchase them again. This is the main problem. Behind this book, there's a research, there's a study, and maybe in ten years I will be able to do to rebuild such a collection of books. But this is not for sure. I'm not sure.

HM: How did you react when you heard the news of the theft?

AMR: It was very very strange because I didn't believe that this could happen. Because, as you probably know, it's quite possible to sell these books again because we have a full description of the book, of each book. We had many many scans of each book, and this information we have provided. We have provided all this information to the police.

HM: So where do you think the books are going to end up?

AMR: I don't think they will be show up soon. Maybe it will be it will happen in 10 years. In 15 years. On the other side, we can think of a collector, a strange kind of collector who is able to purchase stolen books because of the very very good price. But this is very very strange.

CH: That was Alessandro Meda Riquier speaking with guest host Helen Mann in February 2017 after a collection of his rare books were stolen by burglars in London. Mr. Riquier was recently reunited with his books after a nearly four year police operation.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 10, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode